Marco 1972
Registered User
- Messages
- 125
Sure , the robots will be doing the work at that stage, we'll all be watching box sets,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.
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 decadesIt 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,
What is?It is a non starter in Ireland for sure
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...To increase retirement age in a fair way,
People have a very bad understanding of the amount of money a PAYE worker retiring today has Contributed over there lifetime,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.
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,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.
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,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...
No, I didn't.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
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 paymentsYou could argue that the Contributory State Pension is already unfair because it is not means tested.
A class D employee can make full rate Prsi contributions after they have ceased as a modified Prsi payer.Lots of public servants retiring on a full D stamp pension are now able to work the system to get the contributory at 70
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.That was one of the dumbest moves any Government ever did to save money,It is costing them a fortune
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,
The rules of the Irish Prsi system force certain people to make full rate paid contributions which do not give any benefits.why contribute to state insurance scheme where you potentially get no benefits?
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?