Retired people are at a much lower risk of poverty than younger people

We bought our house in 1994 and it’s now worth in excess of 6 times what we paid for it but hey it’s where we live and where we intend to continue living as the location is excellent , our friends are close by and most of all because we are happy there .
As such it cannot partially fund our retirement.
We pay tax on our pensions both defined benefit and state and on our house and investment income and although it would be disappointing if means testing , PRSI and USC became a factor for OAP’s we would pay it , easy to say I know as the chances of that happening are nil in the foreseeable future.
 
Okay.

Yes, because;


I've been working fulltime for over 30 years and during that time I've averaged well over 50 hours a week. I pay half my total income in tax. I've no real problem with that as I'm well paid and taxes are the price of civilisation. I do have a problem with the amount of my money the State wastes but that's a different issue.

The current structures around wealth tax suit me as I got on the property ladder before the boom and I had a pension before QE started. Timing has made me over a half a million euro in capital appreciation. I don't think it is fair that I should get that tax free when labour is taxed so heavily. It is a recipe for a very unequal society.


Your turn.
Perhaps the way money is spent should be reviewed and there may not be a need to tax wealth then.

If the above were undertaken it may make your argument null and void.

I am in a similar position go you and I made significant sacrifices of my free time to get myself into a position that I am in.

People are offered multiple supports in terms of training to better their prospects. The aim of which is to reduce people's dependency on the State throughout their life.

A bit of forward thinking can result in a comfortable retirement. If what you want were to occur then why would people bother if what they worked for will end up being taken away from them.
 
This is why I believe Brendan is examining idea's to improve home ownership...renting in retirement would be a complete disaster for Irish society and lead to extreme poverty for some. Our pension system's have been designed around house ownership or council provided housing for life....if these criteria are not met it's trouble for us all..
 
Most live on more than the State pension. The minority who rely on it alone are certainly not well off.
Vast (and I mean 75% +) of pensioners I know are on some version of the state/widows pension. In my family out of 7 uncles/aunts and their spouses, only 2 had a company or private pension. It may be starting to change as the "boomers" move to pension age but not for the previous generation.
 
As a single public servant with only one income coming into my house and not far from retirement I dont feel I'd classify myself as wealthy when I retire! In fact I think I'm probably going to have to work at something part time to keep the show on the road.
 
  1. If their income from all sources exceeds €18,000 (single) or €36,000 (married), there is no exemption and they are taxed in the normal way
  2. They pay property taxes based on property value
  3. If they have investment income - see 1.
Which is the point I am making.
The taxation system will deal with excessive wealth in the retired age group.
Rather than means-testing pensions, or medical cards, or free travel.


The headline in this post is that the older generation are at a lower risk of poverty than other generations. Some posters seem to think this is a bad thing, the retirees should be targeted and their perceived priveleges removed.
 
Some posters seem to think this is a bad thing, the retirees should be targeted and their perceived priveleges removed.


It is a bad thing,

Il be retired one day,

Among my pals, Im the only one with property, and private pension to see me through in a comfortable existence until the state pension kicks in.

I don't begrudge them one bit when they skip off on a few hols a year, or have the latest jammer to drive around in. They plan on living off the state pension when the time comes, Ive had talks with them over a pint, they think I'm mad, sure the state will look after them... Maybe they are right!!

No poor mouth here, but I don't drive the newest car at all, am working all hours to pay for the future, and when Friday comes, they find it hard to believe im still working into the evening and not taken half day to hook up for a game of golf..
 
It is a bad thing,

Il be retired one day,

Among my pals, Im the only one with property, and private pension to see me through in a comfortable existence until the state pension kicks in.

I don't begrudge them one bit when they skip off on a few hols a year, or have the latest jammer to drive around in. They plan on living off the state pension when the time comes, Ive had talks with them over a pint, they think I'm mad, sure the state will look after them... Maybe they are right!!

No poor mouth here, but I don't drive the newest car at all, am working all hours to pay for the future, and when Friday comes, they find it hard to believe im still working into the evening and not taken half day to hook up for a game of golf..

Existence on the state pension and other welfare assistance, is subsistence level. You should be able to pay the bills, get enough food, heat and shelter. An occasional meal in a nice restaurant. Maybe a couple of pints down the local. A week in Torremolinos. But you won't be skiing down Mont Blanc, or cruising round the Caribbean .
Some people prefer to spend their money today and enjoy life to the full. I suppose , if they make that judgement, its a valid one.
 
It is a bad thing,

Il be retired one day,

Among my pals, Im the only one with property, and private pension to see me through in a comfortable existence until the state pension kicks in.

I don't begrudge them one bit when they skip off on a few hols a year, or have the latest jammer to drive around in. They plan on living off the state pension when the time comes, Ive had talks with them over a pint, they think I'm mad, sure the state will look after them... Maybe they are right!!

No poor mouth here, but I don't drive the newest car at all, am working all hours to pay for the future, and when Friday comes, they find it hard to believe im still working into the evening and not taken half day to hook up for a game of golf..

Well, the way this thread is going, you and not your pals will be considered "wealthy" and fair game for the lay tax tinkerers.
Your pals have no property and will rely solely on the State pension.
 
There are 7 of us who are friends since schooldays , all retired from what are essentially seen as middle class jobs teachers, bankers , a bakery owner and a cafe owner.
All married with spouses retired or just about to retire from very similar type jobs.
At a recent night out we were discussing our respective financial situations and the common consensus was that each of our households , give or take , were netting an income of approximately €5,000 a month
We all were extremely grateful and realise that we are lucky in that this largesse cannot continue into the future although we should be OK .
Perhaps means testing is the way forward.
You’ve nothing to be grateful about; you are not ‘lucky’. Nobody handed this to you. I suggest you have achieved your good fortune through study, hard work, prudent money management, delayed consumption, good risk assessment, etc. In the real world, i.e. not in Ireland, this is the norm. People work hard, save and subsequently enjoy their savings. And they can pass the surplus on to their descendants (or to the cats’ and dogs’ home). Stop apologising and enjoy the fruits of your labour.


Ironically, and to bring this all back on-topic, the best insurance anyone can have against poverty in old age is to be entitled to one of the better public sector pensions.
It’s not “entitlement”. It’s part of your terms and conditions of employment. You earn it. To obtain a public sector pension first you need the relevant technical and professional qualifications and be recruited by an open recruitment process by the Public Appointments Commission or by public bodies compliant with the Commission for Public Service Employment. You just can’t waltz in because your Uncle Johnny puts in a good word for you or because you’re good at certain sports. Then you have to work there until you are 66 and pay your 6.5% of salary contribution. So if you believe a public service pension is the best insurance against poverty in old age, all you have to do is be successful in a recruitment competition; obtain a public service job and work. Then you get your career-averaged pension.

The problem with this report is it unbelievably badly structured and does not provide clear guidance for policy making, and is open to misinterpretation. It also spends 10 pages of flag-waving on headline-grabbing 'intergenerational inequality', while not highlighting evidence provided in the report on chronic poverty. For example, elsewhere the report points out that lone parents and working-age adults living in households without anyone in paid work experience both income poverty and material deprivation, and that this has been a feature of Irish society since the 1990s. This is a shocking indictment of our society. But the report in its Conclusions just refers to other research that "suggests" it's due to the increasing cost of childcare. This is just a throwaway. If childcare costs are a solution, even partial, to longstanding experience of poverty, it really should be dealt with in greater detail, to demonstrate it is a viable solution.

Amazingly, the report doesn’t mention disability as a risk factor for poverty, despite clear evidence in the UK that children of families with a disabled person have a higher risk of poverty than children of families of without a disable person. And minorities, who, in other countries, are more likely to live in poverty that natives, get a one word mention in the section on Intergenerational inequality, which has nothing to do with minorities.

So, overall, a nice try, but needs significant improvement.
 
It’s not “entitlement”. It’s part of your terms and conditions of employment. You earn it. To obtain a public sector pension first you need the relevant technical and professional qualifications and be recruited by an open recruitment process by the Public Appointments Commission or by public bodies compliant with the Commission for Public Service Employment. You just can’t waltz in because your Uncle Johnny puts in a good word for you or because you’re good at certain sports. Then you have to work there until you are 66 and pay your 6.5% of salary contribution. So if you believe a public service pension is the best insurance against poverty in old age, all you have to do is be successful in a recruitment competition; obtain a public service job and work. Then you get your career-averaged pension.
Of course it's an entitlement. Look up the definition of the word. It's a matter of fact, not a perjorative.

(By the way, lots of people in receipt of such pensions did indeed waltz in because their Uncle Johnny put in a good word for them or because they were good at certain sports. And lots of others with similar skills and employments don't enjoy comparable pensions in retirement. )
 
Of course it's an entitlement. Look up the definition of the word. It's a matter of fact, not a perjorative.

It's an accrued property right. I technically have an "entitlement" to live in my own house but it would be silly to describe it as such. Your use of the term was pejorative.

(By the way, lots of people in receipt of such pensions did indeed waltz in because their Uncle Johnny put in a good word for them or because they were good at certain sports. And lots of others with similar skills and employments don't enjoy comparable pensions in retirement. )
You clearly have zero idea of how PS recruitment works.
 
You’ve nothing to be grateful about; you are not ‘lucky’. Nobody handed this to you. I suggest you have achieved your good fortune through study, hard work, prudent money management, delayed consumption, good risk assessment, etc. In the real world, i.e. not in Ireland, this is the norm. People work hard, save and subsequently enjoy their savings. And they can pass the surplus on to their descendants (or to the cats’ and dogs’ home). Stop apologising and enjoy the fruits of your labour.

This is very hard to believe.

Being born in Ireland automatically gives huge advantages and that is pure luck. Genetics determines potential IQ - this is the luck of the draw. Born into a stable family life with supportive parents? Lucky again. Grandparents were wealthy and left you some cash to get started in life = huge advantage which you did nothing to earn. No major health issues, a lot of luck involved. And so on and so forth.

An individual's control over and contribution to their own success is far less than people think.

Depending on where you land in the cycle one could easily become either a canny investor who made all the right moves, or a risk-taking irresponsible gambler who lost it all. Again, a question of luck/timing in many cases.
 
It's an accrued property right. I technically have an "entitlement" to live in my own house but it would be silly to describe it as such. Your use of the term was pejorative.


You clearly have zero idea of how PS recruitment works.
Wrong on both counts.

A property right is something you accrue by dint of owning or occupying property. eg "a legal right or interest in or against specific property", not via occupational service.

You're really denying that public sector recruitment in the 1960s to the 1980s (the period of recruitment of the generations who broadly speaking are collecting pensions now) was riddled by nepotism and politics? Wow.
 
Today (or this century) this is indeed different. Back in the 70ies or 80ies though?

Wrong on both counts.

You're really denying that public sector recruitment in the 1960s to the 1980s (the period of recruitment of the generations who broadly speaking are collecting pensions now) was riddled by nepotism and politics? Wow.

And WOW right back at you!

I can't speak for the wider public sector (although I have heard stories about things that stank - especially in the VECs), but the only incidences of political interference that I can recall occurring in the civil service were at the very bottom levels of the organisation where Ministers occasionally interfered with appointments to posts like Messenger (now called Service Attendant) and Cleaner (now called Cleaner!). The Civil Service Commission (as it was then called) was an excellent organisation which took its responsibilities very seriously - although some internal Departmental promotions were a different story!

I was involved with one Departmental decentralisation where all such appointments were simply referred to the local (high profile) government TD for filling. One individual turned up for interview and, on his way in, informed the interview board that he was starting work there on the following Monday!
 
@PMU I agree that the report is not the best and does not serve to inform policy.

Isn't is astonishing how two charts on depravation rates translate to some as pensioners are rich.
 
Wrong on both counts.

A property right is something you accrue by dint of owning or occupying property. eg "a legal right or interest in or against specific property", not via occupational service.

A property right does not have to involve real property. DB pensions are an accrued property right. The holder has exclusive rights over how the pension can be spent once retirement age is reached. No Irish public servant has (to my knowledge) ever had their pension garnished even for gross abuse or corruption. It is a property right.

You're really denying that public sector recruitment in the 1960s to the 1980s (the period of recruitment of the generations who broadly speaking are collecting pensions now) was riddled by nepotism and politics? Wow.
Civil service recruitment was during that period done by way of anonymously-marked exam. As I said you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Why do people who never qualified to get a public service job always show their jealousy towards those that did actually get the job? They always take the posts off topic and ruin the conversation for those who really want to discuss the points brought up. The usual suspects don't take long putting their heads above the parapet. Always public v private, gets really monotonous and serves no purpose whatsoever.
 
Back
Top