Crow Paddy
Registered User
- Messages
- 4
......I'd be surprised if there were, but you never know with pensions.
Even if the BOB is was set up as a result of a TV from a DC plan, I remember reading somewhere that the Rules of the BOB (or the original DC plan) needed (to be amended) to provide for the 25% lump sum/ARF option, etc.
As Vincent said, you can transfer the BOB to your current DC scheme and avail of the ARF
Hi Crow Paddy - brilliant comment!
Who has responsibility for pensions in Ireland? The Revenue, The Pensions Regulator, The Department of Social Welfare (whatever it calls itself these days!).
It just is a farce - so your PRB is now DC in nature but because of one's personal history, its DC nature is different to a pure bred DC PRB (i.e. where the transfer payment into the bond came from a DC plan), and different rules apply. Some form of ethic cleansing within PRBs, perhaps?! And the rationale?
This is all very idiotic and dysfunctional. You will note that the original two responses to your query came from industry professionals and even both of them missed this point. Even they (and I'm not blaming them) seem to struggle with what should be a really simple question. Interesting also that I still don't know the answer to these aspect - and I've actually tried to find out this minutiae this morning....
For the avoidance of doubt, this does not help your current position because benefits under a single plan must normally (yes, of course, there are exceptions! STOP, STOP - I CAN'T TAKE NO MORE) be taken at the same time. [Another farce which militates against, for example, some form of phased retirement].
There are just so many aspects of ridiculous rules relating to Irish pensions. But where multiple parties are responsible (as per above) - no one is responsible. It's the oldest trick in the book. Remember the banking inquiry. The Government members said they were very sorry but really it was the fault of the regulators and the banks; the bankers came in, said their apologies and said it was the fault of the regulators and the government, the regulators came in - offered their heartfelt apologies but reminded us that all would have been well where it not for the banks and the developers......and so it goes.
It's the firing squad concept - give all the soldiers a gun but have only one live bullet - all are responsible but no one really is responsible. Or again, remember Kissinger's great line.......if you want to ring Europe, who do you call?
Because - as long as we have no one to call - the farce will continue. And continue it will - that's just the way things are done in these parts!!
Even if the BOB is was set up as a result of a TV from a DC plan, I remember reading somewhere that the Rules of the BOB (or the original DC plan) needed (to be amended) to provide for the 25% lump sum/ARF option, etc.
so when an answering a problem to which you don't have all the facts, you go with the simplest answer.
I understand that both the Tanaiste and the Pensions Authority have concerns that the extension of the ARF option as being suggested could have fundamental implications for the DB model and potentially impact both on the Funding Standard and on the benefit promise to DB scheme members. [Rule 2: Create some imaginary complexity – honestly, does anyone have any idea what this could even possibly mean?]
I wonder do the insurance companies have a vested interest in forcing annuities from DB scheme BOB i.e. do they make more profits than if an ARF was allowed ?
I prefer your simple acknowledgement of the oversight rather than attempts to justify it!!
Maybe it doesn't make sense to distinguish between DB and DC schemes as such, but I was thinking that unless these scheme rules don't "carry forward" into a resulting BOB, then you might get perverse incentives to leave an employment if it meant being able to get your hands on a lump sum that wouldn't be accessible otherwise. My point was, if that is true (which is speculation on my part) then maybe it shouldn't apply in cases where the scheme is wound up, long after you have left the employer anyway.Hi Crow Paddy
Sorry that the info is not the "right answer". I've no idea if the discrimination will continue or not.....
As a matter of curiosity, why do you think the restriction might be justified coming from a DB plan? Can't manage to get my head around that one!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?