Pensions Age to ..... 72 !?

ByTheSea2019

I think the state pension will have to be a means tested benefit eventually because of the number of people needing it. When state pensions were initially introduced the state pension age was greater than the average life expectancy. I'm working on the assumption I will be getting nothing when I retire in probably four decades time realistically.

Beasty

One of the problems is the political parties are already afraid of the "grey" vote, and have traditionally shied away or reversed decisions that adversely affect pensioners. As the numbers who are of of pension age increases their influence increases making it more difficult to apply policies that may be seen as adversely impacting pensioners. A bit of a vicious circle. I remember 20 years ago we were being warned of the pensions time-bomb and in those 2 decades relatively little has been done to address it largely because of the pensioner lobby, making it an even bigger issue going forward

L1011

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117994638#Comment_117994638

No, there were proposals before the 2016 election to bring in auto-enrollment and compulsory employer contributions (albeit derisory) but it didn't happen.

namloc1980

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117994811#Comment_117994811

A few years ago pension contributions had full tax relief. But then it was changed and they are now subject to PRSI and USC. The government don't give a hoot about incentivising people to pay into private pensions. If they did they wouldn't have changed the rules on PRSI and USC and mandatory enrollment would be a thing. There are fundamental changes coming down the line to pensions. To think otherwise is very naive imo

Mad_maxx

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117994847#Comment_117994847

SF will happily dip into private pension pots to ensure their voter base are looked after

Mad_maxx

Either the age limit is increased or the weekly rate is reduced

It's far too high anyway, the state pension is welfare at the end of the day, vast majority of people draw down far more than they made in contributions, they vigorously argue to the contrary but its a fact

raher1

its all about paying celtic tiger morgages

dubrov

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117992080#Comment_117992080

In fairness, that's all the Civil Service. It would be the same department running the tender no matter who is in government.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117994811#Comment_117994811

Welcome to the new public service pension thinking

Main thing is to have a job that you don't loathe so much you want to escape at 66 (or whenever). Simply because if you need to escape your job that badly you're already wasted a lot of your life in it.

I know loads of men who have gone to complete ruin once they retired. Not sure why, maybe their identity was too tied up in work, maybe they couldn't handle the empty Tuesday afternoons but for whatever reason, I'd rather work on at some level than go completely off the reservation. The flip side of that is we should all start working part-time earlier in our lives to enjoy the years of good health we have.

Certainly some jobs you can't do beyond a certain age but a certain amount of those jobs are being automated away every year as it is.

riclad

If the birth rate is low they may have no choice but to raise the pension age , eg it takes X amount of people working to pay for pensions of people over 65 rising House prices mean people will probably have less children in the future experts say we might be heading for a new era of inflation and rising oil prices while wages may not rise at the same rate

Geuze

I don't understand the repeated comments that:

"the State Pension will eventually be means-tested"

The current State Pension scheme has two elements:

(1 = A) social insurance State Pension, based on paying PRSI

(2 = B) social assistance non-con State Pension, which is means-tested.

A is not means-tested

B is means-tested

People seem to be suggesting a future where:

A is means-tested

B still continues as a means-tested non-con pension?

How could we have two means-tested State Pensions?

Maybe people mean that in the future we will have just B = the non-con State Pension? I believe the State Pension in Australia is like that.

If we just have B = non-con pension, then of course PRSI would be cut a lot.

I would say to young people go and enjoy yourself till your late 20’s. If they are talking about retirement age of 72 it will be 75 by time they are old. I wouldn’t advise any young person to start work at 20 and still be working 55 years later.

Either that or work hard when young, own your own house outright by mid 50’s then drop to a 3 day week from 60 to retirement age. If you have to retire at 75 how much money will you really need from there.

Btw most of those devising this 72 year old retirement age will have their own feet up at no later than 65.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117994392#Comment_117994392

Don't let your lack of knowledge stop you throwing out posts anyway

Anyone who joined the PS after April 1995 is entitled to a pension made up of the state pension and their occupational pension.

When the state pension age and conditions change for anyone they change for this entire cohort.

dubrov

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117996861#Comment_117996861

People are talking about B only, the cost of which will be a lot bigger than now.

The current PRSI takings will be redirected to cover the increased cost.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117996915#Comment_117996915

I was talking about the retirement age. CID it goes up to 68 then that won’t affect PS workers. Except maybe the state element.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117994730#Comment_117994730

I dunno, we'd need to know whether free travel, medical card, rent assistance, etc was all still on the table

No two people hitting 65 are necessarily in the same set of circumstances and very few people aged 65 have the costs associated with being 25, 35, 45, 55.

The non contributory amount is essentially the dole and like having the dole as your only income at any age, lots of other costs are covered for you

The conversation really does come back down to the govt being told consistently: we will need to take action now to ensure the safeguarding of our pension system

The essential issue is the same as it is with anything- who pays for it and what do they get relative to those not contributing

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117996932#Comment_117996932

Great if you've worked in the PS straight out of college. Not so great if you joined later.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117996861#Comment_117996861

B will be calculated differently. At the moment you lose significant income for very little savings. In the future, provided private pensions become a common thing, the state pension becomes a top up. No income from private pensions - full state pension. With a private Income of A you get B-A where B is the state pension. Can’t be negative of course. PRSI might change of course.

JoChervil

But this 72 pension age will be in 50 years or so, when life expectancy will be longer over 5 years.

BTW Report of the Commission on Pensions was published yesterday:

https://www.gov.ie/en/publication/6cb6d-report-of-the-commission-on-pensions/?section=increasing-social-insurance-fund-sif-income

For now it will stay at 66 till 2028 and then it will increase to 67 in a quarterly manner, so no worries. And it is only a proposal, which still can be delayed.

Yes, it’s good to keep working at least part-time as long as possible, in principal good for the body and brain if the job is suitable. But not all jobs can be done in older years. Some are head-wrecking or body-wrecking. And saying “we’ll get a job you enjoy” isn’t always an easy solution. There are very unpleasant jobs out there are somebody has to do them. Traditionally students, younger people, or immigrants have gone these less pleasant jobs. But some fairly “responsible” jobs are tedious or unpleasant enough too, and not everyone gets to enjoy being happy in their workplace.

I worked in a pensionable job until minimum retirement age where there was a great deal of unaddressed and very toxic bullying going on. Stuck with it as far as I could, thankful to have a very modest pension with a little supplementary income and my own decent roof over my head. The thought of having to stay there until my 70s to collect my pension would have done my head in and I simply would not have survived.

Others work physically hard and as the need for joint replacement etc sets in, the physical work cannot always be continued. I know the current thinking/practice is is keep up education and re-training, so that a manual worker could eventually do less physically based work if needs be. Lifelong learning needs to be a thing embraced by all. There are also people, by virtue of health conditions, who lose a certain aspects of cognitive function (maybe not overall intelligence per se) and simply can’t suddenly turn around and retrain , and this can happen younger people too.

Overall the idea of “lifelong learning” is a great one. Something started as a hobby could become a source of income at a later stage, so whilst working in one line, a little gradual learning of something completely different but that has the potential to become a means of income, is a mindset that needs to be adopted from the start of anyone’s career.

Galwayguy35

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117995216#Comment_117995216

Oh I've no doubt some of them would have no problem doing that but if they want to increase their size they need votes from taxpayers as well as their traditional dole lifer voters.

Galwayguy35

I've always worked manual jobs, I'm in good health but I feel it sometimes by the time I finish in the evening and no way can I do the same amount I was able to 20 years ago.

And before someone says sure change jobs and upskilll I'm late 40s now and once 50 rolls around its a lot harder to start out on a new career competing with better educated younger people.

65 always seemed like an ideal time to retire, still young enough to travel and do things a person hadn't time to do when they were working but we also have to accept the reality of a changing world where folks are living longer and there are less people to pay for their retirement.

It seems people are gradually living slightly longer and longer. A few decades ago there were precious few cards for 90th, 95th, 100th birthdays, but now there is quite a little selection in every card stocking shop. The market for these is clearly growing, and projected to increase. Come a few decades 101-105th cards and even upwards may well be seen on sale, if everything hasn’t gone entirely online.

Mad_maxx

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117997115#Comment_117997115

They could leave retirement age at 65 buy the rate would need to be reduced, it's about 50% higher than In Northern Ireland and where you have a couple retired, gap is even wider

It's unwise to completely rely on state supports in old age , people will need to forego luxury expenditure throughout their lives and invest in pensions

Reality is people don't think ahead

Geuze

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117996932#Comment_117996932

For all PS in the Single PS pension scheme, their PS pension age is the same as the State Pension age.

tinytobe

Working until 72 or physically being able to work until 72 is one thing, but getting hired at age 69 or 70 is another thing.

BrianD3

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117996915#Comment_117996915

Public servants who commenced employment post 1995 (and before the introduction of the Single Scheme) get/should get a supplementary pension so that their total pension is the same as that of a pre 1995er. There are some T&Cs though, AFAIK someone on the supp pension is not allowed to work whereas someone on the old age pension is as are pre 1995 public service pensioners.

There is widespread confusion about this supplementary pension though, many union people don't have a clue especially if they are pre 1995 and not directly affected. Also, AVC providers are brought into workplaces to try to sell AVCs and surprise surprise they don't mention the supplementary pension because they want to make post 1995 PS pensions seem worse than they are in order to sell AVCs.

Yurt2

The original public pension system in Prussia was conceived as a mechanism to churn out older workers and swap-in younger (male) workers as the people that ran the state recognized is was a bad idea to have older workers clogging-up critical positions in the economy until they croaked with an army of angry young men looking on cut-out of social mobility. It was a grand bargain to keep society stable. Now it resembles a source of instability and a finish line that younger workers will never reach. Bad news.