Do you have a pension?

sbsquarepants · 03-10-2017 12:28PM

buck65 wrote: »

Are you two guys for real?

I was being a little bit tongue in cheek, but there are definite similarities! Seeing as you apparently disagree however, where exactly do you think the money comes from?
The people coming in at the bottom are in fact paying for the people going out at the top, they aren't putting "your" money away safe for you, by the time you retire your money has long since been spent and the plan is to pay you with the fees of new entrants to the scheme (Sounds very much like a pyramid scheme to me!)
Which is all well and good so long as the top stays narrow and the bottom stays wide - you know, kinda like a pyramid!
But when the top starts to widen and the base starts to narrow the whole thing gets very unstable, which is pretty much what is happening right now.

rustynutz · 03-10-2017 01:48PM

VinLieger wrote: »

I agree i was making the point the a private pension is still far more protected than the state pension though and that's something people need to know

History would tell us different, ask the thousands of people who's pensions were wiped out overnight in 2008 - 09

Ace2007 · 03-10-2017 01:56PM

rustynutz wrote: »

History would tell us different, ask the thousands of people who's pensions were wiped out overnight in 2008 - 09

yes but did you look into the reasons as to why they were wiped out - did they have the invested badly, what about the upturn - pretty much all pension funds which suffered big losses recovered over the coming years.

NewCorkLad · 03-10-2017 01:57PM

rustynutz wrote: »

History would tell us different, ask the thousands of people who's pensions were wiped out overnight in 2008 - 09

Didnt happen unless they were taking serious risks with their investment choices.

Lollipops23 · 03-10-2017 02:02PM

I've only just started at mine (I just turned 30), and also live with MS making it likely I'll have to retire early, so I'm putting as much as I can comfortably manage every month. By the time I'm at standard retirement age, the State Pension will be eff all, and the working population will likely be even smaller than it is now, so I don't hold much faith in it sustaining me in my golden years.

seamus · 03-10-2017 02:02PM

rustynutz wrote: »

History would tell us different, ask the thousands of people who's pensions were wiped out overnight in 2008 - 09

Do you understand why a lot of peoples' pensions dropped in value with the financial crash?

And why that isn't proof that private pensions are a bad idea?

VinLieger · 03-10-2017 02:49PM

seamus wrote: »

Do you understand why a lot of peoples' pensions dropped in value with the financial crash?

And why that isn't proof that private pensions are a bad idea?

Im gonna take a wild guess they don't..... also i would guess they are another person counting on the state pension

rustynutz · 03-10-2017 02:55PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Awww thats cute, you do know the contributions you pay to the state pension today are given out to a retired person collecting their pension tomorrow don't you? Its not an investment in the way you are suggesting it is or anywhere near as protected as a private pension scheme. So actually it is other people supporting you.

Right now it works cus we have 6 workers for every 1 retired person, by 2040 that will be down to 2 workers for every 1 retired person, the current system will not work in that scenario and like it or not there is no way to fix it and keep the current system and payouts as the only viable solution for that was for people to start having more kids instead of less 10-20 years ago

You do realize you can make your point without sounding like a condescending twat? Just checking.

My point was, I am supporting the pensioners of today through my PRSI contribution (which I have no problem doing by the way) so I will have no problem expecting those paying PRSI when I hit 65 to pay for my pension.

Doesnt anybody remember what happened when the government tried to cut the OAP by a few euro a few years ago? And you seriously think that they are going to be able to abolish it completely?

Ace2007 · 03-10-2017 03:01PM

rustynutz wrote: »

My point was, I am supporting the pensioners of today through my PRSI contribution (which I have no problem doing by the way) so I will have no problem expecting those paying PRSI when I hit 65 to pay for my pension.

Doesnt anybody remember what happened when the government tried to cut the OAP by a few euro a few years ago? And you seriously think that they are going to be able to abolish it completely?

the point is though, when your 65 (assuming your in your 30/40 now), there won't be enough people paying PRSI to pay for your pension. The state pension more than likely will be around, but probably be means tested, so if your own your own home, or having savings etc. you won't get it. it's simple math really - the money won't be there to pay yours - do you want your kids to pay through the roof in tax to pay for your pension?

The pension issue will need to cross party support - in which case it will go ahead. I doubt there is any party that doesn't realize the issue of pensions.

rustynutz · 03-10-2017 03:01PM

seamus wrote: »

Do you understand why a lot of peoples' pensions dropped in value with the financial crash?

And why that isn't proof that private pensions are a bad idea?

I understand that pension funds are invested in property, stock market etc. and they took a hit with the financial crash, that's fine if you are years from retirement and can afford for the markets to recover, I know a lot of people that were at retirement age though and had their pension pots wiped out overnight.

And again, I know that your pension fund should be moved into safer investments as you get closer to retirement age, but that simply didn't happen, if we have learned anything in the past decade, it is that the whole financial industry can't be trusted.

VinLieger · 03-10-2017 03:02PM

rustynutz wrote: »

You do realize you can make your point without sounding like a condescending twat? Just checking.

My point was, I am supporting the pensioners of today through my PRSI contribution (which I have no problem doing by the way) so I will have no problem expecting those paying PRSI when I hit 65 to pay for my pension.

Doesnt anybody remember what happened when the government tried to cut the OAP by a few euro a few years ago? And you seriously think that they are going to be able to abolish it completely?

You deffinitely do have a problem because the simple fact is there will not be enough people paying PRSI to support all the people that need to claim it by the time you retire.

You ask if I need to be condescending replying while missing the basic point of my argument which proves yes i do need to as you completely missed the issue.

Of course everyone remembers what happened but that doesn't change the very simple fact that there will be 2:1 workers vs retired people by 2040 so no matter how much old people want it there simply will not be enough money to continue the system as it currently exists. Pretending that isn't the reality is just ignorant and incredibly selfish of all who take to their walkers every time pensions are discussed. They are literally pulling up the ladder behind them for younger generations everytime they shout down politicians who try to discuss this issue.

One More Toy · 03-10-2017 03:08PM

Yes since I was 21. Always to the max 15% luckily I recently joined a company who doubles your contribution so I guess I'm sticking around there a while.

Always reduce your taxable income. Max your pension. Claim every tax credit you are eligible for. Keep the money out of those useless bástard money grabbing expenses claiming tds.

Anyone needs a bit of advice on the right direction pm me

__..__ · 03-10-2017 03:10PM

rustynutz wrote: »

I understand that pension funds are invested in property, stock market etc. and they took a hit with the financial crash, that's fine if you are years from retirement and can afford for the markets to recover, I know a lot of people that were at retirement age though and had their pension pots wiped out overnight.

And again, I know that your pension fund should be moved into safer investments as you get closer to retirement age, but that simply didn't happen, if we have learned anything in the past decade, it is that the whole financial industry can't be trusted.

Bank share was where you put your money if you wanted the safe option.

03-10-2017 03:12PM

My mum started a pension for me when I was 21 and I took it over when I was done in education. The earlier the start, the better.

It's something I wouldn't be without unless I was stony broke, likewise with private health insurance.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 03-10-2017 03:14PM

NewCorkLad wrote: »

Didnt happen unless they were taking serious risks with their investment choices.

Totally agree. My pension did not take a serious dip and indeed I get annual increases because it was properly and safely invested at the time.

Pensions are a long term plan and need serious management as the contributors life stage/age changes.

I always paid the maximum I could to my pension. Even the pensions levy did not negate the huge tax benefits it afforded me. By having proper pension provisions I could retire at 54 with an excellent income. 19 years on my pension has constantly beaten inflation and is vastly superior to the state pension.

Ace2007 · 03-10-2017 03:15PM

rustynutz wrote: »

I understand that pension funds are invested in property, stock market etc. and they took a hit with the financial crash, that's fine if you are years from retirement and can afford for the markets to recover, I know a lot of people that were at retirement age though and had their pension pots wiped out overnight.

And again, I know that your pension fund should be moved into safer investments as you get closer to retirement age, but that simply didn't happen, if we have learned anything in the past decade, it is that the whole financial industry can't be trusted.

DC pension funds are the individuals own responsibility not anyone else.
If it didn't happened it's cause
a) the people where taking the risk of higher return for higher pensions
b) didn't understand what they were invested in.

Either way it's their own responsibility. There is a thing called life-styling - it's usually the default strategy on most schemes where the funds are moved from growth to defensive as you get closer to retirement. If you chose to manage the funds yourself - you live with the consequences.

Talking the way your are clearly shows you don't understand how a DC fund works - the money is invested for each individual how that person wants it to be invested based on the options you are given, you can invested it all in bonds/cash if you want low risk funds. no one is making you go for high risk funds.

rustynutz · 03-10-2017 03:16PM

VinLieger wrote: »

You deffinitely do have a problem because the simple fact is there will not be enough people paying PRSI to support all the people that need to claim it by the time you retire.

You ask if I need to be condescending replying while missing the basic point of my argument which proves yes i do need to as you completely missed the issue.

Of course everyone remembers what happened but that doesn't change the very simple fact that there will be 2:1 workers vs retired people by 2040 so no matter how much old people want it there simply will not be enough money to continue the system as it currently exists. Pretending that isn't the reality is just ignorant and incredibly selfish of all who take to their walkers every time pensions are discussed. They are literally pulling up the ladder behind them for younger generations everytime they shout down politicians who try to discuss this issue.

I get your point regarding aging population, I don't think anyone can deny that, who's to say the government wont raid/tax private pensions to make ends meet?

screamer · 03-10-2017 03:18PM

No, was badly burned by them a few years ago. Oh, and the company that my OH worked for closed down, and the bank raided the company pension fund and took all of the "employers contribution" monies from the fund, and therefore from all the staff. Pensions are far too unreliable and there are far too many underhanded ways for them to be mis-appropriated. I have other plans to support myself into old age, and have already realised and accepted that "retirement" will no longer be an option when I get to 70.

I see this latest "compulsary pensions" crap as the latest way for the government to buoy up the cashflows to pay the current pensioners. It's not to protect my future, that's for sure.

VinLieger · 03-10-2017 03:18PM

rustynutz wrote: »

I get your point regarding aging population, I don't think anyone can deny that, who's to say the government wont raid/tax private pensions to make ends meet?

So you think they should kick the can down the road even further?

buck65 · 03-10-2017 03:19PM

There are two different conversations going on here.

Some people are saying don't trust a pension because there won't be enough money to pay for it (I assume they mean public state pension). Others are talking about private pensions.

Either way the waters are being sufficiently muddied by the anti pension contributors to upset the whole argument.

It's a bit like the anti - vaxxers, throw in enough scaremongering and anecdotes and the facts become secondary.

The facts are that privately funded pensions especially if in a well managed group fund are the best way of saving and earning on your investment. They are also currently the most tax efficient way to do so.

People that were burned had badly managed portfolios and I feel sorry for people who retired in 2009/2010 and had bad exposure to bank shares. My own pension lost 40% of the value but regained it over two years and since then is doing well.

I have an input in the portfolio and have an exposure to Irish commercial property which is doing well at the moment. I will probably reduce my exposure here next year but have a good proportion of my pension in safe equities also where the downside is ringfenced.

Get a pension, invest 10% of your salary in it if you are in your 30s more if older. The alternative is far worse.

03-10-2017 03:22PM

Ace2007 wrote: »

the point is though, when your 65 (assuming your in your 30/40 now), there won't be enough people paying PRSI to pay for your pension. The state pension more than likely will be around, but probably be means tested, so if your own your own home, or having savings etc. you won't get it. it's simple math really - the money won't be there to pay yours - do you want your kids to pay through the roof in tax to pay for your pension?

The pension issue will need to cross party support - in which case it will go ahead. I doubt there is any party that doesn't realize the issue of pensions.

State pensions can and will be paid out of more than PRSI revenue

As the number of pensioners rise the appetite to reduce, means test, or cut the contributory pension will not be there politically IMO even though there might be a need to.

screamer · 03-10-2017 03:23PM

buck65 wrote: »

Get a pension, invest 10% of your salary in it if you are in your 30s more if older. The alternative is far worse.

Yep, or you could move away from Ireland, and live in a much cheaper country.... I know of lots of older people doing this. Pensions are not the be all and the end all.

razorblunt · 03-10-2017 03:23PM

buck65 wrote: »

There are two different conversations going on here.

Some people are saying don't trust a pension because there won't be enough money to pay for it (I assume they mean public state pension). Others are talking about private pensions.

Either way the waters are being sufficiently muddied by the anti pension contributors to upset the whole argument.

It's a bit like the anti - vaxxers, throw in enough scaremongering and anecdotes and the facts become secondary.

The facts are that privately funded pensions especially if in a well managed group fund are the best way of saving and earning on your investment. They are also currently the most tax efficient way to do so.

People that were burned had badly managed portfolios and I feel sorry for people who retired in 2009/2010 and had bad exposure to bank shares. My own pension lost 40% of the value but regained it over two years and since then is doing well.

I have an input in the portfolio and have an exposure to Irish commercial property which is doing well at the moment. I will probably reduce my exposure here next year but have a good proportion of my pension in safe equities also where the downside is ringfenced.

Get a pension, invest 10% of your salary in it if you are in your 30s more if older. The alternative is far worse.

Yep, don't like risk, make it all fixed income funds.
Move to passive investment strategies, anything, just get that nest egg building.

See the Pension companies that have been around for ages? They're there for a reason, read up on them and use them, better yet ring them.

Ace2007 · 03-10-2017 03:27PM

screamer wrote: »

No, was badly burned by them a few years ago. Oh, and the company that my OH worked for closed down, and the bank raided the company pension fund and took all of the "employers contribution" monies from the fund, and therefore from all the staff. Pensions are far too unreliable and there are far too many underhanded ways for them to be mis-appropriated. I have other plans to support myself into old age, and have already realised and accepted that "retirement" will no longer be an option when I get to 70.

I see this latest "compulsary pensions" crap as the latest way for the government to buoy up the cashflows to pay the current pensioners. It's not to protect my future, that's for sure.

you do know DB pensions schemes are completely separate to the companies and are run by Trustees? So you saying the bank raided the company pension fund is BS - as this is not possible.

rustynutz · 03-10-2017 03:42PM

Ace2007 wrote: »

you do know DB pensions schemes are completely separate to the companies and are run by Trustees? So you saying the bank raided the company pension fund is BS - as this is not possible.

I have to admit I dont know the difference between all the pension types and funds you mention (and I'd safely say I'm not alone), I do have a question though, can the Revenue Commissioners take money from these different types of fund if they feel you owe them money?

sbsquarepants · 03-10-2017 03:44PM

Justice Better Headhunter wrote: »

I could retire at 54 with an excellent income. 19 years on my pension has constantly beaten inflation and is vastly superior to the state pension.

What. You're 73???

I'm genuinely shocked!

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 03-10-2017 03:46PM

sbsquarepants wrote: »

What. You're 73???

I'm genuinely shocked!

Yes, 73 last February. An aged, but happy, private pensioner.

buck65 · 03-10-2017 03:50PM

rustynutz wrote: »

I have to admit I dont know the difference between all the pension types and funds you mention (and I'd safely say I'm not alone), I do have a question though, can the Revenue Commissioners take money from these different types of fund if they feel you owe them money?

I'm not sure but would doubt the revenue can go anywhere near a pension as it wouldn't be in your account name. Now if it was a criminal investigation they may be able to freeze it but I stand to be corrected.

buck65 · 03-10-2017 03:51PM

screamer wrote: »

Yep, or you could move away from Ireland, and live in a much cheaper country.... I know of lots of older people doing this. Pensions are not the be all and the end all.

Well they are in this thread. Maybe start another thread about your itchy feet?

myshirt · 03-10-2017 03:55PM

Ace2007 wrote: »

you do know DB pensions schemes are completely separate to the companies and are run by Trustees? So you saying the bank raided the company pension fund is BS - as this is not possible.

Talk to the employees at Element 6 about that!

Do you have a pension?

Comments