Work up to 75!

fliball123

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121406624#Comment_121406624

You ignored what I said at the moment its them asking if they dont get the numbers it will come into by legislation you only have to look historically at what the government do

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121406656#Comment_121406656

Sorry, I don't put much stock in conspiracy theories

BlueSkyDreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121405028#Comment_121405028

Yes, all very good points.

It shouldnt be a pipedream for a working couple to be able to pay for 2 kids.

Anaki r2d2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121309838#Comment_121309838

I am nor sure why nor care to understand, but anytime someone refers to boomers, I think the poster is a ****

As an alternative to some of the thoughts being propsed on this thread.

A pay as you go pension payment. If you don't contribute to PRSI, then you get a basic pension.

If you contribute to PRSI, then you get enhanced pension.

If you choose to save elsewhere rather than spend, you do not get punished for being frugal.

Radical thinking on this website.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121415383#Comment_121415383

You're effectively proposing making the non-contributory pension universal, and not means-tested. And at the same time you propose to make paying PRSI contributions to secure the (higher) contributory pension optional.

The forseeable result is that a great many people more people will be entitled to the non-contributory pension, while a great many fewer people will pay PRSI contributions. How are you proposing to fund this?

Anaki r2d2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121422619#Comment_121422619

I dont think I said that. Enhanced pension with PRSI payments.

Enhanced pension related to how much PRSI paid in over your lifetime.

if you pay more in, you get more out.

astrofool

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121423063#Comment_121423063

Are you planning on reducing the non-contributory pension to almost nothing? (and even then, funding would be an issue)

SharkMX

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121404455#Comment_121404455

Like the USC :)

SharkMX

This thread is kinda funny. Im a millennial. Wont be long now til the next generation are on to blaming Gen x for all of their ills. Then its my turn to get it after them. Cant wait.

El_Duderino 09

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121423063#Comment_121423063

Right. But as has been pointed out a dozen times, that's not how pensions work. It seems to be how people think pensions work, or how they think pensions ought to work, but it isn't.

I think you're kind of describing how a private investment pension works, but then you have to accept that you're investing and "investment may go down as well as up" as they say in all the ads for investment products.

Even of that worked for the actual pension, how would it work for all the other benefits pensioners get like general health care, home care, residential care and palliative care? Because the reality is that the workers of today pay for today's pensioners. And the workers of tomorrow will pay for tomorrow's pensioners. And that's uncomfortable because the demographic pyramids don't look good for tomorrow's pensioners. Unless you want to saddle tomorrow's workers with paying a much bigger chunk of their wages to maintain the pensioners in the lifestyle they imagined they'd be entitled to.

Geuze

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121423063#Comment_121423063

You seem to be suggested a typically Nordic pension:

(1) universal pension for all citizens

+

(2) work pension for all workers

Here is the Danish model:

Geuze

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121423063#Comment_121423063

Do you mean to link the contributory pension to previous earnings?

Or to previous duration of contributions?

Or both?

You may be aware that we are moving in that direction here, with the TCA approach.

Anaki r2d2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121424341#Comment_121424341

Yes

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/121424759#Comment_121424759

One significant difference from your proposal is that, in the Danish system, payment of social insurance contributions is not voluntary; it's mandatory. If you are employed, you pay the contribution and you get a supplementary pension (the "ATP pension"). You don't get a choice about this. The self-employed, I think, do have a choice but in fact they virtually all participate because they can't afford not to.

The basic old age pension that all residents get maxes out at about €10,800/year — less, if you have spent much time living outside Denmark between the ages of 15 and 67. This is considerably less than the non-contributory pension in Ireland. So, unless you're quite wealthy, with income from property or investments that will sustain you in retirement, you need the ATP pension as well.

A second point is that the ATP pension is not really determined by the amount and number of the contributions you have paid. That does enter into it but, because contributions are not pay-related, all people with the same employment history will have paid the same amount of contributions. The biggest determinant of the amount you get is, in fact, how long you live; the pension is guaranteed for life, and contributions paid by those who die early "cross-subsidise" benefits for those who live a long time. (It follows that those who die before reaching retirement age get nothing at all.)

And a key point that you need to address is that the Danish system is funded by income tax to a much greater extent than in Ireland. To replicate the Danish system in Ireland we'd need either much higher social insurance contributions than we currently pay, or a hike in income tax, or a bit of both.

Funding through income tax makes sense, if the basic pension is based on residence rather than on employment. If all residents get the pension, why should that be funded by a tax on employment? But of course funding the pension through income tax recreates exactly the problem we face in Ireland; the current generation of workers pays the pensions of the current generation of retirees, so if the number of retired people rises relative to the number of working people, tax must go up or pensions must be cut or a bit of both. Which is why the Danish pension age has edged up from 65 to 67 and is due to rise to 68 by 2030.