Why are people obsessed with getting a pension

Robert_Beach wrote: »

It's a disgrace that workers subsidize this "relief" for the high earners in this country. It's the first thing I'd do away with were I in power.

You think the low paid workers subsidize the high earners?:D
/thread

[Deleted User]

Varta wrote: »

A very selective response. You know very well I was referring to the government hand out that contributes to your private pension. What you euphemistically refer to as tax relief.

your reference is the selective one.

a person contributing to a private pension earning enough to qualify for tax relief has already covered their own contributory pension as well as whatever else their PRSI and PAYE goes towards.

a person on the contributory state pension has a raw enough deal.

a person on the non-contributory who could have worked throughout their life is living off the work of others.

you're simply talking nonsense in your attempts to spin it otherwise.

Robert_Beach

GreeBo wrote: »

You think the low paid workers subsidize the high earners?:D
/thread

There's no such thing as a free lunch. The "relief" high earners get (i.e. a state handout to the rich) has to be made up for elsewhere. If we done away with it, we could have higher public spending or lower taxes on the vunerable.

[Deleted User]

Robert_Beach wrote: »

There's no such thing as a free lunch. The "relief" high earners get (i.e. a state handout to the rich) has to be made up for elsewhere. If we done away with it, we could have higher public spending or lower taxes on the vunerable.

there is such a thing as a zero-sum gain. encouraging individuals to ensure they have wealth amassed enough to cover retirement is such.

KyussB

If private pensions are so lucrative, and if we now have auto-enrolment, then what is the remaining justification for the tax break?

It's clearly not neeed to make the pensions sustainable, since the posters defending it also claim the pensions returns are so amazing - it's clearly not needed to encourage people into pensions, because we now have auto-enrolment - so it seems the perfect time to abolish the tax-break/subsidy.

Treat it just like any other investment.

What's more - if a person opts-out of the auto-enrolment pension, and goes without - companies should be forced to put their contribution that what would have gone to the pension, to the persons wages instead.

Robert_Beach

Deleted User wrote: »

there is such a thing as a zero-sum gain. encouraging individuals to ensure they have wealth amassed enough to cover retirement is such.

How about, we all pool our money together and ensure that everyone has a nice retirement?

Cut out the financial snakes, stop rich people avoiding tax and stopping the cashgrab out of workers pockets.

Everyone to have a decent state pension.

Robert_Beach

KyussB wrote: »

What's more - if a person opts-out of the auto-enrolment pension, and goes without - companies should be forced to put their contribution that what would have gone to the pension, to the persons wages instead.

That's a really good idea. Why shouldn't they? Plus I suspect many employers will "force" vunerable employees (e.g. foriegners) opt out in an attempt to save a few quid. So have it that the employee always gets the money.

KyussB wrote: »

If private pensions are so lucrative, and if we now have auto-enrolment, then what is the remaining justification for the tax break?

It's clearly not neeed to make the pensions sustainable, since the posters defending it also claim the pensions returns are so amazing - it's clearly not needed to encourage people into pensions, because we now have auto-enrolment - so it seems the perfect time to abolish the tax-break/subsidy.

Treat it just like any other investment.

What's more - if a person opts-out of the auto-enrolment pension, and goes without - companies should be forced to put their contribution that what would have gone to the pension, to the persons wages instead.

Part of the argument for the tax relief is that without it the income would be in effect taxed twice. Pension tax relief is just deferred taxation. It's a universal principle, employed in most countries.
It's not like any other investment, as the salary from the pension fund is taxable under PAYE rules.
And it's not just for the wealthy, we all benefit from it.

Robert_Beach wrote: »

That's a really good idea. Why shouldn't they? Plus I suspect many employers will "force" vunerable employees (e.g. foriegners) opt out in an attempt to save a few quid. So have it that the employee always gets the money.

It's a benefit the employer can provide at a cost less than adding it to the wage, because it gains tax relief as an expense in the P&L account.

Robert_Beach wrote: »

There's no such thing as a free lunch. The "relief" high earners get (i.e. a state handout to the rich) has to be made up for elsewhere. If we done away with it, we could have higher public spending or lower taxes on the vunerable.

but not the state handout to the poor?

Robert_Beach wrote: »

How about, we all pool our money together and ensure that everyone has a nice retirement?

Cut out the financial snakes, stop rich people avoiding tax and stopping the cashgrab out of workers pockets.

Everyone to have a decent state pension.

I love this idea.
Can we also avoid the poor people paying zero to the basic level of tax instead of me paying 52%?
Or is it only rich people who have to add money to the pool?

Varta

Deleted User wrote: »

your reference is the selective one.

a person contributing to a private pension earning enough to qualify for tax relief has already covered their own contributory pension as well as whatever else their PRSI and PAYE goes towards.

a person on the contributory state pension has a raw enough deal.

a person on the non-contributory who could have worked throughout their life is living off the work of others.

you're simply talking nonsense in your attempts to spin it otherwise.

There are people on non-contributory pension who worked and there are also people who couldn't work that receive it. But your attitude just shines through. You have no problem yourself taking a handout from the state towards your private pension.

Varta

GreeBo wrote: »

I love this idea.
Can we also avoid the poor people paying zero to the basic level of tax instead of me paying 52%?
Or is it only rich people who have to add money to the pool?

Everyone pays tax.

Varta wrote: »

Everyone pays tax.

Let me refer you to an answer that someone gave on this thread already...

Varta wrote: »

Sure. 'Available to all' is a lovely term that sounds true but in fact is far from true

Robert_Beach wrote: »

Private pension tax breaks are there for the rich and powerful to squirrel money away tax free. They also enrich the financial snakes who run the pension companies.

Now they want ordinary people to hand over hard earned money to these guys, to urinate up against a wall and your ordinary worker will be lucky to see a fraction of it back in 40 years. If at all. Of course that's after it fund climate change, war and all the other horribleness.

I gaurauntee in 40 years, after the money is all gone ("opps, sorry the market crashed! Again..."), the poor people of Ireland will be told that they "should have invested better" and that there's no state pension for them. Disgusting.

I'm not rich and powerful, and i have a pension.

Most people get much more back than they out in, it is rare that anyone gets less out. All these notions that loads of people have lost everything seem to come from DB schemes being underfunded when an employer goes under.

It'd be difficult to find a pension 8nveatmwnt that managed to exclusively fund wars and climate change.

A market crash won't wipe everyone out. There's never been a stock market crash with 100% losses...

[Deleted User] wrote: »

wheres yr figures of ROI of pension investment over the last say forty years?

any decent figures at all to back that repetitive nonsense up?

one-off specific funds like say waterford crystal imploded with disastrous results such as you describe for their workers, but set against the number of well performing funds the instance of such is miniscule

Waterford Crystal didn't implode, they just got less than they expected in the end.

KyussB wrote: »

If private pensions are so lucrative, and if we now have auto-enrolment, then what is the remaining justification for the tax break?

It's clearly not neeed to make the pensions sustainable, since the posters defending it also claim the pensions returns are so amazing - it's clearly not needed to encourage people into pensions, because we now have auto-enrolment - so it seems the perfect time to abolish the tax-break/subsidy.

Treat it just like any other investment.

What's more - if a person opts-out of the auto-enrolment pension, and goes without - companies should be forced to put their contribution that what would have gone to the pension, to the persons wages instead.

The justification for the tax relief, which is mainly just a tax deferral, is that without it pensions would be taxed twice.

BailMeOut

McGaggs wrote: »

The justification for the tax relief, which is mainly just a tax deferral, is that without it pensions would be taxed twice.

governments could also setup pensions so they are taxed going in but not out! USA have something callled a 'Roth IRA' that works that way.

BailMeOut wrote: »

governments could also setup pensions so they are taxed going in but not out! USA have something callled a 'Roth IRA' that works that way.

That system benefits the wealthy much more, as they pay no tax on the gains made by the pension investment. Our system ensures you pay tax on the final outcome.

Varta

GreeBo wrote: »

Let me refer you to an answer that someone gave on this thread already...

Again, a total non sequitur.

Varta wrote: »

Again, a total non sequitur.

Let me dumb it down for you.

I said pensions were available for all and you said that it was "a lovely term that sounds true but in fact is far from true"

You then said "Everyone pays tax" which is a lovely term that sounds true but in fact is far from true.

BailMeOut

Emmie Sparse Starlight wrote: »

That system benefits the wealthy much more, as they pay no tax on the gains made by the pension investment. Our system ensures you pay tax on the final outcome.

Roth IRA's are designed for non-rich and a way for lower paid people in USA to avoid taxes on their pension. The restictions and small annual limts mean wealthy people do not use them.

BailMeOut wrote: »

governments could also setup pensions so they are taxed going in but not out! USA have something callled a 'Roth IRA' that works that way.

They sure could. They would only be able to do it on new pensions. Otherwise there'd be a massive tax avoidance windfall for anyone who currently has a pension.

Metroid diorteM

My dad invested in his pension pretty much his entire working life. It just so happened that when came time to collect a few years back “oops” “didn’t you know there’s been a recession?”. Come back in 10 years or if you really want it now we’ll give you 30% the value.

I have a pension but my parents think I’m nuts after what happened to them.

I’ve little faith in governments in the decades to come sadly.

It could be fine but it could just as well be a complete waste of time. There’s no predicting with the human race.

Metroid diorteM wrote: »

My dad invested in his pension pretty much his entire working life. It just so happened that when came time to collect a few years back “oops” “didn’t you know there’s been a recession?”. Come back in 10 years or if you really want it now we’ll give you 30% the value.

I have a pension but my parents think I’m nuts after what happened to them.

I’ve little faith in governments in the decades to come sadly.

It could be fine but it could just as well be a complete waste of time. There’s no predicting with the human race.

Why did he still have it in volatile funds so close to retirement?
Pensions 101 tbh

and its far, far, FAR more likely "to be fine" than a complete waste of time.

Metroid diorteM

GreeBo wrote: »

Why did he still have it in volatile funds so close to retirement?
Pensions 101 tbh

and its far, far, FAR more likely "to be fine" than a complete waste of time.

What’ll “Pensions 101” be in the year 2050? I’ve seen the government tax rules seriously change even during my decade or so of work.

It’s like insurance. Gambling basically.

Don’t ask people in this thread. Ask old people. They know. You’ll be shafted by some wise ass. Guaranteed.

Metroid diorteM wrote: »

What’ll “Pensions 101” be in the year 2050? I’ve seen the government tax rules seriously change even during my decade or so of work.

Changes to pension rules still wont change the fact that you move your find into less riskier classes the closer you are to actually needed to cash it in. Its always been true and will always remain true and is a fact outside of anything the government could change.

It’s like insurance. Gambling basically.

Its not like insurance tbh, assurance if anything.

Take a look at the stock market (any stock market) since it began and tell me it hasnt gone up.

Don’t ask people in this thread. Ask old people. They know. You’ll be shafted by some wise ass. Guaranteed.

Yeah, old people do know, thats why the vast majority of them are living off their pensions.

Your scare-mongering is childish

GreeBo wrote: »

Why did he still have it in volatile funds so close to retirement?
Pensions 101 tbh

and its far, far, FAR more likely "to be fine" than a complete waste of time.

Sounds more like he went looking for a transfer out of an underfunded DB scheme before retirement age.

Liam D Ferguson

Metroid diorteM wrote: »

My dad invested in his pension pretty much his entire working life. It just so happened that when came time to collect a few years back “oops” “didn’t you know there’s been a recession?”. Come back in 10 years or if you really want it now we’ll give you 30% the value.

I have a pension but my parents think I’m nuts after what happened to them.

I’ve little faith in governments in the decades to come sadly.

It could be fine but it could just as well be a complete waste of time. There’s no predicting with the human race.

I'm sorry but anecdotes like this add absolutely nothing to a debate. We have no idea what your father's circumstances were. We have no idea why he was in a fund that was exposed to that level of risk before retirement. If it was a Defined Contribution scheme, he must have chosen to be in one of the riskiest funds available if it dropped by 70%. Worst year in the last twenty for Irish pension funds was 2008 and the average fell by around 30%, taking about 2 - 3 years to recover all lost ground. So if your Dad's dropped by 70% he must have been in a seriously high-risk fund. Why anyone would be in such a fund close to retirement is beyond me.

Maybe he was in a Defined Benefit pension scheme. If it was underfunded then we'd need to know WHY it was underfunded. Was it because his employer wasn't willing to pay the required levels to keep it funded? We don't know because you have given us so little detail.

But to use this single anecdote as a way of suggesting that pensions are not advisable is a bit like saying that I was prescribed the wrong medication by a doctor some years ago and it made my condition worse. So nowadays I don't trust any doctor and I think that all medicine is bad and likely to make you sick.