Increase in State pension age to 67 should be delayed by seven years, report to recommend

Saving more cannot fix the dependency ratio problem.

Either productivity dramatically increases, or living standards do the opposite.

All ageing countries are in a lot of trouble.
Sure , the robots will be doing the work at that stage, we'll all be watching box sets,
 
It is the one question I ask close friends of mine when I hear them on raise the pension age because we cannot afford to leave it at 65, but can afford to pay it to others after six or seven years contribution,

In every case so far they see nothing wrong with getting a full pension after 10 contributions on reaching pension age after 10 years of straight contributions or credits or voluntary contributions of 500 euros a year was 250 euro up until a few years ago,
I don't know why there is not more attention paid to this, the fact that some people can qualify for a full pension after just 10 years of full contributions. This was supposed to be changed to a full pension being based on 40 years contributions , however I hear that people can still qualify based on the above , you can choose the basis that gives you the best pension. It is not so much that these people with so few contributions are taking money from their fellow pensioners but from people that are working now but who won't retire for another 2 decades
 
Denmark has the highest retirement age at 67 and it is linked to life expectancy which is 81.3
Denmark along with Most other European Countries have very fair level playing field when it comes to raising retirement age,
it rises for everyone both public and private,
The average retirement age private is already 67 years
The average retirement public servant is 66 years and five months
part of the debate around raising the retirement age was around retaining public servants in the welfare professions where it is getting harder to replace workers,
It is a non starter in Ireland for sure,
 
To increase retirement age in a fair way,
Why is that a non-starter? They've already taken the first step by incentivising people to defer up to age 70. There could be more carrots and maybe even some stick to come yet...
 
I wonder if the average retirement age will gradually creep up.

As I understand it the law has changed so you aren’t forced out at 65. With more portfolio careers people may well switch to reduced hours or other work, third or fourth careers… so maybe won’t want to quit. And also may not be able to. Chopping and changing careers and restarting may have an impact on pension contributions. Going back to education and taking pay cuts to restart is bound to impact disposable income.

My dad stayed in the public sector all his life and was happy to leave when his pension was available. None of us replicated that. We worked abroad, took time out, extended education etc. The next generation are following this. The 30 somethings haven’t got mortgages, spouses and some are still figuring out their careers. They’ll be working late!
 
You could argue that the Contributory State Pension is already unfair because it is not means tested. Plenty of people could survive without it for all sorts of reasons: because they had well paying jobs, lived within their means, didn't have children, made saving up a pension fund over decades a priority etc.. But means testing will never happen because people paid PRSI for decades.

People are having less children and living longer. Raising the age of eligibility to the contributory state pension might be unfair on some people but I can't think of a more equitable way to ensure government can afford to keep paying a pension to retirees in decades to come.
 
You could argue that the Contributory State Pension is already unfair because it is not means tested. Plenty of people could survive without it for all sorts of reasons: because they had well paying jobs, lived within their means, didn't have children, made saving up a pension fund over decades a priority etc.. But means testing will never happen because people paid PRSI for decades.
People have a very bad understanding of the amount of money a PAYE worker retiring today has Contributed over there lifetime,
I won't argue with people If you don't want to check it out for themselves,
people who are ill informed is one reason why the Contributory pension Will never be touched,
 
People are having less children and living longer. Raising the age of eligibility to the contributory state pension might be unfair on some people but I can't think of a more equitable way to ensure government can afford to keep paying a pension to retirees in decades to come.
The problem the government ran into the last time and will again if the tried to increase the pension age was some in the public servants paying PRSI contract says can retire at 60 or 65 on retirement are topped up until the reach retirement age which I have no problem with,
When it was brought up in the 2020 election every party except FF backed down in the final days of the 2020 general election after it was highlighted FF dropped 12 or 13% in the polls and lost lots of seats,
There was nothing out of FF about raising the pension in 2024,
Private PAYE workers are not silly they know unfairness when the see it or when it is pointed out to them about increasing the pension age,
 
Why is that a non-starter? They've already taken the first step by incentivising people to defer up to age 70. There could be more carrots and maybe even some stick to come yet...
That was one of the dumbest moves any Government ever did to save money,It is costing them a fortune, Lots of public servants retiring on a full D stamp pension are now able to work the system to get the contributory at 70, the only people as you said it incentivised was people who haden't enough contributions to get the full pension now get a higher Contributory Pension than someone who paid in for 40/45 years,;)

You say even some stick to come yes there will be lots of stick for any political party silly enough to try and increase pension age for one lot of people paid out of the public purse and have enough money to pay some others who can retire at the old pension age in the same year,:p
 
Last edited:
the only people as you said it incentivised was people who haden't enough contributions to get the full pension now get a higher Contributory Pension than someone who paid in for 40/45 years
No, I didn't. :confused:
 
Last edited:
You could argue that the Contributory State Pension is already unfair because it is not means tested.
its contributory because it is exactly what it says it is you contribute to it through your PRSI contributions and PRSI is a social insurance. If they ever tried to means test it , it would undermine the whole basis for PRSI in the first place, why contribute to state insurance scheme where you potentially get no benefits? In the UK they have the NHS which is free at point of contact we don't even get that for our PRSI contributions ? You would undermine the basis for working at all, as everyone would just fall back on the welfare state, already we have a large population on welfare payments
 
Joe you are correct Lots of people with very good work ethic having worked for over 40 years got the Enthusiasm drained out of them what the Government of the day 2020 was saying when you come to 65 you can draw your PRSI until they reached 66 so they got 1400 euro less lots who had underline Issues just got certs once they reached 63 which took them up to 66 seeing paying PRSI all of there life stood for nothing in the eyes of the Government many members could retired on full pension at an early age,
 
Lots of public servants retiring on a full D stamp pension are now able to work the system to get the contributory at 70
A class D employee can make full rate Prsi contributions after they have ceased as a modified Prsi payer.

They are no different to any other full rate Prsi payer in respect to being required to pay Prsi up to COAP claim age or age 70.
There is no 'working the system' as you state.
 
That was one of the dumbest moves any Government ever did to save money,It is costing them a fortune
In the case of many class B and class D employees who do not manage to qualify for the COAP by age 66, or up to age 70, the government are gaining extra Prsi income.

Any of these persons who have income from earned employment, unearned employment (rental or investment) or ARF drawdowns remain liable to Prsi contributions up to maximum age 70.

In some cases, these persons will never manage to qualify for any Contributory pension.

The new pension deferral rules can allow the government to extract an extra four years of Prsi contributions with no extra benefits liability.
 
Sclass
dont be honing into just the D class,
What i said in respond to clubman in post 128 that was one of the dumbest moves ant government ever did to save money it is costing them a fortune which it will because it will be used to work the system

I say good look to everyone who works the system since the gave the option to pay in until 70 and get a higher pension,but it is not going to save any money for future pensions which is the point I was making,

my understanding is because of the higher pension the government pay out at 70 they save no money so there is no saving to be had for future pensioners,

The just spent more taxpayers money to save face seeing they had to row back on raise the pension age
 
Last edited:
why contribute to state insurance scheme where you potentially get no benefits?
The rules of the Irish Prsi system force certain people to make full rate paid contributions which do not give any benefits.

Class K Prsi is charged at the same rate as employee Class A and self employment Class S, but gives absolutely no benefits.
 
Back
Top