Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Pensions Age to ..... 72 !?

Options
1457910

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 8,353 ✭✭✭jmreire


    Yes, especially now, when there are choices for career changes, even if there are difficultys...in the times I am speaking about there were very few, if at all career change opportunities' , and its those generations which are now making up a large nr of pensioners as well.



  • Registered Users Posts: 39 Parkender


    I haven't read through every post so apologies in advance if this has been covered. I know this issue has been and to re-iterate - the state cannot reduce the pension age - it's not affordable. So SF's policy is a load of ****. The other point to make is that there has been little outside the box thinking on this. It is still all about age and amount. To sort this out, the first thing the state needs to do is abolish mandatory retirement ages. This then makes it easier for individuals to decide when they want to retire......in addition to this they then need to realise not every worker is sitting behind a desk - asking a labourer to work to age 68 is not right and while life expectancy has increased dramatically - it doesn't necessarily mean workers can work longer. Cognitive decline on average kicks in at c. age 58. So what can be done? The state needs to put a figure on the "pot" of money it can afford to give pensioners. Then that pot can be calculated on an what it is worth on an annual basis from age 55 right up to age 85. Thereby the likes of labourers can retire earlier, albeit on a lower annual "pension" and those that want to retire later can do same but on a higher amount. Everyone gets the same amount based on life expectancy etc. There has to be much more flexibility with this issue and not this hard-lined "pension age" going forward. This will also allow "phased" retirement for those that can.....again thinking of labourers etc......





  • Should be part of Home Economics, which should be a fundamental subject up to Junior Cert. In school the 70s I had Civics classes which addressed this to a certain extent, but not enough. I was more than eager to learn a bit more in this direction, but of course my mother at home often talked about the importance of pensions and looking for a job with such prospects from the start of my working life.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,505 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    Vast majority of people in receipt of the state pension will draw down far more than they made in contributions throughout their working lives

    Incredible level of ignorance surrounding the pension.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,339 ✭✭✭tinytobe


    The problem is the willingness to work until age 72 is one thing, but getting hired at age 70 is another thing. And if this isn't enough there are certainly health matters to consider as well.

    So the matter of pension age is far more than politics not knowing how to pay for the pension and just putting the age up and up. I would also expect the age not to be 72, but 75 in around 20 years time from now.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,751 ✭✭✭thomas 123


    Is that omitting all the other tax we pay to the state and selectively just using PRSI? Any stats to back it up?



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,505 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx


    Income tax doesn't go towards pension provision



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,751 ✭✭✭thomas 123


    Of course, but you cant just make sweeping statements like "The vast majority of people in receipt of the state pension will draw down far more than they made in contributions throughout their working lives" when the reality is most people pay a lot of tax albeit not directly in PRSI.

    We pay masses of tax for everything in Ireland, the least we should be demanding is our retirement age staying at 65.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,177 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    This has already happened.

    PS pensions have been made less generous.



  • Registered Users Posts: 13,505 ✭✭✭✭Mad_maxx




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,751 ✭✭✭thomas 123


    Ah sure look It wont matter at all in 30 years time when the first batches of people who had to rent all their lives get to retirement.

    • No assets for nursing homes to put a lean on
    • No property you can convert a bit to look after yourself(Wheelchair, handrails, etc)
    • Probably less kids to help you out since you could just about afford rent


    Its a real ticking time bomb with no creative solution's being brought forward by our leaders.



  • Registered Users Posts: 711 ✭✭✭LeeroyJ.


    post made by accident, sorry



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭Mr. teddywinkles


    Yis will be paying for the green future most people coming up wont be able to afford a pension.

    Was there not riots in France a couple years ago over a slight pension age increase a few years ago. Irish people sure like taking it up the bum hole here.

    People shite on about life expectancy. I'd just go off the lifespan of my grandparents 81 and 83.

    So I'd have just 10 years mind you about 6 totally crippled and in a chair like them. So 4 to 5ish in proper retirement.

    Yea right lads!



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,990 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    if we continue to approach these issues the same old way, we certainly will be, but since the same ould story wont work to resolve these issues, expect major changes ahead



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,559 ✭✭✭dubrov


    It's a straight choice between tracing younger workers more or extend the pension age. Neither will be palatable but the OAP vote is strong



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,559 ✭✭✭dubrov


    *taxing



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,990 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    ...its actually not really, we can still maintain our pensionable ages, and keep our economy moving, we just need to embrace things such as public debt, and reduce our reliance on private debt, in running our economies



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,635 ✭✭✭dotsman


    At quarter of a trillion in public debt, I think we have already embraced it. In fact we have over-embraced it. To the point that it is now one of the biggest risks facing this country (especially if sinn fein form part of a future government), and even if we don't borrow another cent (which we are doing just to keep the broken welfare state going) it could easily result in a financial crisis bigger than the '08 one in the next 5 to 15 years.



  • Registered Users Posts: 28,990 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    hahaha, horsesh1t, we have to move on from this major fear of public debt, private debt has become the far bigger problem nowadays, as 08 showed us, yet again, graph supplied,

    theres now sufficient evidence globally to support this, oh and as you can see, public debt actually had little or nothing to do with 08, it was all primarily private debt



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,965 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    The only way forward is to control the population increases year on year to a manageable level. That does mean border controls and an option to refuse people seeking assistance here. A 7 year additional wait till you are 72 ? The average life expectancy with people having to work that long will plummet...



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,635 ✭✭✭dotsman


    I don't think you understand public debt or leprechaun economics works. Comparing anything to GDP in this country is going to give extremely misleading results. To use another simple metric - we have more public debt per capita than any other EU country. Every single man, woman and child owes €50,000. Given most of the population don't pay income tax, it works out at well over €100,000 per taxpayer. But given that the majority of income tax is paid by those earning over 50K, we are talking about every major income tax payer owing several hundred grand each.

    It is all down to how we service this debt. Are you happy to slash 10 Billion from spending (what kind of public sector layoffs or paycuts would we be talking?)? Or raise 10 Billion in additional income tax (gonna have to lower the tax bands to make sure even minimum wage earners pay the 20%, while the marginal rate would kick in only a little above that, with probably a third band (50%) kicking on on those earning over 50K). Either one would cause massive social upheaval, destroy the economy and likely trigger another property crash (bringing all that private debt into doubt). Except, this time, we can't borrow to bail ourselves out again. Because, when interest rates rise - and they will - we will be paying 10-20 billion in interest alone - every single year. Hell, despite the past number of years being relatively zero or even negative interest, we are still paying more in interest (4 billion) than we do on justice today.

    Oh, and one final thing - we are still borrowing. Not for capital investment or anything, just keeping the country afloat. So we already need to slash and burn spending just to stop borrowing.

    This is akin to someone clocking up a credit card bill several times their annual salary. And they are still continuing to spend more than they earn.



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,079 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    When the PRSI fund is in deficit, which is increasingly common, it does.



  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 10,084 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jim2007


    No it most definitely is not. We need actual workable solutions not an excuse for racism and narrow mindedness.



  • Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 10,084 Mod ✭✭✭✭Jim2007


    No we can’t, the current pension system is no more sustainable in Ireland than it is any other EU state. Ireland has a relatively young and productive force and as a long term net exporter the country was able to reduce its national debt from a high point of around 124% down to around 68%. But without an inflow of young workers the workforce will begin to decline and that ability will fall off. That is why we are needing to deal with the issue in the first place.



  • Registered Users Posts: 24,965 ✭✭✭✭Strumms


    It’s neither racist or narrow minded to control your borders, population and wellbeing of your taxpaying citizens as your priority.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,979 ✭✭✭Stovepipe


    We were and still are already paying for water through our motor taxes. A lot of what the Govt is saying is scare mongering to force more people to start pensions earlier,short of actually making it compulsory to start one as soon as you join the workforce. It would serve the Govt better if they increased the maximum allowable pension pot so that people can save more. They moan about the cost of pensions yet they won't establish a State pension fund to put monies aside for future pensions. They also talk as if a paid out pension is dead money; it's not. For the most part,pension money is spent as soon as it is recieved and it is back in circulation in the economy and inevitably finds it's back into State coffers as direct or indirect tax anyway.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,078 ✭✭✭salonfire


    Motor tax was drastically reduced in 2008 depending on CO2 rates. Do you think that the cost of maintenance of roads or water reduced by the same amount? No. Then how can you still be paying for water through car tax.



  • Registered Users Posts: 10,748 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    The idea that we're paying for water through our motor tax is risible! Where did you get that? Some Paul Murphy propaganda pamphlet through the door?



  • Registered Users Posts: 68,079 ✭✭✭✭L1011


    People usually put up the same grainy screenshot of the bill that removed the old council by council water rates in the 1990s and replaced it by LGF funding.

    Outdated, revoked legislation being rabbited by those that don't understand it to begin with.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,678 ✭✭✭Multipass


    How many employers are going to employ 70yr olds? Maybe the public service desk jobs will carry on until that age, but for many sectors it’s going to be a huge burden having workers in physical and cognitive decline. There will be huge numbers on the dole before reaching pension age.



Advertisement