Compulsory retirement and the rise in the State pension age.

_Brian

My own job has a compulsory retirement age of 65.

I don’t care, I’m planning on bailing out before 60, 55 if I can.

elperello

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

€4800/an from 120k pot.
https://www.businessworld.ie/financial-news/New-survey-reveals-Irish-people-s-views-on-a-good-retirement-572802.html

€3000/an
https://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/60-a-week-thats-all-your-pension-will-be-worth-34968732.html

€6000/an
https://www.thejournal.ie/pension-cover-ireland-2565427-Jan2016/

Depends on the details, how the pension is cashed, annuity values, increasing annually or not etc. A lot have higher of course, but the average is still no more than 500 a month. And that figure more likely to decrease than in crease in the coming decades as people have been essentially saving less with the widespread changeover from defined benefit schemes to defined contributions.

The point is you would have to exceed savings of 300k by retirement to roughly equal the current state pension. Which is still a challenging enough sum for many, but puts you in the twilight zone of whether the bet of saving is worthwhile if it risks being eroded back by a means tested cut in your state pension.

Different story of course if you are in the world of heading for a pension fund in the million range - income of 40k ish a year. So the state pension is a very nice addition to that, but if trimmed, is not that big an impact on your overall standard of retirement. But the vaste majority is not on the road for a €1M pension pot, or anywhere near it.

I didn't doubt you but as I said I was surprised to learn that the average was at that level.

I know a lot of people happy on less and many who manage to spend their way through much more.

anewme

We had a pension meeting in work were told and as a very rough guideline that for every 100,000 you get roughly 4k, so for 12k per year you'd need over 300k.

No way would I manage on state plus 500 per month. Between 25-30k a year (Inc. State, youd be starting to be ok) especially if you've taken the lump sum tax free of 80-100k.

AndrewJRenko

noodler wrote: »

By definition, it's an increase.

2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and again in 2020.

(Ignoring increments of course).


There's alot you don't seem to know but again, even the cuts have been paid back in full and then some for all but the highest paid.

Except when it's a restoration of recent cuts.


My understanding of the situation is that all the recent agreements have been around restoration of cuts. The end result, with the PRD, is that civil servant net salaries are lower now then in 2007.


If I've got that wrong, I'm happy to be corrected. I've done a bit of digging but I can't find anything definitive to confirm either way.

BSA International

Theory was PRSI is deducted from you're pay and is paid into Social Insurance Fund while you work & you get a state pension other social welfare payments from it when you retire, are unemployed, off work sick.

Now there's not enough money in the fund?

Is it because too many are getting paid out of it who have never paid in to it?

So the government up the age for state pension to reduce payouts?

Arthur Daley

There's an election coming up to get the questions in re: this potential for pension default. They get away with too much

iamwhoiam

Arthur Daley wrote: »

There's an election coming up to get the questions in re: this potential for pension default. They get away with too much

Do you think you would get a straight answer ?

Arthur Daley

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Do you think you would get a straight answer ?

Lots of trivial stuff is put 'on the radar' every day. Keep at them on the things that matter and if the media won't do their job, well they truly are making themselves redundant.

noodler

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Except when it's a restoration of recent cuts.


My understanding of the situation is that all the recent agreements have been around restoration of cuts. The end result, with the PRD, is that civil servant net salaries are lower now then in 2007.


If I've got that wrong, I'm happy to be corrected. I've done a bit of digging but I can't find anything definitive to confirm either way.

So you now concede the PRD affects nobody under 32k.

However, to be clear, do you still not know or concede that there have been increases to GROSS pay every year since 2015?(increments aside).

Less PRD is only part of the increases to public sector pay in recent years.

astrofool

BSA International wrote: »

Theory was PRSI is deducted from you're pay and is paid into Social Insurance Fund while you work & you get a state pension other social welfare payments from it when you retire, are unemployed, off work sick.

Now there's not enough money in the fund?

Is it because too many are getting paid out of it who have never paid in to it?

So the government up the age for state pension to reduce payouts?

PRSI is run as a current account, if there's not enough people working when you retire, you get nothing, regardless of contributions made.

august12

noodler wrote: »

Lies tbh.

There's been PS pay increases every year since 2015.

By definition, an existing PS pensioner would have gotten an increase in their pension in each of the last five years as their salary is linked to the grade they retired on.

Bear in mind that increase would have been well, well in advance of inflation as measure by the headline CPI.

Not lies, Public Sector workers took considerable cuts in pay in 2010/2011, they are now (2020) on par with salaries they earned prior to 2011, this is fact. any person who retired before 2011/12, retired on higher salaries prior to the cuts. For this reason, they are not entitled to the pay increases in pension until their linked grade salary has been restored to pre cut levels, for most retirees, 2020 will be the first year in about 8 years they will see a pension increase. And some recent retirees have seen increases in the last few years.

noodler

noodler wrote: »

By definition, it's an increase.

2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019 and again in 2020.

(Ignoring increments of course).


There's alot you don't seem to know but again, even the cuts have been paid back in full and then some for all but the highest paid.

You remind me of a few people, some of whom I'm related to, who yelled and screamed at the time of the cuts that they weren't really cuts and who started foaming at the mouth at the time of restoration because of all the 'pay increases'. No chance of getting them (or you) to evaluate their entrenched position on the matter, so very little point in entering into a debate.

punisher5112 wrote: »

Oh Christ on a bike.....

I'm done, absolute scum bags have free travel, drug addicts do get them has nothing to do with social as they get signed off by the doctor.

I carry them every day.....

I know others work in health care with them and also in welfare.

Obviously it's not meant to be easy but it's also the same as others state kids don't get them as they sure as hell do under certain circumstances.

I carry school kids and they also have companions passes.... Funny as welfare site even states this isn't possible but hey it is....

It has been pointed out to you, multiple times and even by someone who was unfortunate enough to have the inside track, that this is not the case. Nobodies saying you don't take junkies on the bus with free passes. The point is that pass isn't provided because they're junkies. Plus, you don't know how many who pay on are also junkies. You're taking it awfully personally. Seems a strange hill on which to die.

noodler

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You remind me of a few people, some of whom I'm related to, who yelled and screamed at the time of the cuts that they weren't really cuts and who started foaming at the mouth at the time of restoration because of all the 'pay increases'. No chance of getting them (or you) to evaluate their entrenched position on the matter, so very little point in entering into a debate.
.

Strange.

Your own personal issues with the topic aside, there is no debate. PS rates of pay have gone up every year since 2015.

It's factual.

AndrewJRenko

noodler wrote: »

Strange.

Your own personal issues with the topic aside, there is no debate. PS rates of pay have gone up every year since 2015.

It's factual.

Have you any source for this claim please?

noodler

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Have you any source for this claim please?

Are you actually serious? Why are you making claims if you don't even know about the pay deals?

Google:

1) Lansdowne Road Agreement 2015-2017

2) Public Service Stability Agreement 2018-2020

Charles Babbage

noodler wrote: »

Strange.

Your own personal issues with the topic aside, there is no debate. PS rates of pay have gone up every year since 2015.

It's factual.

Surely the question was whether pensions had gone up.

blackcard

noodler wrote: »

Are you actually serious? Why are you making claims if you don't even know about the pay deals?

Google:

1) Lansdowne Road Agreement 2015-2017

2) Public Service Stability Agreement 2018-2020

I get less pay than I did in 2008, work longer hours with less annual leave and pay more in pension levies.

AndrewJRenko

noodler wrote: »

Are you actually serious? Why are you making claims if you don't even know about the pay deals?

Google:

1) Lansdowne Road Agreement 2015-2017

2) Public Service Stability Agreement 2018-2020

From https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/lansdowne-road-agreement-key-points-1.2354303
"The Lansdowne Road agreement negotiated in May began the process of reversing pay and pension cuts introduced for staff in the public service since 2008."

From https://www.gov.ie/en/policy-information/2b39fc-public-service-pay-policy/

" At the end of the agreement, the FEMPI Act pay reductions will be reversed for all public servants earning up to €70,000, which equates to almost 90% of public servants".

Restoration of a previous cut is not an increase.

tjhook

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Restoration of a previous cut is not an increase.

You are using the language of the unions. It's how they frame their bargaining position, but it is not objective. It's not meant to be.

Calling recent increase "pay restoration" assumes the correct pay level was the level at which it was at its highest. That may or may not be the case. In light of the so-called "benchmaking" ("atm") exercise, after which all evidence was purged, it could be argued that the correct pay level was the level before benchmarking. That would be just as valid as the union position. It's subjective.

To be objective, we should stay away from terms like "restoration" (which assumes a specific "correct" level, and so could refer to the increases or decreases), and simply refer to the cuts and increases. That's if objectivity is desired.

If you draw a graph of public sector pay, it would go up in the years before the crash, go down shortly afterwards, and then rise again in more recent years. In objective terms, where the line goes up, it's a "rise" or "increase". Where it goes down, it's a "cut" or "decrease".

Arthur Daley

Pay levels at the height of the celtic tiger also reflect house asking prices that are maybe 20-30% higher than current elevated levels.

CrankyHaus

blackcard wrote: »

I get less pay than I did in 2008, work longer hours with less annual leave and pay more in pension levies.

Ah 2008, the baseline of sensible and sustainable public expenditure.

AndrewJRenko

tjhook wrote: »

To be objective, we should stay away from terms like "restoration" (which assumes a specific "correct" level, and so could refer to the increases or decreases), and simply refer to the cuts and increases. That's if objectivity is desired.

OK then - salaries were cut in the recession, and some (but not all) of these cuts have been given back through increases since then.

tjhook wrote: »

If you draw a graph of public sector pay, it would go up in the years before the crash, go down shortly afterwards, and then rise again in more recent years. In objective terms, where the line goes up, it's a "rise" or "increase". Where it goes down, it's a "cut" or "decrease".

The point that I think I'm debating with noodler is whether salaries today have increased over and above the level that they were at before the cuts.

As it understand it, that is not true - there were a bunch of cuts, and some of those cuts have been given back as increases - but salary grades today are not higher than they were at the peak.

And then there's the ASC/PRD thing on top of that.

If I've got this wrong, I'm open to correction - but all the sources that I referenced suggest that I've got this right.

Riskymove

noodler wrote: »

Are you actually serious? Why are you making claims if you don't even know about the pay deals?

whether or not you consider the pay restoration a pay increase is actually immaterial to the basic claim you made about PS pensions

PS pensions were cut and then there was a process of restoration of these cuts, still underway

Likewise PS pay was cut and there was a process of restoration, also still underway


But PS pensions did not benefit from the restoration to PS pay in addition to their own restoration process

This is what you claimed earlier but it is incorrect

2lazytogetup

im confused. reading through this thread with all these pension benefits. Pensioners who probably dont have alot of expenses as kids have left the nest, and mortgage paid for. Defined benefit, defined contribution. State pension. Yet are they the most vulnerable in society? Can someone explain.

BrokenArrows

Working to death has been something that humans have always done, it's just making a comeback after a period of time when we could retire and live for 30 years without lifting a finger.

Personally I have no problem with raising the state pension age, but I have a problem with raising the personal pension age. If I save and save for retirement at 56 and the government suddenly say I can't access that money until a different age then that is bull****.

The Rape of Lucretia

No. They are saying you cannot access the state pension until 68. If you have a private pension the time you can access it is determined by the scheme itself. The state wants to save itself money, not you.

From todays IT - only 60% of workers have a private pension anyway. So while the 5k/an or so might seem low - its a lot more than nothing.

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/private-pensions-cover-only-six-in-10-irish-workers-1.4131649

Gary Owen

Siptu petition is just over 2000, https://siptu.agitate.ie/act/support-the-stop67-campaign/

elperello

2lazytogetup wrote: »

im confused. reading through this thread with all these pension benefits. Pensioners who probably dont have alot of expenses as kids have left the nest, and mortgage paid for. Defined benefit, defined contribution. State pension. Yet are they the most vulnerable in society? Can someone explain.

It can be confusing but if you look around at older members (say 70+) of your own family it may help to explain the dynamics of aging.

You might notice that they are slowing down a bit. Even the ones who are healthy are probably not in a position to do a days work.

Whatever they have managed to save plus the pension to which they are entitled is it, endgame, for them.
There will be no more earnings, bonuses, promotions, better job offers etc.

You are correct that they don't have the expenses of younger people like raising children or mortgages.
However there are expenses attached to old age like extra heating, health care, getting jobs done around the house and garden. In addition they still have to pay Local Property Tax.

Most of them get on with it and don't regard themselves as "the most vulnerable in society" but they have their problems like all of us.

political analyst

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0109/1105274-rte-appeal/

RTÉ is to appeal the decision of the Workplace Relations Commission, which found that the broadcaster discriminated against a former employee when it obliged her to retire at 65.

RTÉ argued that it was necessary for Ms Roper to retire in order to ensure inter-generational fairness and to facilitate the promotion of younger producers.RTÉ argued that it was necessary for Ms Roper to retire in order to ensure inter-generational fairness and to facilitate the promotion of younger producers.

How would letting her stay past the age of 65 be unfair to younger colleagues? She would have retired eventually and so the vacancy would still have arisen anyway. What difference would waiting a few more years have made?

AndrewJRenko

political analyst wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0109/1105274-rte-appeal/




How would letting her stay past the age of 65 be unfair to younger colleagues? She would have retired eventually and so the vacancy would still have arisen anyway. What difference would waiting a few more years have made?

'a few more years' makes a big difference if you are 25-30 and looking to start settling down with house/kids etc.