jimmy456 wrote: » Say you max out your pension. (The principle is the same either way) You get the following: 440k into your hand on retirement with a tax leakage of 60k. Tax free growth on all investments You get tax relief at the highest rate on the way in and pay tax potentially lower effective rate on the way out Even better contribution rates for business owners. Its a great deal really. There is no other saving scheme that comes close to it.
how.gareth wrote: » So here comes the big question, I’m 43, never had a pension, am married and earn about €25k. Is there any point in me paying into a pension which would only be a small pittance I could afford?
bilbot79 wrote: » I agree. Something like 2.5mil is luxury. I think 1.5 mil is optimum especially knowing the state pension eventually kicks in too. This is the best calculator I findhttps://www.newireland.ie/pension-calculator/
....... wrote: » According to this article:https://www.irishtimes.com/business/personal-finance/90-of-workers-not-on-track-with-their-pension-savings-1.3560462 90% of workers are NOT on track with their pensions in Ireland. So I cannot imagine too many people are going to have 1.5 mill in the pot either. Maybe the older gold plated public sector pensions. Most people I know dont even have a pension because they cant afford one.
jimmy456 wrote: » People dont have a pension because they don't priorities it.
....... wrote: » For a lot of people, there is no way of prioritising saving or pension because to do so would mean leaving something else (like bills) short.
Bigbagofcans wrote: » Can people not even put 5% into a pension? Just say someone on €20,000, that's only €20 a week.
donkey balls wrote: » It was private sector pensions that Noonan stole from, It finished a year or two ago from memory
AndrewJRenko wrote: » By 'stole', you mean that he reclaimed a very small part of the very generous tax relief that you got on the way in, at a time when the country was verging on bankruptcy.
Big Words wrote: » Vintage and sports cars was the way to go in the last bust. Will retire nicely now cashing in on these.
Rennaws wrote: » The government should never retrospectively tax people.
Ace2007 wrote: » If he really thought the country was on verge of bankruptcy, he could have closed the public sector DB pensions to future accrual and have everyone contributing to a DC pension instead. This would lead to billions in savings each year. But my doing this it would lead to the unions organising a mass walk out and virtual shut down of public sector, so instead he raided the private pension funds. Pensions in this country are a ticking timebomb, but those making decision aren't affected and so they don't care. There are many articles from many professional bodies outlining such. If likes the board of the HSE/health department all have gold plated health insurance policies, so do you really think they are going to sort of the issues in the health industry.
Drumpot wrote: » I think for most people, their priorities determine if people can "afford" a pension or not.
AndrewJRenko wrote: » The problem with shutting down the DB scheme is the contractual obligation to existing staff. He would have been breaking the law by unilaterally changing terms and conditions. He'd also have been faced with doubling of funding for a generation - funding the DB payments to existing pensioners AND the DC contributions for the new scheme simultaneously. This would probably have bankrupted the State. I'm not sure I'm getting your point about the HSE board. Seeing as they are all external experts, mostly at the top of their private sector careers, yeah, they probably do have private health insurance. Are you saying that this should bar them from the board role?
Ace2007 wrote: » I didn't say close the DB scheme - I said close it to future accrual, or he could have set it up that instead of the CARE scheme that was introduce post 2013?, that it was just a DC scheme for future employees, but strangely he didn't do that - I wonder why? The contributions to the DC scheme would be far less than the current notional contributions for the DB scheme. Given Ireland's birth rate's and that, they could afford to pay both for a generation or 2, however they will not be able to do it if they leave it for 20/30 years time. My example of the HSE was proving that the system is broken, and a public system is never going to be truly fixed if those at the top aren't affected. Like pensions - if you are not in the public sector scheme, the chances are your pension will be inadequate at retirement for you, but although the government have a plan in place, they have missed numerous milestones and more than likely the automatic pension inclusion for all is going to be pushed out because no one in government is affected by it - so why would they care?
Ace2007 wrote: » My example of the HSE was proving that the system is broken, and a public system is never going to be truly fixed if those at the top aren't affected. Like pensions - if you are not in the public sector scheme, the chances are your pension will be inadequate at retirement for you, but although the government have a plan in place, they have missed numerous milestones and more than likely the automatic pension inclusion for all is going to be pushed out because no one in government is affected by it - so why would they care?
AndrewJRenko wrote: » What CARE scheme? I don't think you understand how public sector pensions work. There are no notional contributions to the current DB schemes. Zilch. Zero. The money deducted from current staff as 'pension contributions' and pension related deductions go straight into general taxation. So any contributions to a DC scheme would be entirety new expenditure - billions of new expenditure. Where do you think this money will come from?
....... wrote: » Yes I dont disagree with this. One odd scenario I came across recently was a staff member in my office who was basically a job hopper. Because he moved job so often (like once or even twice a year), he often got a job, didnt stay past the probation period, or knew he was leaving just after the probation period and was therefore not able to join the company pension scheme most of the time. The odd time he did - he was only a few months in it til he moved on. He reckoned that in 10 years he had only been in a company pension scheme for about 2 years so he was basically missing 8 years worth of employers contributions. Some of this job hopping was not his own doing (working in companies that ended up going bust during the recession years). And some of it was due to him changing career and moving onto better things as he gained experience.
Heres Johnny wrote: » 1 - I want to retire early, at about 60 2 - I don't care what age I am, I don't want to be on 33% of the average industrial wage. Or about 15% of my current income at the moment. Planning is the only way I can avoid this.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/04cbf1b64e8b0e561c543c5b1091ba30.svg)