Do you have a pension?

Drumpot · 10-08-2015 12:10PM

Thargor wrote: »

Is there any decent pension plan for when your company doesn't match contributions? Im on a good wage, saving 50-60% of my income but just dumping it in Prize Bonds at the minute because theres feck all else to do with it. Dont trust the markets at the minute and not interested in a house as Im not sure Im staying in Ireland.

If you are on the higher tax rate, for every €100 you invest in prize bonds, it would cost you anywhere from €67 to invest €100 in a Pension. Of course there are Pension charges that would reduce the potential allocation but not all Pension companies are the same. I like a particular fund of a particular company but I wouldn't be recommending anything on a forum.

As a professional broker I have to be extremely careful about what I say, particularly if it can be construed to be specific advice. The central bank regulates small brokers with a hammer, while the banks get away with all sorts of incompetency with a pathetic telling off.

That said, I would always recommend people to contact a professional in this circumstances. If you are serious about saving into a pension, take this seriously and get professional assistance. I will give you a perfect example why. Imagine a person says "I have 100,000 to invest, where should I put it?". Well, what is their expectations ? How much can they afford to lose ? What is the purpose of making gains ? For example, a person looking to make huge gains just to make money is different from a person trying to make gains to put their kids through college or get a life saving operation for a child! Its not that straight forward. How will a person react to their fund going down 30%?

If you or any friend/family member knows a good broker, give them a shout. Some people prefer to use brokers who will charge a flat fee and some people are happy for the broker to take a commission from his pension contributions (that is the way the majority of pension business is done).

Since I do not look for business on this site I can say that many people who are cynical of everything financial services related do themselves an injustice. They presume that everything about the industry stinks (including banks, life companies, pension companies and brokers), so they stay away from it as much as possible.

There is a way to acknowledge that there are many bad aspects of the industry but to learn and/or get professional assistance in getting the most out of the system.

People who say "I hate a pension and don't value them" may feel that way, but it doesn't change the fact that if they have any intentions of retiring at some stage, they would want to start planning some sort of provision. Of course things may change in the pension industry and pensions are not by any means perfect. However, they would do well to find a more tax efficient way of saving for retirement in the current climate. Things may change for the worst in the future, but things may also change for the better, we just don't know.

draiochtanois · 10-08-2015 12:15PM

This post has been deleted.

Drumpot · 10-08-2015 12:27PM

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's not really correct at all and is an extremely naieve/dangerous statement to make. . Its like saying "Sure why use a doctor, you can find the answers on the internet with symptom checker".

Investments/savings should be taken just as seriously. In many cases, people can get better deals through a broker as opposed to doing things directly themselves.

Being a broker is no different from being a accountant. We are giving advice that most people could probably figure out themselves, but they want the added protection of professional assistance.

Brokers, like in any industry, need to be remunerated for their service. Its just a lazy populist stereotypical statement to make that they are looking to feather their nest. Most good brokers provide a good service/educational experience that helps clients make a prudent decision.

Most people aren't successful investors, that's the reason why they are the exception rather then the rule. Most people don't have the confidence to make big investment decisions and most people don't know what to do if their investment strategy is going pear shaped. If investments was as simple as reading some stuff online and making a killing, everybody would do it.

draiochtanois · 10-08-2015 01:33PM

This post has been deleted.

Drumpot · 10-08-2015 02:13PM

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In reality , brokers are salespeople paid by commission that's already included in the charging structure of most of the products they offer. So whether you use a broker or not, you are paying the same charges! You seem to be confusing financial brokers/advisers with stockbrokers.

Incidentally, one of the reasons people need an independent person to assist them with their investments is because it can be such an emotional decision making yourself. On one hand you clarify that many people make emotional personal financial decisions and then on the other you suggest they just learn (somehow) to not make personal financial decisions. A financial broker will help guide a person to make an objective and informed decision.

Your slanderous statements are based on your personal opinion on what I presume is your negative personal experience with brokers. I would recommend that you try not to confuse it with objective, impartial information.

draiochtanois · 10-08-2015 02:27PM

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop · 10-08-2015 02:47PM

Drumpot wrote: »

That's perfectly understandable and a pension isn't for everybody but at least try and find a cost effective alternative strategy to plan for retirement.

Many people lost a lot on their Pensions because they simply were not in the correct fund strategy. This is why its extremely important for people to review their pension regularly.

The vast vast majority of people will never be this financially literate, and attempts at promoting 'personal-finance education' often are more about selling the idea of various financial schemes to people, with the general public 'leaving it up to the experts' (pretty much what a pension fund is - who ever bothers to keep track of what the 'experts' managing the fund are up to? People only care about nice looking 'on paper' numbers - and would never consider the idea that, if their fund is engaging in risky practices, that those numbers can turn out to be fictional).

The general public don't work in the industry, they are outside, and they can't weigh these kind of risks, or even - in many cases - know they exist.
It's notable how much the risk side of pensions was getting downplayed/scoffed-at earlier in the thread, and now is being acknowledged only in a way that squares the blame solely with the persons management of their pension.

There are many many people in that industry as well, happy to sucker such people into getting very poor bang for their buck, or even losing a ton of money, so that a profit can be made - people 'leave it up to the experts', and then find they don't have a clue what pension fund managers are doing with their money, what kind of 'fees' they are taking for themselves, and what kind of unsustainable financial instruments they may be using - it's one of the perfect frauds as well, because people may not find out for decades that they've been screwed - 'IBGYBG'.

This doesn't change that there are plenty of reputable and well run pension funds out there - but if it requires the general public becoming properly financially literate, to differentiate between one and the other, then that's just not going to happen.

KomradeBishop · 10-08-2015 02:57PM

Drumpot wrote: »

That's not really correct at all and is an extremely naieve/dangerous statement to make. . Its like saying "Sure why use a doctor, you can find the answers on the internet with symptom checker".

Investments/savings should be taken just as seriously. In many cases, people can get better deals through a broker as opposed to doing things directly themselves.

Being a broker is no different from being a accountant. We are giving advice that most people could probably figure out themselves, but they want the added protection of professional assistance.

Brokers, like in any industry, need to be remunerated for their service. Its just a lazy populist stereotypical statement to make that they are looking to feather their nest. Most good brokers provide a good service/educational experience that helps clients make a prudent decision.

Most people aren't successful investors, that's the reason why they are the exception rather then the rule. Most people don't have the confidence to make big investment decisions and most people don't know what to do if their investment strategy is going pear shaped. If investments was as simple as reading some stuff online and making a killing, everybody would do it.

Come on now - it's not hard to imagine how easy it would be for a broker to have a conflict of interest, where he may have incentives to direct funds towards investments the broker can (indirectly) make gains from.

It's a blindingly obvious circumstance.

Drumpot · 10-08-2015 03:00PM

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I could be reading this wrong, but you aren't trying to suggest that I don't disclose all charges to my clients now are you ?

I am posting industry specific advice based on my professional experience. This includes professional experience in helping people when their funds have gone down and helping people maintain a long term strategy. You are posting information based on your personal opinion.

You have posted barstool "advice" to people that's simply links to other websites and names of investment funds . You have no clue who will read it or what they will take of it. Yet you feel confident enough to imply that they are better off doing it on their own because as you see it an entire industry is simply out to "feather their nest" with no benefit at all to the client.

I normally stay away from these kinds of topics from forums, not because I don't want to discuss my industry clearly, because people like you derail constructive discussions and prevent any real objective discussions to continue. Like all industry's there are good and bad people, but to brand an entire industry the way you have is unfounded and unjustified.

I'm afraid I have nothing else constructive in any form to write with regards to your posts. You are just looking to "win" a fictitious argument that I am not interested in engaging in any further. You are wrong on so many levels about much of what you write, but you are entitled to be wrong and you are entitled to maintain the prejudice against my industry. People are also entitled to read all the posts I have put in this thread and decide for themselves if I am trying to "feather my cap" or just inform people on some elements of the Pensions industry.

KomradeBishop · 10-08-2015 03:02PM

Drumpot wrote: »

Your slanderous statements are based on your personal opinion on what I presume is your negative personal experience with brokers. I would recommend that you try not to confuse it with objective, impartial information.

We're talking about the banking/financial industry here - i.e. the industry that is pretty much above the law and operating on Tier 1 of a 2-tier justice system.

Let's not forget that varying degrees of Fraud exist throughout these industries, and that it largely goes uninvestigated (nevermind unprosecuted).

EDIT: I interpreted what I'm replying to here, as defending the integrity of brokers in general, not of you personally - not sure if you were replying to something more personal.

Drumpot · 10-08-2015 03:07PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Come on now - it's not hard to imagine how easy it would be for a broker to have a conflict of interest, where he may have incentives to direct funds towards investments the broker can (indirectly) make gains from.

It's a blindingly obvious circumstance.

I agree completely, the incentive is there on certain products to chase the commission. But it boils down to whether or not you trust the adviser (not the industry).

There are some investment products (windfarming in particular), that offer a broker up to 8% commission. Most investment products offer between 3%-5%. From the central bank perspective a broker is supposed to show why he went with a certain company over another, but even that can be little to deter commission chasing brokers (I am aware that there are brokers who move their clients moneys to whomever pays the largest commission).

Rather then get rid of commissions, I would prefer to standardise commissions among all retail providers (to take that incentive away from brokers). Indeed I am trying to change to a more standard Fee based structure but its not easy.

If they get rid of commissions completely all that will happen is that companies will maintain the charging structures (or lower them for a small time) they have (so get paid more) and people will have to pay separate, independent charges for independent advice. That will mean higher cost to the consumer for independent advice and will mean less people will have access to this service.

This industry is no different to most. It has good and it has bad brokers, but the difference is that most people are already cynical of brokers because of the bad name the industry gets.

Drumpot · 10-08-2015 03:10PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

We're talking about the banking/financial industry here - i.e. the industry that is pretty much above the law and operating on Tier 1 of a 2-tier justice system.

Let's not forget that varying degrees of Fraud exist throughout these industries, and that it largely goes uninvestigated (nevermind unprosecuted).

EDIT: I interpreted what I'm replying to here, as defending the integrity of brokers in general, not of you personally - not sure if you were replying to something more personal.

You are correct, there was more personal slurs against my profession (financial adviser/broker) that many people seem to confuse with the banking sector.

As stated in my previous post, I know there are very bad brokers, but the industry has changed a lot and its more difficult now for the bad brokers to flourish. Many people come to me because they don't trust the industry and they see me as the intermediary who will protect them from the Bullsh*t.

KomradeBishop · 10-08-2015 03:16PM

Drumpot wrote: »

I agree completely, the incentive is there on certain products to chase the commission. But it boils down to whether or not you trust the adviser (not the industry).

There are some investment products (windfarming in particular), that offer a broker up to 8% commission. Most investment products offer between 3%-5%. From the central bank perspective a broker is supposed to show why he went with a certain company over another, but even that can be little to deter commission chasing brokers (I am aware that there are brokers who move their clients moneys to whomever pays the largest commission).

Rather then get rid of commissions, I would prefer to standardise commissions among all retail providers (to take that incentive away from brokers). Indeed I am trying to change to a more standard Fee based structure but its not easy.

If they get rid of commissions completely all that will happen is that companies will maintain the charging structures (or lower them for a small time) they have (so get paid more) and people will have to pay separate, independent charges for independent advice.

This industry is no different to most. It has good and it has bad brokers, but the difference is that most people are already cynical of brokers because of the bad name the industry gets.

Well you've just described an industry operating under inherently untrusthworthy conditions.

Who in their right mind would ever trust someone, who may have a significant money incentive to screw them?

I'm sure there are plenty of honest brokers, but the ethical qualities of these industries, all go down to the lowest-common-denominator incentives: Money. This comes above not-screwing clients.

If you have 'perverse incentives' in place, where people are incentivized by money to screw over their clients, and if they are paid by commission - i.e. their performance and job ultimately depend on money turnover, and if maximizing that money turnover means screwing clients - then you have a Greshams dynamic (the Bad Brokers drive out the Good Brokers, because they are inherently more competitive, bringing in more money).

Those are all the ingredients you need for a fraudulent system - nobody in their right mind should be anything other than hyper-skeptical of a brokers motives, given the incentives laid out to them.

KomradeBishop · 10-08-2015 03:19PM

Drumpot wrote: »

You are correct, there was more personal slurs against my profession (financial adviser/broker) that many people seem to confuse with the banking sector.

As stated in my previous post, I know there are very bad brokers, but the industry has changed a lot and its more difficult now for the bad brokers to flourish. Many people come to me because they don't trust the industry and they see me as the intermediary who will protect them from the Bullsh*t.

I don't know, maybe the industry has changed (in what way?), but what you described is exactly - and I mean exact textbook-description, matching perfectly - an industry that meets all the conditions and incentives necessary, for rampant fraud.

valoren · 10-08-2015 03:22PM

I wonder how many of these "Professionals" have their own money in the investment products they flaunt.

I wouldn't hand over a cent unless they could show proof of their own skin in the game so to speak.

draiochtanois · 10-08-2015 03:24PM

This post has been deleted.

jimgoose · 10-08-2015 03:25PM

Yes. My plan is to be one of those incredibly annoying ould fellas with three pensions, a couple of Mercedes's and a villa in Antibes. The prospect of having to dry my own excrement out in the yard and burn it to survive the Winter does surprisingly little for me.

valoren · 10-08-2015 03:44PM

1. Pick a low cost index tracker that tracks a major market like the S&P 500 for example or the Nasdaq. Something that will be trading in a couple of decades time.

2. Invest your pension pot into this tracker. Nice and simple just one tracker, and you know what it's invested in. Preferably a replicating one.

3. Save as much as you can afford every month.

4. Apply a very simple long term trend following principle to the index market.
e.g. the 30 week closing price average for the S&P 500 is higher than the 50 week closing price average = BUY. Sell when the 30 is below the 50 average.
Something simple like that which doesn't require you to obsessively track prices, inspect financial statements etc.

5. When it's BUY, lump ALL your pot into the tracker, when it's sell, take it out and put it in an instant access savings account. (this is the balls of having CGT Tax, not efficient for a pension, which is why we need ISA's here).

6. Wait until you get a BUY again and put the pot into the tracker again.

The key here is to take whatever you save each month as part of your pension and when you get a BUY then put it all in. Get compounding working for you.

For example you see that the S&P 500 was a buy at the start of 2012. You lumped your pot of 20k into the tracker. The s&p 500 rises 15% in 2012 and by the time you get a sell signal, at the end of 2012, you are up 10%, so 20k +2k (not assuming tax deductions for illustration).

For the year 2012, in the meantime, you saved 500e a month, so have an additional, 6k in your pension pot. The stock market is turbulent throughout 2013, you are still in SELL mode, so are not invested but your pension 'pot' of 22k is in a bank account earning interest (albeit a little).

You get a Buy signal at the start of 2014 and lump the 22k + the 6k saved in 2012 and the 6k saved throughout 2013, so you now have 34k in the pension pot.

You still save 500 per month and let the market do what it does to the tracker.

Repeat that for a lifetime and you would have a nice sum at retirement. There needs to be tax efficient means for this approach. CGT is 33%.

draiochtanois · 10-08-2015 03:48PM

This post has been deleted.

Thargor · 10-08-2015 04:16PM

valoren wrote: »

1. Pick a low cost index tracker that tracks a major market like the S&P 500 for example or the Nasdaq. Something that will be trading in a couple of decades time.

2. Invest your pension pot into this tracker. Nice and simple just one tracker, and you know what it's invested in. Preferably a replicating one.

3. Save as much as you can afford every month.

4. Apply a very simple long term trend following principle to the index market.
e.g. the 30 week closing price average for the S&P 500 is higher than the 50 week closing price average = BUY. Sell when the 30 is below the 50 average.
Something simple like that which doesn't require you to obsessively track prices, inspect financial statements etc.

5. When it's BUY, lump ALL your pot into the tracker, when it's sell, take it out and put it in an instant access savings account. (this is the balls of having CGT Tax, not efficient for a pension, which is why we need ISA's here).

6. Wait until you get a BUY again and put the pot into the tracker again.

The key here is to take whatever you save each month as part of your pension and when you get a BUY then put it all in. Get compounding working for you.

For example you see that the S&P 500 was a buy at the start of 2012. You lumped your pot of 20k into the tracker. The s&p 500 rises 15% in 2012 and by the time you get a sell signal, at the end of 2012, you are up 10%, so 20k +2k (not assuming tax deductions for illustration).

For the year 2012, in the meantime, you saved 500e a month, so have an additional, 6k in your pension pot. The stock market is turbulent throughout 2013, you are still in SELL mode, so are not invested but your pension 'pot' of 22k is in a bank account earning interest (albeit a little).

You get a Buy signal at the start of 2014 and lump the 22k + the 6k saved in 2012 and the 6k saved throughout 2013, so you now have 34k in the pension pot.

You still save 500 per month and let the market do what it does to the tracker.

Repeat that for a lifetime and you would have a nice sum at retirement. There needs to be tax efficient means for this approach. CGT is 33%.

Whoevers done all those currency conversions down the years for you every time will have built up a pretty pension pot off your sweat at the end of it aswell!

Drumpot · 10-08-2015 04:42PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I don't know, maybe the industry has changed (in what way?), but what you described is exactly - and I mean exact textbook-description, matching perfectly - an industry that meets all the conditions and incentives necessary, for rampant fraud.

People who engage in fraudulent behaviour will do so whatever the industry, how you regulate it will determine how many dodgy characters will engage in the practise. Not everybody will jump into an empty car, with its door open and keys in the ignition. In fact, I believe most people wouldn't do that and most people try to do what is the right thing in most instances. In our profession, in many cases, the dodgy characters get found out and highlighted publically, the same cant be said for pretty much most other industries, but it skewers peoples perception.

It is far harder for a small broker to justify giving certain business to certain companies. If a brokerage is audited by the central bank and cannot justify certain advice it can be fined. The minimum fine is €5,000. For a small brokerage like mine that's a significant percentage of my income that I would struggle to cover.

The motivation of a broker to take higher commissions is certainly less prevalent and the penalties are high. Brokers used to get override commissions each year from some companies depending on the amount of business given in a year, this has been outlawed. Younger people are more cynical and thorough in engaging a brokers service, so I would imagine it would be harder for a dodgy broker to maintain a sustainable business model. The best business I get is from existing customers referrals , it is not in my interest to upset my clientbase to make a quick few euros.

I believe that smaller brokers stand to lose more financially proportionate to their income, if they act in fraudulent ways.

In saying that, lets just say you get rid of commissions to brokers. People then have to pay more money for independent advice which means less access to independent advice for less people.

This means that most people will then have to take the advice from banks and big financial intuitions who are accountable to nobody and don't have the same strict regulation to that of a proportionately small brokerage.

Commissions are not ideal, but they aren't all bad either. Getting rid of them doesn't guarantee people will get better value and it certainly reduces the amount of people who will get impartial advice.

TheLastMohican · 10-08-2015 04:52PM

Ronnie Worried Workaholic wrote: »

Again, how dare you. Sanctimonious rubbish! You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about . Visits fewer and fewer??? What are you on about? Our home buzzes with our children and grandchildren. We laugh and we share our way through life in a very loving and well balanced way. Who on earth even alluded to a strict disciplinarian? Oh how wrong you are! You have some cheek to suppose otherwise. I'd love to know how such a personal attack on me has anything to do with a discussion on pension plans. And how your sick blackened imaginings have any basis in fact, or any relevance to the discussion.

This is not a personal attack. when I used the word you it was meant in the collective sense.

Yes, grown children visit the parental home less and less as they assume more responsibility in their own lives and families. Unless their upbringing had been distorted by helicopter parenting.

So, try and chill. Have a cup of chamomile tea and stop thinking that posters (who think a little different from you) are engaging in a vendetta.

Henry Kissinger was wrong (in my opinion) when he remarked, "That just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that the bastards aren't out to get you".

Shalom!

TheLastMohican · 10-08-2015 05:10PM

Barely There wrote: »

I can smell the envy off this one.

Am sorry to read that the timing of your olfactory receptors is running a little on the high side.

The Rape of Lucretia · 10-08-2015 07:04PM

jimgoose wrote: »

The prospect of having to dry my own excrement out in the yard and burn it to survive the Winter does surprisingly little for me.

Little ? It would keep you warm.

KomradeBishop · 10-08-2015 09:47PM

Drumpot wrote: »

People who engage in fraudulent behaviour will do so whatever the industry, how you regulate it will determine how many dodgy characters will engage in the practise. Not everybody will jump into an empty car, with its door open and keys in the ignition. In fact, I believe most people wouldn't do that and most people try to do what is the right thing in most instances. In our profession, in many cases, the dodgy characters get found out and highlighted publically, the same cant be said for pretty much most other industries, but it skewers peoples perception.

It is far harder for a small broker to justify giving certain business to certain companies. If a brokerage is audited by the central bank and cannot justify certain advice it can be fined. The minimum fine is €5,000. For a small brokerage like mine that's a significant percentage of my income that I would struggle to cover.

The motivation of a broker to take higher commissions is certainly less prevalent and the penalties are high. Brokers used to get override commissions each year from some companies depending on the amount of business given in a year, this has been outlawed. Younger people are more cynical and thorough in engaging a brokers service, so I would imagine it would be harder for a dodgy broker to maintain a sustainable business model. The best business I get is from existing customers referrals , it is not in my interest to upset my clientbase to make a quick few euros.

I believe that smaller brokers stand to lose more financially proportionate to their income, if they act in fraudulent ways.

In saying that, lets just say you get rid of commissions to brokers. People then have to pay more money for independent advice which means less access to independent advice for less people.

This means that most people will then have to take the advice from banks and big financial intuitions who are accountable to nobody and don't have the same strict regulation to that of a proportionately small brokerage.

Commissions are not ideal, but they aren't all bad either. Getting rid of them doesn't guarantee people will get better value and it certainly reduces the amount of people who will get impartial advice.

The financial/banking industry isn't quite famed on its high quality regulations though, is it? I'm sure all the mortgage brokers back in the 2000's all had perfectly pure morals, after all...

Dodgy characters getting 'found out and highlighted publically'?

See it can be immediately seen what is wrong with that sentence:
If you were talking about an industry that is held up to the same standards of the law as everyone else, you would have said 'found out and put in prison for a very long time' - except that wouldn't have much credibility as an argument (because it doesn't happen), and neither does the idea that such characters even get highlighted publicly.

You also talk of the central bank fining people, rather than putting them in prison - and you only state they can do that, not that they actually do ever do that on a meaningful scale. The idea of a €5000 fine is nothing, just a 'cost of doing business' fine compared to the profits to be made from fraud.

Your idea of how effective the regulator is, doesn't mesh with reality. The financial/banking industry is, quite simply, not held to the same standard of law as anyone else - how the law is enacted is what matters, and that is completely different to how the law is written; saying something is illegal, yet not investigating, prosecuting, or meting out sufficient punishment, or imprisoning people, means the law practically does not exist, apart from the token-few who are made an example of now and then, for regulators to try and maintain the 'pretence' of holding industry to the law.

Why would it be hard for a dodgy broker to maintain a sustainable business model - do you think it would be hard for them to conceal their fraudulent activities and conflicts of interest? It would be piss easy. You're assuming fraud can even get found out in the first place, except it usually happens through 'old boys networks' and other back-channel private influence-peddling groups, which are inherently difficult to investigate.

I don't agree that getting rid of commissions will have the results you state - from what I can see, the UK banned commissions without any ill effects.

Geuze · 13-08-2015 11:58PM

osarusan wrote: »

How much is the non contributory state pension?

219.

The Contributory SP is 230.30 pw.

Geuze · 14-08-2015 12:01AM

Greentopia wrote: »

And I'll look into making a PRSI contribution if I'm self employed.

It's not optional.

Geuze · 14-08-2015 12:04AM

spud_grower wrote: »

income tax does not , nor never has contributed to pension provision , only PRSI covers pensions and the level of contribution of PRSI paid by most recipients today doesn't come close to covering what is being drawn down

Note that general taxes do finance non-con State Pensions.

Geuze · 14-08-2015 12:10AM

Greentopia wrote: »

You should spend a day with a a charity like ALONE who work to ease the suffering of the 1 in 5 older people who are at risk of poverty or suffering deprivation. They are far from the group that has suffered the least during the recession. That would be the top earners.

AROP rates, CSO SILC 2013

Overall population = 15.2%

65+ = 9.2%

The over 65s have a much lower risk of suffering AROP than the general population.

Deprivation rates, 2013

Gen population = 30.5%

Over 65 = 16.1%

The over 65s experience half as much deprivation as the general population.

Geuze · 14-08-2015 12:13AM

Greentopia wrote: »

the statistics are as I've said- 1 in 5 are suffering some for of poverty or deprivation such as food or fuel poverty, and for some homelessness.

This is incorrect.

See the CSO SILC data here:

http://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/er/silc/surveyonincomeandlivingconditions2013/#.Vc0jjvlViko

Do you have a pension?

Comments