The government aka the taxpayer. Up to €280M cost.Have you a link?
Does it say where the pensions are to be paid from?
No doubt they'll just levy a charge on owners and prospective owners of DB pensions. That'd be fair.The government aka the taxpayer. Up to €280M cost.
The case has been sent back to the High Court here to decide what % should be point; I suspect your comparison will be one of the things taken into account: it is not reasonable to expect 100% cover for an insolvent company when other 'solvent but badly funded' schemes are taking % reductions. There was a similar case taken by a UK woman (referenced in the article) - she won a case that 49% cover was not sufficient so I guess our High Court has to decide what % between 49% and 100% is appropriate.In a way, pensioners in insolvent companies may now be better off than those in underfunded schemes which are closed. They have no legal protection whatever.
In the De Beers/Element Six case, losses were up to 60%
Really? You think unions care about anyone but their members? (And in fairness, they are only there to represent their members and should make no apology for this - that's all they are paid for; but there seems to be a naive assumption that unions somehow represent the good of society). There may well be a levy rather than a general taxation impact but it sure won't be because of unions lobbying for the interests of OAPs.No doubt they'll just levy a charge on owners and prospective owners of DB pensions. That'd be fair.
Why would they make someone on minimum wage with no pension contribute, or make an OAP on the state pension contribute? I've no doubt the unions would shut the country down if such unfairness was contemplated.
Brilliant news !
Unite Trade Union/Waterford Crystal workers have won their case versus the State in the European Court on all counts - the matter is now to go to the High Court to decide the percentage pension to be paid to the Crystal pensioners.
Isn't it the trustees who are accountable?Does this decision now take away all responsibility from pension fund managers to act in the best interest of their clients, knowing that if they screw up their clients will be bailed out by the taxpayer?
Does this decision now take away all responsibility from pension fund managers to act in the best interest of their clients, knowing that if they screw up their clients will be bailed out by the taxpayer?
You could create a levy that only applies to DB funds? Perhaps an extra tax for people with DB pensions. Make having a DB fund a new BIK? It's not hard to think up any number of fair ways of doing this.I cannot see any other funding alternative , can you ?
If those were her words in the indo piece then she seemed to be misleading people. The levy applied to all members DB or DC and only DC members were definitively worse off as a result.She said the deal would be funded by a two-year levy paid by members of defined benefit schemes, introduced in the 2013 budget.
I cannot see any other funding alternative , can you ?
Here, as in this site?It is telling that AIB put 1Billion of OUR money into their DB fund , there was no query here?