Compulsory retirement and the rise in the State pension age.

elperello

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

But it does mean they have to either work longer or save/paytax more while they are working. It is simply one or the other.

Working for 45 years and living an average of 10-15 after that gave us the system we have. But today working for 45 years is not a reason to say now I deserve to retire and be paid 12k a year pension- because the people concerned by this change will live on average 20-25 years longer than 65. Nobody owes you to pay your retirement just because you are living longer - you have to pay for that somehow yourself.

The problem facing us now is that it is too late for the people who will be at the frontline in a few years to make provision.

They signed on in the seventies to retire at 65 and now the goalposts are being moved.

I know a few older people who are self employed and they work shorter hours because they are slowing down. Maybe a job share scheme might suit some workers.

astrofool

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Just because people are living longer doesnt mean theyre living healthier or are more abled at an older age. A 68 year old still has the body of a 68 year old. They may have better chances surviving a heart attack or stroke compared to 50 years ago but thats not because their bodies are any younger or healthier.

Well, yes, it does mean they are healthier, their 68 year old body is in a better and more able state than the 68 year old body of any previous generation that ever lived.

That does not mean that everyone is capable, but there are better solutions to that than covering our eyes and ears and pretending we can continue running pensions the way they are and not destroy the lives of those still working. And yes, the unions will kick and scream, as is happening in France, but the alternate is oblivion.

AulWan

astrofool wrote: »

Sure, but that's a completely different problem to the retirement age, in a society which is living longer and healthier.

I don't agree we are living longer and healthier.

I'm sure the Government has some consultant study somewhere to back that up, but its not what I see in reality.

Yellow_Fern

astrofool wrote: »

Well, yes, it does mean they are healthier, their 68 year old body is in a better and more able state than the 68 year old body of any previous generation that ever lived.

That does not mean that everyone is capable, but there are better solutions to that than covering our eyes and ears and pretending we can continue running pensions the way they are and not destroy the lives of those still working. And yes, the unions will kick and scream, as is happening in France, but the alternate is oblivion.

Not necessarily. Life expectancy is not the same as morbidity. A lot of advanced in mortality have been made by wiping out acute illnesses like infection and we increasingly left with chronic disease mortality.

The Rape of Lucretia

AulWan wrote: »

I don't agree we are living longer and healthier.

I'm sure the Government has some consultant study somewhere to back that up, but its not what I see in reality.

It indisputable that we love longer. A hundred years ago, the average life expentancy was 53. Even over the last 12 years, it has increased from 79 to 81.
That stats are clear and not in doubt.
If people werent healthier, they would be dying younger.

The Rape of Lucretia

elperello wrote: »

The problem facing us now is that it is too late for the people who will be at the frontline in a few years to make provision.

They signed on in the seventies to retire at 65 and now the goalposts are being moved.

I know a few older people who are self employed and they work shorter hours because they are slowing down. Maybe a job share scheme might suit some workers.

People have moved the goalposts themselves by living longer. People need to look beyond the idea of what they feel they are entitled to or expected to happen - the reality is that they must pay, somehow, for their longer lives. No one else is going to do it for them.

AulWan

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

It indisputable that we love longer. A hundred years ago, the average life expentancy was 53. Even over the last 12 years, it has increased from 79 to 81.
That stats are clear and not in doubt.
If people werent healthier, they would be dying younger.

I'd actually put that down to improvements in medicines and medical care, rather then people being healthier.

A hundred years ago, we didn't even have antibiotics!

elperello

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

People have moved the goalposts themselves by living longer. People need to look beyond the idea of what they feel they are entitled to or expected to happen - the reality is that they must pay, somehow, for their longer lives. No one else is going to do it for them.

Well I'm sure they didn't realise that they would inconvenience everyone by living too long.

I know older men who worked on the buildings all their lives. They worked hard often in bad weather. A lot of money was made off their backs. Some of them had to emigrate twice.

I said in the post that it is too late for this cohort of workers to put together any more money.

Airyfairy12

And all the while young people cant get jobs and are forced to emigrate. Makes no sense, make the old work the hard jobs theyre not able to do and force the young able bodied people off to work in other countries. Fine gael and Fianna fail are a bunch of clowns. My cat could come up with better policies.

Cuttlefish

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

But it does mean they have to either work longer or save/paytax more while they are working. It is simply one or the other.

Working for 45 years and living an average of 10-15 after that gave us the system we have. But today working for 45 years is not a reason to say now I deserve to retire and be paid 12k a year pension- because the people concerned by this change will live on average 20-25 years longer than 65. Nobody owes you to pay your retirement just because you are living longer - you have to pay for that somehow yourself.

Nobody owes you ?

You pay taxation in way of PRSI, You have paid towards the government pension pot so to speak so as far as I am concerned it is what you are entitled to. Nothing more or nothing less

What you are alluding to is no state pension and private pension only , is that right

Mrs OBumble

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Do you really think men who are hard manual laborers will still be able to lay bricks, build, tile, roof buildings, clean chimneys, heavy lift, continue working in carpentry or metalwork with dangerous machines when theyre old men at 68.

People who are doing physically demanding jobs need to be making plans to move to less demanding roles by the time they're about 50-ish, ie well before even the current retirement age. Always have had to.

Stretching the ago out from 65 to 68 hasn't changed this at all.

And I say this as a 50-something who will be working 'til 68, at least: I've expecting that there's a good chance the age will increase again before I reach it. Demographics ain't rocket science.

Cuttlefish

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

You would be wrong to think that though.

Tax is payed for current expenditure to run state services for you on a day to day basis. It is not going to fund your pension (unless you are in favour of raising income tax dramatically).
PRSI is effectively your contribution towards social insurance and your future pension. Without knowing the % the contribution going towards social insurance, but even if all 4% of your PRSI went towards your pension, then for an average salary of €40k, you are really only paying in enough to have an income of about €4000/an. So the govt giving you €12k/an is a very good deal indeed - too good in fact, and so why it is unsustainable. To genuinely be able to pay the 40k earner a pension of 12k as it does, they would need you to pay about 12% PRSI instead of 4%. And that assuming that you did indeed contribute for all of 50 years.

Firstly a 12k pension isn't a fantastic deal in fairness ...bout €248 a week.

Secondly you saying the government is giving it to you as if the PAYE/ PRSI worker should be grateful to the government. This has been paid in for 30/ 40 or more years with the expectation that you will receive this state pension

Let's also face it we got shafted by FFG parties with the USC charge a charge we were told is temporary but we all know now this is permanent

Government and their officials have known for a long long long time that life expectancy is increasing and could/ should have made the necessary changes and done so 15/ 20 years ago

Cuttlefish

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

People who are doing physically demanding jobs need to be making plans to move to less demanding roles by the time they're about 50-ish, ie well before even the current retirement age. Always have had to.

Stretching the ago out from 65 to 68 hasn't changed this at all.

And I say this as a 50-something who will be working 'til 68, at least: I've expecting that there's a good chance the age will increase again before I reach it. Demographics ain't rocket science.

And do you think it is right that the age will increase further yet a Garda can retire at 50 after so many years of service or a TD can claim two or more pensions depending on what portfolios they had during their stints in government

Triangle

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

There is nothing really wrong with this. The real problem is the lack of alignment with many employment contracts which people have, lasting until they turn 65.

Pushing out pension age should have been linked to an automatic extension of any contracts to match it, but it was a legal minefield that was too big to take on without harming the chances of passing the pension age extension with such little fuss(as it was, it slipped through without any public outrage or scrutiny, as it was not understood and too far into the future for people to appreciate its consequences for them).

And so the widening hole between 65 and 68 is now appearing and affecting people.

Expect plenty of legal cases....

It's alack of foresight from FF and FG. It's been known for decades that people live longer with advances in healthcare. Instead they have raided the pension pots of folks saving for retirement and at the same time given themselves wage increases.
It's 100% their fault as they consistently reign over the dept. Of finance. But people keep thinking that they know what they're doing just because they the Two biggest parties....

Touchee

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

And do they want a lowering pension value or to pay higher tax in order to reverse it ?

I already said that a good idea would be to increase PRSI contributions rather than increasing retirement age.

Cuttlefish

Touchee wrote: »

I already said that a good idea would be to increase PRSI contributions rather than increasing retirement age.

Yes it is something that should have been looked at a long time ago - so long as the money generated was ring-fenced for that sole purpose

Even lower the USC levy and increase the PRSI contribution


The FFG parties have a lot to answer for

I see a can being kicked down the road

Geuze

Airyfairy12 wrote: »

Do you really think men who are hard manual laborers will still be able to lay bricks, build, tile, roof buildings, clean chimneys, heavy lift, continue working in carpentry or metalwork with dangerous machines when theyre old men at 68.

Typical privileged attitude, the middle class genuinely think that everyone has a nice well payed job, sitting in an office, only thinking of themselves and how these things effect them.
You forget who does all the road works, builds your homes, fits your house with electricity and plumbing and who comes to cleans your chimneys and unblock your pipes.
Or the nurses that will have to work till their 68, already under paid and over worked in a job were even young nurses make mistakes due to lack of sleep and stress.
I could on all day listing jobs that arent suitable for old people. Thats why we have retirement, to protect people, including ourselves when we get old.
I cant believe anyone would contest that and be in the mindset that retiring at 68 is good enough for them. How selfish, shallow and out of touch do you have to be?

I agree that it is not reasonable to expect builder and nurses to be doing heavy lifting, etc. at age 67.

But please note:

our nurses are well paid, much better paid than the UK for example

nurses in the HSE have a work pension, payable typically from 65.

AndrewJRenko

Geuze wrote: »

I agree that it is not reasonable to expect builder and nurses to be doing heavy lifting, etc. at age 67.

But please note:

our nurses are well paid, much better paid than the UK for example

nurses in the HSE have a work pension, payable typically from 65.

Comparisons with the UK are fairly meaningless.

They pay UK rent/house prices, they have the UK NHS behind them so they don't need health insurance, they pay UK car insurance rates.

It's a different ballpark completely.

mariaalice

Geuze wrote: »

I agree that it is not reasonable to expect builder and nurses to be doing heavy lifting, etc. at age 67.

But please note:

our nurses are well paid, much better paid than the UK for example

nurses in the HSE have a work pension, payable typically from 65.

Because its a mainly female role lots of nurses do not work fulll time for family reasons, so will not have a full pension if they retire at 65 plus an HSE pension is not the same as civil servant pension. There are a nursing jobs that could be done by someone over 65/66 but not all jobs in nursing.

There are other things would anyone be happy with a 70-year-old bus drive in working in a big city with chronic traffic or happy to be operated on by a 70-year-old doctor? I am no saying I would have any issue with it, but im not sure.

Winning_Stroke

Cuttlefish wrote: »

Firstly a 12k pension isn't a fantastic deal in fairness ...bout €248 a week.

Guaranteed for the rest of your life, not subject to market whims.... Assuming a safe withdrawal rate of 3.5% (generous), you'd need a private pension pot of E350k to get the same albeit still subject to the market.

Given the amount you pay in, it's a fantastic deal.

Airyfairy12

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

People who are doing physically demanding jobs need to be making plans to move to less demanding roles by the time they're about 50-ish, ie well before even the current retirement age. Always have had to.

Stretching the ago out from 65 to 68 hasn't changed this at all.

And I say this as a 50-something who will be working 'til 68, at least: I've expecting that there's a good chance the age will increase again before I reach it. Demographics ain't rocket science.

How do you expect 50 year old men who've been working the same manual labor jobs their whole life move to something less demanding? Allot of these men dont have education past junior cert and an apprenticeship, some dont even have a second level education, then theres the fact that its incredibly difficult for older people to get jobs.

What sort of less demanding jobs do you expect them to move into?

Mrs OBumble

Cuttlefish wrote: »

And do you think it is right that the age will increase further yet a Garda can retire at 50 after so many years of service or a TD can claim two or more pensions depending on what portfolios they had during their stints in government

That's my point: being a guard is physically demanding, so there's an our clause at a younger age for those who need it. The same should be designed into other physically demanding roles (eg prison officer, nurse, many of the construction trades).

As to what these people should be doing: management, back-office support for their previous role, taxi-driving, retail (lots of retired trades people end up in building supplies shops), bar tending, static security, etc.

Anyone who is 50 now was required to attend secondary school and has also had many opportunities for further education since. People who know that their body will be worn out by 50 need to pull up their big-boy-britches and work out for themselves how they'll make a living once they cannot do the physical stuff any more. Ideally they should be planning for it from the time they're 35.

(And yes, I'm 50+. There are jobs I did 10 years ago that I cannot do now.)




TD is a different thing: people (except public servants) have to put their careers on hold or change them altogether to take up politics. They risk unemployment without redundancy pay at every election. It's not reasonable to complain about the shyte quality of politicians / candidates, and at the same time say they're too well looked after.

Cuttlefish

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

That's my point: being a guard is physically demanding, so there's an our clause at a younger age for those who need it. The same should be designed into other physically demanding roles (eg prison officer, nurse, many of the construction trades).

As to what these people should be doing: management, back-office support for their previous role, taxi-driving, retail (lots of retired trades people end up in building supplies shops), bar tending, static security, etc.

Anyone who is 50 now was required to attend secondary school and has also had many opportunities for further education since. People who know that their body will be worn out by 50 need to pull up their big-boy-britches and work out for themselves how they'll make a living once they cannot do the physical stuff any more. Ideally they should be planning for it from the time they're 35.

(And yes, I'm 50+. There are jobs I did 10 years ago that I cannot do now.)




TD is a different thing: people (except public servants) have to put their careers on hold or change them altogether to take up politics. They risk unemployment without redundancy pay at every election. It's not reasonable to complain about the shyte quality of politicians / candidates, and at the same time say they're too well looked after.

Some careers allow leave if absence and their job still there when the leave the political scene....teachers for example

I am open to correction but can they hold a TD pension as well as a ministerial pension (if they were ministers ) even a number of years and this number being relatively short

I see very few people who have entered political life because they feel it is a calling or a need to make a difference...look to the South west for example

Geuze

mariaalice wrote: »

plus an HSE pension is not the same as civil servant pension.

Other than the different cont rates, how are they different?

Geuze

Cuttlefish wrote: »

I am open to correction but can they hold a TD pension as well as a ministerial pension (if they were ministers ) even a number of years and this number being relatively short

Yes, this is possible.

Just like a principal of a school will get a teachers pension + a bit more pension for being a principal.

Also, like a bank manager gets a higher pension than regular bank staff.


What I don't agree with is that a full TD pension can be earned after 20 years service.

AndrewJRenko

Cuttlefish wrote: »

Some careers allow leave if absence and their job still there when the leave the political scene....teachers for example

This loophole was closed some time ago. I don't think even the current standard career break (which are limited to five years) would allow a teacher, or any public servant, to work in politics.

Mad_maxx

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Comparisons with the UK are fairly meaningless.

They pay UK rent/house prices, they have the UK NHS behind them so they don't need health insurance, they pay UK car insurance rates.

It's a different ballpark completely.

House prices in the UK are higher than here on average

Mad_maxx

Cuttlefish wrote: »

Firstly a 12k pension isn't a fantastic deal in fairness ...bout €248 a week.

Secondly you saying the government is giving it to you as if the PAYE/ PRSI worker should be grateful to the government. This has been paid in for 30/ 40 or more years with the expectation that you will receive this state pension

Let's also face it we got shafted by FFG parties with the USC charge a charge we were told is temporary but we all know now this is permanent

Government and their officials have known for a long long long time that life expectancy is increasing and could/ should have made the necessary changes and done so 15/ 20 years ago

248 per week with the additional benefits on top is an incredibly generous deal, the vast majority of those in receipt of the state pension will draw down far more than they ever put in in PRSI contributions

The elderly are treated better here than in any country in the world, nowhere else will you be very comfortable while wholly reliant on welfare in old age

AndrewJRenko

Mad_maxx wrote: »

House prices in the UK are higher than here on average

Looking at bald averages can be dangerous. UK markets in general and London in particular are heavily skewed by the significant number of mansions, mostly owned by Arab and Russian billionaires, really nothing to do with the local housing market.

This analysis shows the prices for average properties is significantly higher in Ireland.

https://www.numbeo.com/property-investment/compare_cities.jsp?country1=Ireland&city1=Dublin&country2=United+Kingdom&city2=London

Edgware

Mad_maxx wrote: »

248 per week with the additional benefits on top is an incredibly generous deal, the vast majority of those in receipt of the state pension will draw down far more than they ever put in in PRSI contributions

The elderly are treated better here than in any country in the world, nowhere else will you be very comfortable while wholly reliant on welfare in old age

U.K. pensioners have it tough(bar her Royal Highness). Hard winters up North finishs a lot of them off even before Dr. Shipman cut loose