Do you have a pension?

catbear · 15-03-2016 11:49PM

Ush1 wrote: »

Just on this guys. I had paid into a company pension for a while but then switched jobs so it's just sitting there. I'm currently 31 but my life expectancy is 60-65.

Is it still worth me paying into a pension if I may not live to reap the rewards?:(

that's a toughy. I know in Australia you could access your superannuation before your retirement on medical grounds, there may be some way to do the same here.

KomradeBishop · 16-03-2016 12:10AM

AlexisM wrote: »

More made up stuff here. Reduced employer contributions mean it’s the exact opposite of a shítty time to be getting into a pension investment. If an employer doesn’t contribute, you suggest just digging in the heels and saying well I’m not investing either? Doesn’t sound like the greatest plan in the world to be honest…

Speaking of making shít up - where do you get this last bit that you then put as my words? If you can't quote it, don't present it as my word.

A preference for Defined Contribution schemes over Defined Benefit, offloads the burden of funding the pension from the employer, onto the employee - allowing a greater share of corporate profits to stay with the company.

This exactly makes it a shítty time for private pensions, because the industry is switching to plans where people get less from the company - don't know where the fúck you get the idea, that that is suggesting no pension is a good thing...

KomradeBishop · 16-03-2016 12:21AM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

The problem is that we have an ageing population with the ratio of young to old shifting towards the latter. Japan and Germany are due significant population contractions (33% and 25% by 2060 I've read) so this is something that needs addressing urgently.

This is pretty much an imaginary/scaremongering 'problem'. The tax base is spread far wider, than just income tax - and there is no sign of future productivity stalling in the economy, only increasing - there's every sign that there will be more than enough productivity increases and resources to cope with demographic changes like this.

KomradeBishop · 16-03-2016 12:25AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If you claim anything presented here is FUD, then quote it, and explain how.

You're again claiming I am trying to dissuade people from investing in private pensions - in reply to the very post where I told you the opposite; don't put words in my mouth, thanks.

The fact that people generally have no idea what their pension is investing in, and that pension investments are often tied up in companies with a poor ethical reputation, is no secret to anyone here - that is not FUD, you and others have only tried to downplay the very idea of being concerned about investments in unethical companies.

KomradeBishop · 16-03-2016 12:27AM

Thargor wrote: »

Thats not the reason you wont give any examples, the actual reason is simply that you cant.

I don't have to 'convince' you of anything Thargor - and you openly made an effort to shít-stir against me earlier, so why should I take anything further you post seriously?

KomradeBishop · 16-03-2016 12:31AM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That's your problem to solve.

One thing Apple can definitely be pinned with, along with a whole host of other prominent tech companies, is of operating a wage-fixing cartel - i.e. effectively conspiring with other companies, to hold down the wages of tech workers, something which is illegal - so yes, your gains from such investments have been buffed at the expense of tech workers.

Here's a start: How about not investing in companies, that do things which are outright illegal? That a good start?

KomradeBishop · 16-03-2016 12:33AM

Ronnie Worried Workaholic wrote: »

...any advice to not take out a pension, or even invest where returns can actually be gained, is ill founded, malevolent and spiteful.

And is fictional advice, if applied to me.

Note how posters are making an effort to outright smear me, with arguments I haven't made.

AlexisM · 16-03-2016 12:39AM

You have switched from:

KomradeBishop wrote: »

So, it's a shítty time to be getting into pension investments

To:

KomradeBishop wrote: »

This exactly makes it a shítty time for private pensions,

There is a massive distinction between these two statements.

Certainly private pensions provided by employers are generally worse now than say 30 years ago when large employers provided excellent DB schemes. That doesn't make it a shítty time now for pension investment.

'Times' are no shíttier now than in the past for pension investment - there's still full tax relief and pension investments roll up gross of tax. In a lot of ways times are less shítty now as there is much more awareness of charges and the importance of minimising fees, maximising allocations etc. Having one's own account (whether a PRSA, executive pension or DC scheme) also reduces the risk of anyone (other than the government) making off with your pension investment.

It is more imperative now that people take responsibility for their own pension investments or they will be facing lean years in retirement.

dasdog · 16-03-2016 01:18AM

I was going to start one last year but thankfully held out and will do so until the current bull cycle we are in completes. I'm looking at commodity indices and the Yen as a barometer and roughly anticipate Autumn 2016 for the correction to take hold. I'd rather miss out a small percentage gain than be in a position to be able to short equities on the way down and cheer lead on the correction.

The J Stands for Jay · 16-03-2016 01:22AM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Every. Single. Argument. here, applies equally to private pensions. Every one.

By the same measure of everything you've said here, if taken as true, then private pensions are even more fúcked than public pensions...

Your history of anti-government scaremongering, makes your arguments against public pension funds a "well, you would say that anyway..." type situation, where none of it can really be taken as true.

Fact is as well, unless you consider government finances as being permanently stagnant into the future, those arguments don't hold any water - such very-long-term predictions/speculations, are quite fanciful.

So, there not being enough people paying Irish tax to pay for the state pension will fu©k up the pension invested in US equities? Just not seeing the link there.

16-03-2016 01:33AM

dasdog wrote: »

I was going to start one last year but thankfully held out and will do so until the current bull cycle we are in completes. I'm looking at commodity indices and the Yen as a barometer and roughly anticipate Autumn 2016 for the correction to take hold. I'd rather miss out a small percentage gain than be in a position to be able to short equities on the way down and cheer lead on the correction.

Well, don't forget that you can still make a contribution in respect of last year. You'll just have to claim the relief on it yourself.

Get it in before the end of October to avoid disappointment...middle of November if you're using the Revene online service.

KomradeBishop · 16-03-2016 01:34AM

AlexisM wrote: »

You have switched from:
To:
There is a massive distinction between these two statements.

Certainly private pensions provided by employers are generally worse now than say 30 years ago when large employers provided excellent DB schemes. That doesn't make it a shítty time now for pension investment.

'Times' are no shíttier now than in the past for pension investment - there's still full tax relief and pension investments roll up gross of tax. In a lot of ways times are less shítty now as there is much more awareness of charges and the importance of minimising fees, maximising allocations etc. Having one's own account (whether a PRSA, executive pension or DC scheme) also reduces the risk of anyone (other than the government) making off with your pension investment.

It is more imperative now that people take responsibility for their own pension investments or they will be facing lean years in retirement.

I was talking about DB vs DC schemes from the beginning there.

There are no two ways about it: The transition from DB to DC, is a greater transfer of money away from employees, and back to corporate coffers - this does make it a shíttier time for pension investments (and I don't care about nitpicking over terms - since I made clear I'm talking about DB vs DC, that should preclude any such nitpicking).

Pensions are not what they used to be, and Defined Contribution pensions are - for a large portion of the population - inadequate. Especially given the prevalence of high unemployment, stagnant wages and increased costs of living.

That's not saying they should be done without - it's saying that Corporate Profits that used to go to workers in a greater share, through Defined Benefit schemes, now instead stay in company coffers, due to the replacement of such schemes with Defined Contribution.

In effect, it's a transfer of not just financing pensions from employers to workers, but a transfer of responsibility away from employers and onto workers - and then it's a means of blaming workers, when economic conditions (high unemployment etc.) lead to inadequate retirement savings.

This doesn't mean that workers should go without pensions, it means that there is far less certainty for workers, and that placing the sole responsibility on them (when many can be caught out by economic conditions), is disingenuous - hence the need for a strong public pension safety net.

The J Stands for Jay · 16-03-2016 01:37AM

mahoganygas wrote: »

A provider will usually give you a choice of 3 or more, each with a higher risk profile. You can sink it all into a cash and bond fund, or spread it out across a few different risk profiles.

Most advise front loading the equity funds in your 20's then gradually move more and more into the cash/bond funds as you approach retirement.

Your last few years before retiring should be virtually risk free. Very safe bonds. You don't want any last minute market shocks (2008 recession) to wipe out much/all of your gains over the years.

Only 3 funds? That wouldn't even allow you to chose between equities, cash, bonds and property to give you a proper asset allocation.

The J Stands for Jay · 16-03-2016 01:38AM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Speaking of making shít up - where do you get this last bit that you then put as my words? If you can't quote it, don't present it as my word.

A preference for Defined Contribution schemes over Defined Benefit, offloads the burden of funding the pension from the employer, onto the employee - allowing a greater share of corporate profits to stay with the company.

This exactly makes it a shítty time for private pensions, because the industry is switching to plans where people get less from the company - don't know where the fúck you get the idea, that that is suggesting no pension is a good thing...

It hasn't offloaded the burden of funding the pension, it's offloaded the investment risk.

KomradeBishop · 16-03-2016 02:33AM

McGaggs wrote: »

It hasn't offloaded the burden of funding the pension, it's offloaded the investment risk.

It has offloaded the burden of funding the pension - if you live a long time, you potentially run out of money with DC - not so with DB.

Junkyard Tom · 16-03-2016 04:09AM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Older people cost the state money.

*grinds teeth*

There's an army of older people holding the state together by looking after the kids of the celtic pyramid while their parents pick up the tab for failed property speculators, failed banksters, failed politicians, and a failed economic system.

Would you like to factor those costs into your Homo Economicus informed views?

Don't bother, you'll only start digging yourself down further.

Ush1 · 16-03-2016 09:35AM

catbear wrote: »

that's a toughy. I know in Australia you could access your superannuation before your retirement on medical grounds, there may be some way to do the same here.

I think there is something similar here after looking it up, cheers.

Refor1981 · 16-03-2016 09:38AM

Yep, 7% of my salary which my employer matches goes to Pension. Even better up to a certain extent you can claim it off tax!

I actually went to my employer's Pension provider to switch to a slightly different Pension fund as the lady I spoke to told me I was the only employee who had ever called up about this .. so it seems that of those people who do sign up for a Pension scheme, they simply assume that the funds selected by their employer are the best ones.. it's a shame people don't take more of an interest in this!

Permabear · 16-03-2016 09:45AM

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 16-03-2016 10:32AM

This post has been deleted.

ancapailldorcha · 16-03-2016 10:36AM

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

*grinds teeth*

There's an army of older people holding the state together by looking after the kids of the celtic pyramid while their parents pick up the tab for failed property speculators, failed banksters, failed politicians, and a failed economic system.

Would you like to factor those costs into your Homo Economicus informed views?

Don't bother, you'll only start digging yourself down further.

Oh dear. Maybe ditch the hyperbole.

None of this refutes anything I said. These people are still claiming the state pension and, as time goes on are going to cost significantly more. The concomitant costs will have to be paid by the middle aged as they'll be paying more tax than young people. Unless... are they eschewing their pensions in favour of getting paid for this childcare? If there is an army as you claim, with no substantiating figures I might add then this would be a massive saving.

KomradeBishop · 16-03-2016 12:14PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So you're denying that Apple have been engaging in an illegal wage-fixing cartel then - you think this is some kind of left-wing 'conspiracy theory' yes?

Did you even bother your hole Googling this?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ah, now we get to the heart of it: You don't care about companies illegal acts, so long as you profit from them.

If you want to claim that all companies have knowingly (and emphasis on knowingly, so you don't get to go 'reductio ad absurdum' on this) committed illegal acts, then you have quite a challenge to go about proving your point.

Again: The burden of proof is on you. I'm not accepting your and others attempts, to shift the burden of proof, by asking me what companies to invest in - where you carry an implicit statement in that question (that there are no ethical companies), that you don't want to bear the burden of proof on - not going to bite that bait, especially given that it is a red herring which does nothing to back any of your arguments.

mahoganygas · 16-03-2016 12:19PM

I might start keeping count how many times the good Komrade has dodged this question.

Permabear · 16-03-2016 12:37PM

This post has been deleted.

KomradeBishop · 16-03-2016 12:43PM

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Man you really make a blatant effort to cherry-pick the stats in ridiculous ways - like that figure you gave earlier, of people getting 10% returns on their pension over 45 years - providing a 20x return on pension? The usual fantasyland spin (when for Irish people on average, it was more like ~6% over ~28 years - providing <3x return).

Here you tout the €98 billion figure, to try and make the pensions look unsustainable, except you conveniently leave out the timescale that this will be paid out over:
"The pension payments to discharge this liability will be spread over the next 70 years or so."

So, €98 billion over 70 years...count in GDP growth and associated growth in tax intake (which over 70 years will be massive), as well as inflation...what exact problem is there again?

Permabear wrote: »

Moreover, there are serious deficits in many of Ireland's defined benefit pension schemes. Of the 26 companies analyzed by LCP Ireland in its Accounting for Pensions 2015 report, which looked at some of the largest private, state-controlled, and semi-state companies, only one was found to have enough assets to meet its pension liabilities. Many others are in serious trouble. For instance, AIB has a deficit of €1.06 billion, Bank of Ireland has a deficit of €986 million, and CIE has a deficit of €702 million.

The EU's 2015 Aging Report: Economic and budgetary projections for the 28 EU Member States (2013-2060) and the IORPs Stress Test Report 2015 underline the serious demographic challenges that Europe faces, as well as the vulnerability of its pension schemes to market shocks.

Dismissing all of this as an "an imaginary/scaremongering 'problem'" is simply deluded. There's no other word for it.

Yes the private Defined Benefit schemes are the primary thing affected by the 'pension timebomb' argument - and the state-owned DB schemes are the only ones that can (don't chop up my sentence here for 'quote mining' purposes...quote full sentences...) stay sustainable in the long run, even if their internal finances become unsustainable, given that they can be backed with state funding.

Private DB schemes are the ones that run into trouble with no other method of financing, when a companies own finances are in trouble - except even for companies whose finances aren't in trouble, even they are getting rid of Defined Benefit schemes, because they found out that they can save on Corporate Profits by offloading shíttier Defined Contribution schemes onto workers, which provide less retirement security (if the funds run out due to living too long), and shift much of the risk and financing away from the employer and onto the workers.

That's why first of all, a solid state pension is extremely important, as neither DB or DC schemes provide a solid guarantee of a secure retirement - depends on financial stability in former case, depends on lifespan in latter case.

Second of all, companies should be providing a mix of both DB and DC schemes (primarily DB, supplemented by DC) - that is how things originally were in the US, from what I've read - so that workers are provided for better (DB providing a greater share of Corporate Profit to workers, no retirement longevity risk), without company finances risking all of the pension (DC less subject to company finance risk - and so long as not invested in bloated high-fee/'financially-innovative-i.e.-hidden-risk' funds, should be more solid).

Chips Lovell · 16-03-2016 12:43PM

Sometimes it's OK to say: "I don't know" or "I was wrong". It's far better than digging in.

KomradeBishop · 16-03-2016 12:44PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Oh dear. Maybe ditch the hyperbole.

None of this refutes anything I said. These people are still claiming the state pension and, as time goes on are going to cost significantly more. The concomitant costs will have to be paid by the middle aged as they'll be paying more tax than young people. Unless... are they eschewing their pensions in favour of getting paid for this childcare? If there is an army as you claim, with no substantiating figures I might add then this would be a massive saving.

Again you seem to be looking exclusively at income tax? (if not, what taxes are you considering?) There are more taxes than income tax you know.

jimgoose · 16-03-2016 12:44PM

hmmm wrote: »

I suspect to Komrade all companies are unethical, and we should be placing reliance on the state to fund our retirement - the state in turn will invest in agricultural collectives and mobilising the working class in a state of permanent proletarian revolution.

Hear-hear. War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. VAT is Not Included. :pac:

ancapailldorcha · 16-03-2016 12:46PM

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Again you seem to be looking exclusively at income tax? (if not, what taxes are you considering?) There are more taxes than income tax you know.

I... never mentioned income tax. How have you come up with this?

KomradeBishop · 16-03-2016 12:50PM

mahoganygas wrote: »

I might start keeping count how many times the good Komrade has dodged this question.

See this is the entire point of the question: You and other posters know it is a red herring, except you are using it exclusively as a rhetorical tool.

It's one of the most regular rhetorical tricks that posters use: Ask a question which doesn't have a direct relevance to the argument at hand, or where the question contains an implicit statement (in this case, that there are no ethical companies), so that the burden of proof can be shifted onto the person answering the question.

Then, when the question goes unanswered, forever spend the rest of the discussion making a rhetorical dance around the question, to try and attack the credibility of the persons arguments (for not answering a red herring...).

It's a more subtle way of trying to attack the poster rather than their arguments.

Instead of you and others trying to hide behind a question, to make an implicit statement - that there are no ethical companies - why don't you collectively just stop pissing around, and make the statement explicitly, and accept that the burden of proof for that statement lies on you.

Anyone can see, that that is the purpose of the question - to push that implicit statement. So just own that, and make that argument, and back it up - instead of making this stupid rhetorical play, to shift the burden of proof.

Do you have a pension?

Comments