Compulsory retirement and the rise in the State pension age.

Phoebas

thesimpsons wrote: »

Agree they not suggestng an alternative, but it is a start on the discussions. I cant think of one either other than just lower it again until if/when they come up with a realistic idea to raise the age in the future.

I don't think we can afford to kick this an down the road for too much longer.
Look - the pensions time bomb has been visible on the horizon for ages now and the increase in the pension age isn't exactly new, so I think that if SIPTU want to lead a campaign on this now, it's not unreasonable to ask them to suggest workable alternatives. Simply rejecting what is already in place isn't going to fly.

iamwhoiam

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Deemed by the government.

It's the same if you become unemployed at any age: you get jobseekers benefit for a limited time if you have enough stamps. But if you don't or once they run out, jobseekers allowance is means tested. You if have cash above 20k or other income or property that you own but aren't personally using, or are co-habiting with someone who is working, then the amount you get is rapidly reduced.




Expect to see euthanasia on the agenda in Ireland soon. It will be sold as a compassionate option. Really it's about reducing spending on end-of-life care.

Give me a pill anyday if I am terminally ill or in pain or just weary and want out
It is not compassionate to keep people alive when all they want is to be at peace

BuboBubo

Can't see the government doing anything to change the situation myself. If you're out the door aged 65 it's tough sh1t.

It's cheaper to pay means tested unemployment benefits for 2/3 years than the slightly higher pension payments. It's a win for them.

anewme

BuboBubo wrote: »

It's cheaper to pay means tested unemployment benefits for 2/3 years than the slightly higher pension payments. It's a win for them.

Because the reality is that most people would get zero if it were means tested.

thesimpsons

anewme wrote: »

I'm not a SIPTU worker, so I would not have known about this, so thanks for letting me know.

I'm totally behind it, it is an election issue.

They will get a lot more than 500 signatures, its nearly there already.

I'm not SIPTU either & never even saw it was a SIPTU backed thing, someone shared it to me so I'm trying to share it out as much as I can.

I've worked and paid every tax going since age of 16 and will get screwed over by this gap but I have numerous family members and acquaintances who have never contributed to taxes or worked and they will continue to see no real difference in their income. many tax injustices over the years have annoyed me but this one is really getting on my goat.

mossie11

anewme wrote: »

If you have a private pension you more than likely wont get job seekers allowance as any savings or income you have will be deducted.

I wonder can your employer delay paying your pension for two years. i.e. you retire at 65 but your private pension would not kick in until you are 67?

Arthur Daley

Maximum cost of this? 800m to 1bn per annum. Out of a total budget of 70 odd billion. It's easily doable by achieving cost savings elsewhere. Could walk into every govt. department and find 1bn in spurious services within a week.

The truth is there is no political will to this. There is no leadership to take hard decisions.

The country is supposedly booming and running a deficit. Under a supposedly 'conservative' government. It's a joke.

elperello

Phoebas wrote: »

I don't think we can afford to kick this an down the road for too much longer.
Look - the pensions time bomb has been visible on the horizon for ages now and the increase in the pension age isn't exactly new, so I think that if SIPTU want to lead a campaign on this now, it's not unreasonable to ask them to suggest workable alternatives. Simply rejecting what is already in place isn't going to fly.

Pensions time bomb is just a sound bite.

Everybody needs a certain amount of money to survive. There is enough to go around.

The people will be there we just need a properly thought out fair system to make sure that they will get what they need.

As for SIPTU their campaign has two simple goals 1- Drop the 67 proposal 2- Start a debate leading to setting up a fair system.

They are deliberately not confusing the message by being prescriptive about the solution.

I would say their campaign is well thought out and worthy of support.

Arrival

Ah but don't worry everyone, any investments you've made with the hopes of further helping yourself when you're older will only be subjected to 33% CGT, very fair stuff altogether

We're a nation of subservient, docile, apathetic morons. But ahhh sure, it'll be granddd

Nermal

A lot of complete dopes posting here that are polishing off the last of the sherry rather early in the day.

JSB claimed at 65 bridges the gap to claiming your pension. It is not means-tested.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/unemployed_people/older_jobseekers.html

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2019-06-11/869/

anewme

Nermal wrote: »

A lot of complete dopes posting here that are polishing off the last of the sherry rather early in the day.

JSB claimed at 65 bridges the gap to claiming your pension. It is not means-tested.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/unemployed_people/older_jobseekers.html

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2019-06-11/869/

The Govt. and communications on this topic are all over the place and they seem to ge changing things as and when a query comes up.

The Oireachtas debate is fairly vague and all other references say 66. Even so, expecting people to sign on as jobseekers at 65 after working since 16 is not how people who built this country should be treated. The job seekers is considerably less than the pension they worked for and paid into.

The reality is, they are not jobseekers. They are retired. The Govt is constantly changing the goalposts and by the time we come to retire, I'd not bet either on the pension lump sum being tax free.

iamwhoiam

Nermal wrote: »

A lot of complete dopes posting here that are polishing off the last of the sherry rather early in the day.

JSB claimed at 65 bridges the gap to claiming your pension. It is not means-tested.

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/unemployed_people/older_jobseekers.html

https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2019-06-11/869/

My husband had to retire at 65 and sign on for a year . It broke his heart after paying Tax since he was 16 . Raised 3 kids during a visous recession in the 80’s and worked his back off to send them to Uni
It killed him to walk into SW to sign on at 65 . Means tested or not its a bloody awful way to end a working life



Ps he was luckier than many and due a private pension at 66 . But that year had to be covered and we were damned if we were not taking what we were entitled to

Neilw

Tony EH wrote: »

There are those on the right that believe there shouldn't be any state pension at all.

That’s the question, by my retirement age in twenty odd years will there even be a state pension for my generation?

Even if there is I can see it being means tested and if you have a private pension you don’t qualify for the state pension.

DrPhilG

I work in the North, in the NHS.

I have an NHS pension. AFAIK you used to be able to draw full pension at 60 provided you had 30 years service.

Now the NHS pension age is tied to state pension age meaning that I can't draw my work pension until 67.

I'll be lining up various investments and savings so that I can pack up at 60 and bridge the gap til pension age. Once it arrives I'll be minted (assuming the NHS hasn't collapsed and killed my pension, and the government haven't removed the state pension). I'll get the state pension plus NHS pension and be a comfortable old fart.

But unless I want to work til I'm almost 70 (who knows what the state pension age will be by then) I have to figure out other arrangements to bridge that gap.

iamwhoiam

Neilw wrote: »

That’s the question, by my retirement age in twenty odd years will there even be a state pension for my generation?

Even if there is I can see it being means tested and if you have a private pension you don’t qualify for the state pension.

And dare not have any hard earned savings ( which we paid tax on ) or it will be also means tested

elperello

iamwhoiam wrote: »

And dare not have any RECKONABLE hard earned savings ( which we paid tax on ) or it will be also means tested

I hope you don't mind me inserting one important word in your post.

L1011

I had a former employment contract that had you out on to the DC - so not guaranteed at all pension - at max 40 years service. I started just before my 20th birthday so would have been forced to retire at 59!

Suspect there'll be some significant legislative changes to force those clauses out soon

Nermal

iamwhoiam wrote: »

It killed him to walk into SW to sign on at 65 . Means tested or not its a bloody awful way to end a working life

Get a grip. Don't kick up because I've torpedoed half the witless rambling in this thread. If it was called a 'transition to retirement benefit' instead would his pride have been saved?

iamwhoiam

Nermal wrote: »

Get a grip. Don't kick up because I've torpedoed half the witless rambling in this thread. If it was called a 'transition to retirement benefit' instead would his pride have been saved?

Dont you dare speak to me like that . Mind your own business how he felt or didn’t feel .

noodler

Pretty sure they did away with the compulsory 65 retirement age last year.

Maybe it was just the CS but think it was entire PS

Thespoofer

punisher5112 wrote: »

They want everyone to work till they die.

Many jobs one shouldnt go past 60 such as driving trucks or buses as they are extremely unhealthy as it is.

I'd add another one to that, Construction. A lot of roles in this sector its ridiculous to expect people to keep going up to 65+. I know only too well now I'm a year or two from hitting 50.

I honestly believe if you have a certain amount of years done in construction you should be aloud to partly retire a bit earlier.

Nigel Fairservice

JRant wrote: »

I wouldn't put it past them to push the state pension age out even further being honest.

I'm in my mid 30s now and there are already plans in place to push out the state pension age to 68. God only knows what the pension age will be when I'm 68!

The chan chan man

This, coupled with the huge number of renters who won’t be able to afford rent upon retirement, will lead to a significant portion of the population working until they die.

Arbeit macht frei.

anewme

Nermal wrote: »

Get a grip. Don't kick up because I've torpedoed half the witless rambling in this thread. If it was called a 'transition to retirement benefit' instead would his pride have been saved?

You get a grip.

And perhaps some manners as you clearly can’t address people in a civil respectful manner.

There’s a great place where you can “transition” your torpedo.

Touchee

There should definitely be a protest or even a number of protests about pushing the retirement age. There is no way people can keep working until 68: just picture having to commute 1 hour each way at the age of 68, waking up at 6-7 am, keeping up with new technology and competing with 25 - 40 year old colleagues.

There are a lot of companies who take pride that they have a young workforce, which is also being advertised to potential recruits. You never hear about companies advertising to recruits as having an old, pensionable workforce.

I would organise a protest myself, but wouldn’t even know where to start

iamwhoiam

Touchee wrote: »

There should definitely be a protest or even a number of protests about pushing the retirement age. There is no way people can keep working until 68: just picture having to commute 1 hour each way at the age of 68, waking up at 6-7 am, keeping up with new technology and competing with 25 - 40 year old colleagues.

There are a lot of companies who take pride that they have a young workforce, which is also being advertised to potential recruits. You never hear about companies advertising to recruits as having an old, pensionable workforce.

I would organise a protest myself, but wouldn’t even know where to start

I would join you . We retired at 65 and 60 ( i was lucky to have my years done by 60) . No way could we have a worked another day . We were weary by then and our health would have deteriorated by 68

The chan chan man

I don’t believe i’ll be sharp enough at 68 to do what I do. Who would want me?!

noodler

Not hearing alot of potential solutions to the State finances part of this.

There's roughly 4 ppl working for every pensioner now

In 30-40 years that'll be 2 ppl working for every pensioner.

Those people working will likely be on worse terms and conditions than those already retired and , as others have alluded, will likely have lower rate ofnhome ownership.

The Tetrarch

The problem for private sector workers is not that they will have to work until they are 68.
I worked in a private sector company with 1,500 employees. The oldest employee in that company was 61 years old.
In the private sector older workers are forced out, or allowed retire early on short-service pensions.
I took early retirement at age 56, and obviously could not find work in the ten years before I received the state pension at 66.

Public service workers are immune to that.

noodler

The Tetrarch wrote: »

The problem for private sector workers is not that they will have to work until they are 68.
I worked in a private sector company with 1,500 employees. The oldest employee in that company was 61 years old.
In the private sector older workers are forced out, or allowed retire early on short-service pensions.
I took early retirement at age 56, and obviously could not find work in the ten years before I received the state pension at 66.

Public service workers are immune to that.

Not true.

Vast majority of PS workers working now can't get their pension until 65+ even if they have clicked 40 years before.