Deferring your State Pension (Contributory) - break even point is age 88

At the moment it doesn't look like the TCA is applied at all when calculating the survivor's pension rate. In my case as a voluntary contributor who will make contributions up until my 66th birthday it looks to me like there's no point in deferring. I should just take the reduced pension as soon as I can. My wife would receive a full rate survivor's pension regardless of what my contributory pension is. That's all assuming nothing changes between now and then. I think the whole basis of the survivor's pension is different though, so there's no reason for it to go the TCA route.
 
The pension system is getting more and more under pressure. Too many people taking money out- and not enough is being paid in
I firmly believe that the survivors pension qualification will be changed down the road as well. There is no other choice.
The first thing they will do is raising the PRSI minimum contribution. It will go up to 520 over several years. Just like it went up for the contributory pension. I also believe that the minimum PRSI contributions for the contributory pension will be raised to 780- or 15 years of contribution. This is already the case in some EU countries. The survivors pension will get some changes other than the above mentioned. Switzerland abolished the survivors pension recently- and the Germans are lowering the payments all the time.
Pension age will go up to 70 years within 15 to 20 years. We already have the possibility to work until 70. This is still voluntary- but this will change. This present "opportunity" is just a way of getting people used to the idea.
The Danes brought their pension age up to 70 as of 2035 or so already.
Let's face it- we need a sustainable pension system. That means we need harsh and very unpopular reforms. We need them fast.
 
isn't this all purely speculation on your part right now?
Forumuser said:
Just like it went up for the contributory pension.
Click to expand...
When? Also, you seem to be implying that the PRSI contribution criteria will increase for some pension other than the contributory pension which doesn't seem to make much sense?
 
Just look around Europe and watch how the different governments are changing the pension rules. The baby boomers are reaching pension age all over the place. The number of pensioners will rise sharply over the next years- and the numbers of contributors are falling all the time.
This thing has been discussed over and over and over again- but not much has been done- or better not enough. The politicians are afraid of the voters. So they keep deferring the necessary decisions all the time- and make it worse that way.
I am not saying anything new here. This is absolutely nothing new. Folks simply don't want to know.
The 2011 pension act ushered in the last rises in the minimum paid contributions you needed to qualify for a contributory pension. Till then you needed 260 PRSI contributions. This was changed in steps to 520. I reckon it will be raised further in steps to 780 contributions. This was also hinted by the former Taoiseach Enda Kenny at various times. His advice for people was to keep working to make it over the line.
The increase in the required PRSI contributions will most likely be on the survivors pension first. Not that many people are getting it- and the government in power can use it as a test case to see how far they can go. They will later tackle the standard contributory pension. Of course I do not have a clue when this takes place. But one thing is for sure: The financial reality will force those in power in the end to make the necessary changes regardless of their fear of a voters backlash.
 
More likely that state pensions will simply be allowed to fall below inflation.

It’s below where it was in real terms in 2018.

Tinkering at the margins as suggested by @Forumuser wont save much.

Also recall that AE starting 2026 and in a few decades a lot of people with low paid employment will get a private pension unlike today.
 
Dr Strangelove said:
Also recall that AE starting 2026 and in a few decades a lot of people with low paid employment will get a private pension unlike today.
Click to expand...
And also if I may add that over the next few decades the imbalance of "more pensioners then contributors of the state pension will start to even out
 
Forumuser said:
and the Germans are lowering the payments all the time.
Click to expand...
It’s almost like Angela Merkel was on to something when she welcomed 2m young, working-age immigrants and their young families into Germany several years back when the Syrian civil war broke out. The anti-immigration stance of some western societies with huge demographic imbalances and rapidly extended life expectancies is utterly baffling, they’re slowly suffocating under pension and healthcare obligations whilst stubbornly refusing to grasp the generational opportunity that immigration can provide. Controlled and financially supported perhaps, particularly with educational assistance and, more broadly some transformational housing policy is obviously needed that un-does the strangulation of supply currently causing protests in many western countries, not just Ireland.
 
Cervelo said:
And also if I may add that over the next few decades the imbalance of "more pensioners then contributors of the state pension will start to even out
Click to expand...
To a certain degree.

Ireland is exceptionally open to inward migration though which generally consists of healthy young people who pay tax. This doesn’t impact the fiscal cost of ageing but does help greatly to pay for it.
 
How many people actually receive a survivor's pension that's higher than any non-contributory or contributory pension they would have been entitled to otherwise? Not that many I suspect. My mother received hers for about a year when my father passed away at 66. Her own contributory pension was higher so she only received the survivor's pension temporarily. Most people die post retirement age. The survivor's pension is not payable if the survivor cohabits so the cohort of long term survivor's pension recipients must be a small fraction of the total and it's a touchy subject going after widows and widowers. I'd say they'll leave well alone.
 
murphaph1 said:
How many people actually receive a survivor's pension that's higher than any non-contributory or contributory pension they would have been entitled to otherwise?
Click to expand...
It’s higher than I thought at €2bn pa out of €10bn contributory pension spend.

Although I think this will decline. In future more survivors will have their own entitlements.
 
But you have to deduct what the recipient would have been otherwise entitled to under either a contributory or non-contributory pension to calculate the true extra cost of survivor's pensions in their own right. Is that 2bn figure based on that net cost or the gross figure? If it's the net figure it strikes me as very high too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register