The push for pension age 67 and beyond is on again!

Olli Rehn

Member
Nov 27, 2018
125
56
En Garde
The Pension Commission created by the government last autumn to find solutions to finance our troubled contributory pension system failed to deliver recommendations on time. It was supposed to hand in the final papers on the 30th of June.

You find the Pension Commission here:
Pensions Commission

www.gov.ie

Work done so far is here:
The Commission's Work

www.gov.ie
Check out "minutes"- it gives you some rough ideas.

The PC will hand in their final report in a few weeks time:
Report examining qualifying age for State pension delayed
Promises on issue became a key election debate with planned rise to 67 deferred by Coalition
www.irishtimes.com

The government is supposed to act on the recommendations within 6 months.

A lot of stuff about the contributory pension system can be found here- the devil is in the detail. Take also note of the proposed change from the current average calculation system to TCA. For some people this means a big drop in their future pension entitlements:
State Pension (Contributory)
The State Pension (Contributory), previously called the Old Age (Contributory) Pension, is payable to people aged 66 and over who have worked and paid enough social insurance contributions.
www.citizensinformation.ie
State Pension (Contributory)
A social insurance benefit which you may qualify for when you reach a certain age.
www.gov.ie

I noticed an article in the "Irish Mirror"today which looks like a kite-flying exercise:
Pensions advisors believe State pension age change to 67 and 68 inevitable
The current qualifying age for all State pensions is 66 but that could change in the near future
www.irishmirror.ie



I'd say a change of the pension age to 67 in the near future will hand Sinn Fein great opportunities in the next General Election!
 

Norman Bates

You thought I was nice...
Member
Dec 10, 2018
6,430
6,024
DublinBayS
The Pension Commission created by the government last autumn to find solutions to finance our troubled contributory pension system failed to deliver recommendations on time. It was supposed to hand in the final papers on the 30th of June.

You find the Pension Commission here:
Pensions Commission

www.gov.ie

Work done so far is here:
The Commission's Work

www.gov.ie
Check out "minutes"- it gives you some rough ideas.

The PC will hand in their final report in a few weeks time:
Report examining qualifying age for State pension delayed
Promises on issue became a key election debate with planned rise to 67 deferred by Coalition
www.irishtimes.com

The government is supposed to act on the recommendations within 6 months.

A lot of stuff about the contributory pension system can be found here- the devil is in the detail. Take also note of the proposed change from the current average calculation system to TCA. For some people this means a big drop in their future pension entitlements:
State Pension (Contributory)
The State Pension (Contributory), previously called the Old Age (Contributory) Pension, is payable to people aged 66 and over who have worked and paid enough social insurance contributions.
www.citizensinformation.ie
State Pension (Contributory)
A social insurance benefit which you may qualify for when you reach a certain age.
www.gov.ie

I noticed an article in the "Irish Mirror"today which looks like a kite-flying exercise:
Pensions advisors believe State pension age change to 67 and 68 inevitable
The current qualifying age for all State pensions is 66 but that could change in the near future
www.irishmirror.ie



I'd say a change of the pension age to 67 in the near future will hand Sinn Fein great opportunities in the next General Election!
Probably, but think it will have to go to retirement at 70 at some stage in the not too distant future. They might as well put that into their forward planning.
 

hollandia

Literally knows shit
Staff member
Moderator
Member
Probably, but think it will have to go to retirement at 70 at some stage in the not too distant future. They might as well put that into their forward planning.
Probably, however, I imagine voters in their late fifties - early sixties looking forward to retirement will say "not my problem successive governments failed to ringfence social security payments"
 

Statsman

The nice one, or so it seemed.
Staff member
Moderator
Member
Nov 28, 2018
9,619
10,380
A quiet retirement home
I have no intention of retiring anytime soon. I think I might die of boredom if I did.
 

Gatsbygirl20

Member
Dec 2, 2018
8,750
12,513
I have no intention of retiring anytime soon. I think I might die of boredom if I did.
I guess it depends on what you work at.

If you were a hod carrier on a building site or a canteen worker on your feet all day and lifting heavy cauldrons of hot food....and you had been working and paying PRSI since you were 16 or 17 years of age, as was not unusual for many of those now in their mid sixties...

Well, you would probably feel that you have contributed enough, and that you have a right to rest those aching and arthritic joints, while drawing a very modest state pension.
 

Gatsbygirl20

Member
Dec 2, 2018
8,750
12,513
I can tell you building and construction workers struggle from about 60 onwards, it is exploitation to expect a 65 plus year old to work on building sites.
And consider that most of us started on sites at 16 or less.
The very point I made

Hard physical work starts to become very, very difficult after 60. And the body starts to show damage.

We treat the real, hard workers in our society really badly---those who don't have the option of working from home, or sitting down for a few hours---but who have to show up every day for nearly 45 years, and earn their bread by the sweat of their brow.
 

Derryman

Member
Feb 17, 2019
5,917
6,482
Derry
The very point I made

Hard physical work starts to become very, very difficult after 60. And the body starts to show damage.

We treat the real, hard workers in our society really badly---those who don't have the option of working from home, or sitting down for a few hours---but who have to show up every day for nearly 45 years, and earn their bread by the sweat of their brow.

Thank you, we do feel very much underappreciated. Like our work is less valuable because it is believed any thicko could do it.
But it is not like that at all, it takes years to develop the skill and strengths to do it.
I sometimes wonder how many people can take shelter ,rest and recreation in a warm safe environment, because of the 50 plus years of work I have done.
 

Gatsbygirl20

Member
Dec 2, 2018
8,750
12,513
Thank you, we do feel very much underappreciated. Like our work is less valuable because it is believed any thicko could do it.
But it is not like that at all, it takes years to develop the skill and strengths to do it.
I sometimes wonder how many people can take shelter ,rest and recreation in a warm safe environment, because of the 50 plus years of work I have done.
I feel passionately about this . My own brother in his sixties is still working in construction. He is a very skilled, inrelligent guy with a great work ethic, but he has to commute and stay in a house share Monday to Thursday with young, unvaccinated guys who don't give a hoot about safety or social distance. He has worked throughout the pandemic in a multi-national doing construction for them.

. His wife has an underlying condition. He was the last of our family to be fully vaccinated, and got his second AZ only last week

The people who are implementing these decisions around pension age, can themselves retire early on good pensions.
 

Norman Bates

You thought I was nice...
Member
Dec 10, 2018
6,430
6,024
DublinBayS
I feel passionately about this . My own brother in his sixties is still working in construction. He is a very skilled, inrelligent guy with a great work ethic, but he has to commute and stay in a house share Monday to Thursday with young, unvaccinated guys who don't give a hoot about safety or social distance. He has worked throughout the pandemic in a multi-national doing construction for them.

. His wife has an underlying condition. He was the last of our family to be fully vaccinated, and got his second AZ only last week

The people who are implementing these decisions around pension age, can themselves retire early on good pensions.
Who did you say was going to pay for it?
 

CarlDoyle

Member
Feb 10, 2021
201
129
At the end of the day, the system assumes that a certain number of people die before they hit retirement.

Demographics have changed and people are living longer. This inherently puts a stain on the system.

The options may be to keep the system going at the current rate until it collapses, or make changes to allow it keep going for long.

Once the dependency ratio gets high enough, the younger generation will likely simply refuse to participate.

Remember, when you make payments, you aren't paying for your pension, you are paying for the previous generation's pensions.

Why would young people pay in to pay for the current pensions, when they can see the writing on the wall. The know that there will be no pension when they hit retirement.

The pension system can be a ponzi scheme. The last group of people to pay in are the ones who lose out.

It doesn't have to be that way, but that requires balancing the amount paid in with the amount paid out, one way or another.
 

Norman Bates

You thought I was nice...
Member
Dec 10, 2018
6,430
6,024
DublinBayS
At the end of the day, the system assumes that a certain number of people die before they hit retirement.

Demographics have changed and people are living longer. This inherently puts a stain on the system.

The options may be to keep the system going at the current rate until it collapses, or make changes to allow it keep going for long.

Once the dependency ratio gets high enough, the younger generation will likely simply refuse to participate.

Remember, when you make payments, you aren't paying for your pension, you are paying for the previous generation's pensions.

Why would young people pay in to pay for the current pensions, when they can see the writing on the wall. The know that there will be no pension when they hit retirement.

The pension system can be a ponzi scheme. The last group of people to pay in are the ones who lose out.

It doesn't have to be that way, but that requires balancing the amount paid in with the amount paid out, one way or another.
Do you mean something like a Pension Tax to pay for your future pension,?
 

Gatsbygirl20

Member
Dec 2, 2018
8,750
12,513
Who did you say was going to pay for it?
We will all have to pay for it

Those of us with very good pensions in the PS will have to make do with less

We seem to have money to throw at everything, except when it comes to the people who do real work and who have been responding to that 6 am alarm for 45 years, and who come home at night with every muscle aching, and who get few sick days or perks

So much for looking after the people who get up early in the morning.
 

CarlDoyle

Member
Feb 10, 2021
201
129
Do you mean something like a Pension Tax to pay for your future pension,?
The amount going into the system has to be increased one way or another. Increasing the pension age as life expectancy increases isn't necessarily the best way to do it.

The advantage of increasing the retirement age is that it increases the funds going in, and decreases the number of years that payments are made. To get the equivalent effect with a pension levy would be a larger effect.

Exceptions for physical jobs seems reasonable, but that could easily lead to a flood of exceptions and then you are back to where you started.
 

Norman Bates

You thought I was nice...
Member
Dec 10, 2018
6,430
6,024
DublinBayS
We will all have to pay for it

Those of us with very good pensions in the PS will have to make do with less

We seem to have money to throw at everything, except when it comes to the people who do real work and who have been responding to that 6 am alarm for 45 years, and who come home at night with every muscle aching, and who get few sick days or perks

So much for looking after the people who get up early in the morning.
You are right, of course, we will all have to pay for it. But do you think that would be acceptable ? Or would you just get a chorus of not me, nor me ...
 
Last edited:

Derryman

Member
Feb 17, 2019
5,917
6,482
Derry
The pension problem was created by failure of successive governments to address the obvious.
Superannuation schemes could and should have been introduced 20 or 30 years ago.
Builders and developers have been given free rides and tax breaks to the detriment of the worker on site.
Australia and New Zealand introduced compulsory Superannuation schemes 30 plus years ago.
The employee made a small compulsory donation and the employer made a further compulsory donation of 2 or 3 times that into the scheme.
These accounts are managed in order to give maximum return.
Public Servants Inc politicians have had similar in place for multiple decades .
 

Franzoni

Member
Nov 28, 2018
4,040
5,248
Haven't got the time now as i'm on my way out the door as one of the people who get up early but some great points made already by posters.......i'll read the links in the OP later on this evening.........

Working on the new hospital site now and from the app on my phone i'm putting in between 14-21 thousand steps a day depending ......while i can understand where the Statsman is coming from about boredom walking up and down stairs i might be willing but my knees are starting to do an 'Ulster says No' routine on a more regular basis... .. :)

As per OR's remarks in the OP .....i'd say the government parties are playing with fire here with people of a certain age who vote and not just talk about it in the pub......
 

Derryman

Member
Feb 17, 2019
5,917
6,482
Derry
Haven't got the time now as i'm on my way out the door as one of the people who get up early but some great points made already by posters.......i'll read the links in the OP later on this evening.........

Working on the new hospital site now and from the app on my phone i'm putting in between 14-21 thousand steps a day depending ......while i can understand where the Statsman is coming from about boredom walking up and down stairs i might be willing but my knees are starting to do an 'Ulster says No' routine on a more regular basis... .. :)

As per OR's remarks in the OP .....i'd say the government parties are playing with fire here with people of a certain age who vote and not just talk about it in the pub......
Yep here am I also. In my 66th year getting up at 5AM to travel 1.5 hrs to a job that I will probably spend 5 hrs on my knees and 3 or 4 more lifting and lugging heavy panels and boards into place so as I can punish every other muscle in my body .
And hopefully be home before 7 tonight.
But I do love it, it's just the body can't cope as it did before.
 
Nov 29, 2018
6,305
5,625
I feel passionately about this . My own brother in his sixties is still working in construction. He is a very skilled, inrelligent guy with a great work ethic, but he has to commute and stay in a house share Monday to Thursday with young, unvaccinated guys who don't give a hoot about safety or social distance. He has worked throughout the pandemic in a multi-national doing construction for them.

. His wife has an underlying condition. He was the last of our family to be fully vaccinated, and got his second AZ only last week

The people who are implementing these decisions around pension age, can themselves retire early on good pensions.
Long past time that the politicians and their advisors had to personally feel the impact of their decisions. Perhaps a reduction in their pensions, an increase in age eligibility and the same number of contributions, as those for the state old age pension. Joan Burton changed the rules in a way that left many with a pittance but sailed off into the sunset with multiple taxpayer funded pensions.
 
Nov 29, 2018
6,305
5,625
The amount going into the system has to be increased one way or another. Increasing the pension age as life expectancy increases isn't necessarily the best way to do it.

The advantage of increasing the retirement age is that it increases the funds going in, and decreases the number of years that payments are made. To get the equivalent effect with a pension levy would be a larger effect.

Exceptions for physical jobs seems reasonable, but that could easily lead to a flood of exceptions and then you are back to where you started.
However, the legislation has not caught up with the changes. When the age was increased, the government failed to introduce legislation, as was done in other countries, to deal with mandatory retirement at 65 per employment contracts and to make provision for those who worked past retirement age to defer their pensions and/ or continue to make contributions to ensure that they had sufficient for a full contributory pension.

In the UK and the US, if you defer you receive an enhanced pension. In Ireland those whose employers enforced the retirement age of 65 were forced to suffer the indignity if signing on and being "available for work". At present that is for one year, will this indignity be extended for two plus years?
 

snorlax

Member
Dec 11, 2019
1,969
1,907
Long past time that the politicians and their advisors had to personally feel the impact of their decisions. Perhaps a reduction in their pensions, an increase in age eligibility and the same number of contributions, as those for the state old age pension. Joan Burton changed the rules in a way that left many with a pittance but sailed off into the sunset with multiple taxpayer funded pensions.
I think that politics is now seen by many who get into it as a money making scheme in which you do whatever it takes in order to a) get elected and b) get into government/onto committees etc. Once you're in you renege on any commitments you've made and vote for whatever the government tells you to vote for, no matter how appalling and detrimental to the country as you have to keep your positions for a few years before all your pensions and perks kick in.

The Greens and FF are a great example of this in this government and Labour did the same thing last time around. The obscene levels of pay and perks that Irish politicians have awarded themselves has led to this corruption in the poiltical process.
 

snorlax

Member
Dec 11, 2019
1,969
1,907
The pension problem was created by failure of successive governments to address the obvious.
Superannuation schemes could and should have been introduced 20 or 30 years ago.
Builders and developers have been given free rides and tax breaks to the detriment of the worker on site.
Australia and New Zealand introduced compulsory Superannuation schemes 30 plus years ago.
The employee made a small compulsory donation and the employer made a further compulsory donation of 2 or 3 times that into the scheme.
These accounts are managed in order to give maximum return.
Public Servants Inc politicians have had similar in place for multiple decades .
We constantly hear the likes of FG etc. moaning about the dearth of tradespeople and how everyone wants to to to college. One reason for this is that trades are not seen as secure professions and many people were badly burned after the last downturn. FG FF and Labour have managed to make trades into precarious careers, and they'd like to do the same with all other jobs going forward.
 

T. Leaf

Member
Nov 28, 2018
2,015
1,525
At the end of the day, the system assumes that a certain number of people die before they hit retirement.

Demographics have changed and people are living longer. This inherently puts a stain on the system.

The options may be to keep the system going at the current rate until it collapses, or make changes to allow it keep going for long.

Once the dependency ratio gets high enough, the younger generation will likely simply refuse to participate.

Remember, when you make payments, you aren't paying for your pension, you are paying for the previous generation's pensions.

Why would young people pay in to pay for the current pensions, when they can see the writing on the wall. The know that there will be no pension when they hit retirement.

The pension system can be a ponzi scheme. The last group of people to pay in are the ones who lose out.

It doesn't have to be that way, but that requires balancing the amount paid in with the amount paid out, one way or another.
How very selfish of poor people not to die as soon as they reach pension age. Of course they should be scrapped like old cars and their still working parts used to replace the non-working parts of the wealthy.
 
Nov 27, 2018
4,639
6,190
How very selfish of poor people not to die as soon as they reach pension age. Of course they should be scrapped like old cars and their still working parts used to replace the non-working parts of the wealthy.
Soylent Green. Solves so many of society’s small annoyances.

Get more people smoking too. It’s a win/win.
 

Statsman

The nice one, or so it seemed.
Staff member
Moderator
Member
Nov 28, 2018
9,619
10,380
A quiet retirement home

CarlDoyle

Member
Feb 10, 2021
201
129
How very selfish of poor people not to die as soon as they reach pension age. Of course they should be scrapped like old cars and their still working parts used to replace the non-working parts of the wealthy.
People living longer is a good thing, obviously. It has an effect on pension scheme sustainability though. Good things can have some downsides.

Sustainable pensions are about making sure the money going into the scheme matches the benefits paid out.

This has to be worked out over an entire lifetime.

Unsustainable pension schemes means later participants lose out relative to earlier participants.

Paying unsustainable benefits means that by the time later people retire all the money is gone. That is also unfair.

Younger people should be demanding sustainable pensions, so there are funds available when they retire.
 

T. Leaf

Member
Nov 28, 2018
2,015
1,525
People living longer is a good thing, obviously. It has an effect on pension scheme sustainability though. Good things can have some downsides.

Sustainable pensions are about making sure the money going into the scheme matches the benefits paid out.

This has to be worked out over an entire lifetime.

Unsustainable pension schemes means later participants lose out relative to earlier participants.

Paying unsustainable benefits means that by the time later people retire all the money is gone. That is also unfair.

Younger people should be demanding sustainable pensions, so there are funds available when they retire.
Thanks for your calm reply to a piece of sarcasm. I have just received a warning from a mod, so I though, perhaps, I had been personal to you in some way. I wasn’t told what the offending post was, but I presume it was that one. I think it would be helpful if the moderators at least gave the number of the offending post so that posters could check what the problem might be. At the moment I am in the dark.

Anyway to address your own post:

Pensions should, of course, be sustainable. How this might be done in order that people can live on them, is another question. Money collected through taxation is what runs any country. A country does not just pay its executives; part of the reason for its existence is that it provided vital services for its citizens, which would be mainly health and pensions. The question here is how that tax is to be raised. Some people want to tax lots of different thing, hoping that by keeping those taxes at a lower rate people will be fooled into believing that it is a low-tax country. I am of the opinion that there should be just one tax – something like VAT – a tax on commercial transactions which is something everyone has to pay when they buy even a loaf a bread. This would indeed be a fairer, more transparent tax, although I realize it would have to be increased if all other taxes were abandoned.
 

T. Leaf

Member
Nov 28, 2018
2,015
1,525
Thanks for your calm reply to a piece of sarcasm. I have just received a warning from a mod, so I though, perhaps, I had been personal to you in some way. I wasn’t told what the offending post was, but I presume it was that one. I think it would be helpful if the moderators at least gave the number of the offending post so that posters could check what the problem might be. At the moment I am in the dark.

Anyway to address your own post:

Pensions should, of course, be sustainable. How this might be done in order that people can live on them, is another question. Money collected through taxation is what runs any country. A country does not just pay its executives; part of the reason for its existence is that it provided vital services for its citizens, which would be mainly health and pensions. The question here is how that tax is to be raised. Some people want to tax lots of different thing, hoping that by keeping those taxes at a lower rate people will be fooled into believing that it is a low-tax country. I am of the opinion that there should be just one tax – something like VAT – a tax on commercial transactions which is something everyone has to pay when they buy even a loaf a bread. This would indeed be a fairer, more transparent tax, although I realize it would have to be increased if all other taxes were abandoned.
I've looked at the mods letter again and it was for introducing politics into the sports thread. It was quite inadvertent as I was simply referring to a post of a headline in the sun and one of the replies to the tread in which it was embedded. My reply was scooped almost before it had touched the page! Those mods are razor-sharp.
 
Nov 27, 2018
4,639
6,190
I've looked at the mods letter again and it was for introducing politics into the sports thread. It was quite inadvertent as I was simply referring to a post of a headline in the sun and one of the replies to the tread in which it was embedded. My reply was scooped almost before it had touched the page! Those mods are razor-sharp.
Fair play to you for pointing out the reason given rather than fuming.
 

Gatsbygirl20

Member
Dec 2, 2018
8,750
12,513
People living longer is a good thing, obviously. It has an effect on pension scheme sustainability though. Good things can have some downsides.

Sustainable pensions are about making sure the money going into the scheme matches the benefits paid out.

This has to be worked out over an entire lifetime.

Unsustainable pension schemes means later participants lose out relative to earlier participants.

Paying unsustainable benefits means that by the time later people retire all the money is gone. That is also unfair.

Younger people should be demanding sustainable pensions, so there are funds available when they retire.
But when I started teaching, everyone was saying that the pension is unsustainable, and that we young folk were paying for the oldies, but we ourselves would get no pension

The teachers' pension was voluntary then, and a colleague of mine who had inherited a house decided he would use that as a pension

He said he was not going to enrol in the teachers' pension scheme, because after a lifetime of contributions there would be no money in the State for pensions.

So that has been going on for a long time.

It seems to me disgraceful that somebody in a tough physical job who has being paying contributions for nearly 50 years cannot retire in their mid sixties

There should also be a system , like in the PS where people have the option over their working life to buy private AVCs to top up their pension, if they have the means

My PS pension was in a mess (long story) so I bought AVCs over my working life to try to bring it up to some sustainable level.

Funding these AVCs, along with paying mortgage and childcare, etc, was quite tough---but it was a choice I made, so that I could have a pension I could live on eventually.

This option should be available to private sector workers too.
 
May 21, 2021
58
85
The housing crisis won't be sorted for another 15 years in the greatest of likelihood, so anyone around 40 right now will still be renting by 55 by which stage it'll be impossible to get a mortgage...so, we might as well get rid of the illusions of retirement. We can return to the Victorian era of capitalism before the pension was even introduced, but now we can wrap things up in nice cliches such as: Housing as a service, Food as a service, Work as a service, etc etc where all things are metered out by the second using technology. Oliver twist and the little matchstick girl, but seeing as they can now have mobile phones we can feel better about pervasive poverty in our time.
 

Statsman

The nice one, or so it seemed.
Staff member
Moderator
Member
Nov 28, 2018
9,619
10,380
A quiet retirement home
The housing crisis won't be sorted for another 15 years in the greatest of likelihood, so anyone around 40 right now will still be renting by 55 by which stage it'll be impossible to get a mortgage...so, we might as well get rid of the illusions of retirement. We can return to the Victorian era of capitalism before the pension was even introduced, but now we can wrap things up in nice cliches such as: Housing as a service, Food as a service, Work as a service, etc etc where all things are metered out by the second using technology. Oliver twist and the little matchstick girl, but seeing as they can now have mobile phones we can feel better about pervasive poverty in our time.
You mean they're going to build all those houses in 2036?
 
Top Bottom