Plumbthedepths wrote: » FG are already softening on the pension age. They thought it wasn't an issue, yet on the doorstep it is.
JohnnyFlash wrote: » It’s a bit of a non issue at the moment. There won’t be a state pension in 20 years time so it won’t matter a curse what age you set retirement for.
Plumbthedepths wrote: » If it's a non issue it makes you wonder why FF/FG are scrambling to try and up come up with a coherent policy.
Phoebas wrote: » It's an issue alright. The big question is will the electorate be bought off with their children's money.
JohnnyFlash wrote: » And SF. SF are saying they are going to let people retire at 65. Long term it doesn’t matter. People are living far too long and the pension pot is going to run dry. It’s also what’s causing the health service to collapse around us. So they can all promise what they want but it doesn’t change the reality - people who were dying at 75 one time are now living to 85 and 90. And that’s unsustainable. 2030 is touted as the year things finally breakdown.
cosybeach wrote: » Does it matter when the high rate of tax is below the average industrial wage and none of the parties are not talking about this more focus on the welfare state that where the votes are
smurgen wrote: » Also would love to see the pension age for politicians be brought in line with the public.
Yurt! wrote: » I think a third tax bracket in between the higher and lower rate might ease the burden on those on the middle-income strata. people on 30-40k (or even as far as 50k) shouldn't be on the highest rate of PAYE.
Plumbthedepths wrote: » Just going to offer a reality check, no one who has worked for 40 plus years is going to entertain that comment, 'their children's money'.
Phoebas wrote: » Here's the reality check: - In Ireland, life expectancy is currently 81.6; that's 16.6 years of pension to be paid from a retirement age of 65. - Our current ratio of workers to pensioners is 5:1, and this is projected to fall to 2:1 by 2050 We fund pensions for old people out of the taxes paid by young people, so it's obvious that we will not be able to maintain the current levels indefinitely. Obviously it's election time now, so populist parties will be tempted to promise the sun, moon and stars and leave this problem to the next generation, who'll be left in dire poverty in their old age.
Idbatterim wrote: » Yeah and who’s to the forefront of it all? Ff , what a surprise. It’s the young they are fcuked in this country , not the old. This previous budget , there were no welfare increases or tax cuts. I’m an election year with a booming economy. So take whatever these morons tell you , with a tanker load of salt !
pjohnson wrote: » :pac: Still gunna pretend you were ever gunna vote FF over FG?
Dwarf.Shortage wrote: » I think the ultimate solution to the pensions crisis is going to have to be along the lines of a universal 4% levy on all earnings no cut offs or exemptions which is matched by the employer and put into a ringfenced pension fund for the individual, not a communal pot the government can raid whenever they are short. PRSI could be reduced to partially offset the burden as pensions would no longer come out of current spending (after a few years obviously). Investment funds which are made available on the national scheme should be straightforward low fee index funds and any individual with a pension arrangement that involves more than 8% going in should be exempt, it's about setting a floor and making sure everyone has some level of provision. Someone earning the average industrial wage for life can expect a pot of €335,000 (in todays euros) under this regime, enough to provide more than the state pension for themselves.
Plumbthedepths wrote: » If you wish to use the word 'populist' I'm afraid in this case it applies to all parties including the incumbent. If you think a political party or politician is willing to go head to head with the 'grey vote' I admire your optimism.
Sleety_Rain wrote: » Surely it's a win win for a party to come out and say they're going to reduce high tax rate to 38% at next budget, would sweep up the votes, easy
mikemac2 wrote: » I for one was very surprised to hear Mary Hanifan was still around and going for this election. I knew she lost out in the 2016 general election and I never heard or read a single line in the media about her since I suppose I figured she was retired Well I was wrong on that
ricero wrote: » Simon Harris on Claire Byrne live now looks worn out and tired. Very much like Fine Gael.
ChikiChiki wrote: » Simon Harris is a such a weasel. Absolutely abhorrent at his job. Laying into Stephen Donnelly who has worked professionally fixing health systems across the world for Accenture. I think Stephen is clearly better placed to work through Slaintecare.
is_that_so wrote: » Probably because SF are claiming they can reverse it! 2021 and an increase to 67 has also made everybody suddenly notice it. With 65 people could still have been potentially working part of that year up to 66, now there's a "gap" year.
Snow Garden wrote: » I was told that in 20 years time there will not be enough money to pay public service and state pensions so people will be means tested. Basically anyone with decent private pensions will not get the state pension.
Cork Boy 53 wrote: » Told by whom?
