Minister Varadkar says current State pension is unsustainable...

Indexing of welfare payments favoured by Varadkar
"Indexing social welfare payments is favoured by Minister for Social Protection Leo Varadkar who said it will protect the less well-off and he hopes to bring in legislation to that effect.

...

He hopes to secure cross-party support for legislation to that effect and bring it through the Oireachtas, the minister said."

And the shocking thing is that he may well get cross-party support for it. Not one TD will oppose this ridiculous proposal.

This is not a ridiculous proposal .
It is a simple proposal that should have the support of anyone who believes we all should have a minimum living amount..
The issue (well highlighted in the posts on pensions) is that little attempt is being made into how we fund such a sensible proposal.
Given our (trust ?) in politicians we rightly fear that a proposal like this will be funded by borrowings until @ some stage the edifice falls under the weight of avoidable debts, and these debts end up being borne by our childrens children.
I just hope , this is not just another easy promise.
 
we rightly fear that a proposal like this will be funded by borrowings

Fear? It's fact, Gerry.

We're going to have a massive public debt millstone around our collective necks for the rest of all our lives. Every political promise for the next 50 years will be directly or indirecly funded by borrowings. This either hasn't yet dawned on our political class, or more likely they're lying through their teeth and laughing at us while we vote for them.
 
T Mc Gibney,

I fear you will be proven correct.The fact is for the future !
But bear in mind we voted them in and maybe just maybe they will accept Mr Haugheys words {we are living beyond our means} before we lose control of things.
Glass is still half full ?
 
It is a simple proposal that should have the support of anyone who believes we all should have a minimum living amount
Something I have noted over the last 3/4 years is the gradual rush of all politicians towards the left. The assumption that everyone is entitled to a certain standard of living with no necessity to seek work if unemployed or pay towards anything!! The Group Think now is that those of us who work all our lives, pay our taxes and save diligently for our retirement should not be financially better off in our retirement than our neighbor who never worked a day in his life (yes an extreme example!!).
Leftist policies are effectively based on the assumption of all take and no give. I.e. The greedy rich and corporates should be taxed to the hilt to pay for those less fortunate. Unfortunately this assumption has never effectively worked out in practice and I am disappointed by the recent "conversion" of Leo Varadaker to the brotherhood of the disenfranchised. The policies of "free sweets for all" worked well in our mock primary school elections and one would have thought that mature adults would have more sense when it came to voting in our Government but seemingly not.
 
44 Brendan.
I disagree with your (assumptions).particulary the (entitlement ) bit.
No one is realistically wanting to have anyone who consciously never works nor ever wishes to work whould be treated as the rest of us.
I do not think it is (leftish) to in older age give even those who have (wasted) their life @ least nuff to live on.
Again realistically, the non contributory pension will be the first to not get increases if things turn bad, the workers on their contributory pensions will be protected to some degree. Those of us who have other pensions will be better off.

Leftish policies are not (on the assumption of all take and no give) but it is sold that way by lazy lefties and rampant righties!
 
.....Reconstituting the NPRF in some form may well be part of the answer to our looming problem. However, I still think we will have to increase contributions and/or lower benefits to make the current system sustainable.

I agree that reconstituting the NPRF is part of the solution, however the funds contained within need to kept under a serious lock and key - never again, can this fund be used for a particular government's own agenda, it doesn't matter if it's to save the banks or save the whales.

The current arrangements for both the civil servants and the beneficiaries of the state pension are crazy and the growing liability on the State has to be capped immediately. People are living longer and whether we like it or not, the State can't afford to give them the pensions promissed for the full duration of their lives.

Granted, no one is going to want to hear this and I'm sure there are people reading this right now thinking they will go on strike if the State even tries to change the current arrangements, but this is too big a problem - so if we need to have a few strikes to help deal with the problem then so be it.

I would propose that a specific monetary cap be put on all pensions, be they civil servants pensions, or state pensions. Obviously, I don't just propose to pluck a figure out of thin air, but specific calculations would have to be done to actuarial standards, to help ensure that there is logic to support everyone's individual cap.

Compulsory private pension schemes for all has to be part of the solution here, so ultimately we have everyone saving for their own retirement alongside their capped amount.

In the future, more and more focus on the private pension schemes has to be the way, with all new workers (be they private or public sector) compelled to save for their retirement.

Those unemployed would have an appropriate amount deducted from their benefits each week, to also go into some form of individual pension scheme (managed by the private sector, not the State).
 
I would propose that a specific monetary cap be put on all pensions, be they civil servants pensions, or state pensions.

PS pensions would need to be amended to Defined Contribution for all new employees. This is not essentially off-topic as the approach to funding pensions from current funding effectively lumps all PS and State Pensions together to be paid from annual income. There are very few remaining private sector employees on DB pensions for obvious reasons. The underlying problem here is not one of whether all should be guaranteed a certain income on retirement but rather the availability of funding in future years to pay this income. I saw some figures recently estimating that the total cost of contributory & non-contributory pensions (exc PS) is expected to reach 7.5 bln by 2016 (an increase of 52% on current level). This is simply not affordable from current expenditure so realistically changes will need to happen and happen quickly. The question is whether the current Government has the willingness to do what is necessary or will action be postponed in order to appease the opposition and the independents. This is not a Party issue and is definitely an issue for an all party Dail committee to take on sooner rather than later.
 
.....This is not a Party issue and is definitely an issue for an all party Dail committee to take on sooner rather than later.

Agree 100%

If Leo can get all parties involved and come out of it with any sort of a solution, he'll be claiming it as his greatest political success to date (and in truth, he might just be right !)
 
Figures released to Sinn Fein finance spokesperson Pearse Doherty show that the top 500 civil service pensions cost the tax payer over 50 million per year. Thats 500 persons on a pension of over 100,000 euro per year payed by us. Dig deeper and take a look of the amount of people on pensions of 70-80-90k a year payed by the state. Madness.Basic pension for all at 65 not 68. Work save or pay if one wants a better one.
 
This nonsense will continue, as long we as allow it.

Everyone needs to put a rocket under their local politicans.
 
David Begg joins the chorus of voices saying the current contributory State pension is unlikely to be maintained at its current level -



And yet FF is demanding a €5 per week increase...

Responsible as always.o_O
 
The Neri institute (who are considered left leaning, from my distillation of their blog )
Reckon that k15 per annum gives an ok financial retirement , and that a couple on k30 will have a comfortable retirement.
Since Contrib old age pension for couple = k23 per annum , even the average of 60 per week that is said that private workers have in their pension pots = k3 per annum
, means total average of k23 + 3 = k26 ie a fair pension.
.
So if from now on , workers save a little bit more to increase the 60 to say 90 , we can let OAP rest @ k23 ie let inflation (reduce ) the state pension.
From my looking @ it , it looks eminently sortable.
 
The Neri institute (who are considered left leaning, from my distillation of their blog )
Reckon that k15 per annum gives an ok financial retirement , and that a couple on k30 will have a comfortable retirement.

I wonder does that figure assume zero rent/mortgage payments in retirement?

I certainly agree with you that this problem could be solved if we started to take relatively modest steps in the right direction. My problem is that some politicians are calling for increases in the OAP which will actually exacerbate the problem.
 
Hi,

The key question is not if this can be sorted Gerry, but how do we ensure there is an equitable solution for all ?

Several issues need attention....

The State cannot afford to fund its pension commitments to all civil servants etc, no more than it can afford to cover the contributory pension in it's current form, into the future. In the private sector, companies have been closing down DB schemes and moving over to DC schemes, cutting their contributions into DC schemes etc. Massive numbers of state employees will try to prevent change, but simply put change must happen for the financial good of the country and it must happen quickly.

Every person living and working in Ireland must be instructed on the basics of how a pension works, how they are funded and how those funds are invested, what significant outgoings will need to be covered in retirement and old age (accomodation, nursing care / health care and food being three key costs). A lot of people still don't understand the basics and in particular, don't realise how big a problem this is going to be for them when they get old. As part of this, the educational system needs to help with regards to teaching future generations about the importance of retirement planning, saving early etc. I don't care if they introduce a new module and cover other basic financial stuff like how to manage a household budget, run your bank account and manage your debts, or just amend the old "Commerce" subject etc. but either way, education is vital and our educators are responsible for helping out here.

A radical and generous transitional arrangement needs to be put in place, to help get everyone into a pension and contributing regularly. Rather than give X amount away in cuts to the USC etc. in the next Budget, I would far rather see a significant financial incentive offered to get everyone paying into their pensions, or those without a pension starting one. It needs to be fair so it does not favour the wealthy, but it also needs to be practical and simple to understand.

Speaking of understanding, the pensions industry also needs to do a lot more to make their products and services easier to understand. Every pension provider should have a "Pensions for Dummies" section on their website, that takes a visitor through all of the basics in simple English, with links to subsequent sections to guide people towards the type of pension they might need. The concept of having a qualified person sell a pension is all well and good, but people need access to information from their homes, at times that suit them and without feeling under any pressure to sign up to a policy with a particular provider or too embarrissed to admit that they don't understand some of the language being used etc.

The idea of just cutting those part time works entirely from potentially collecting a State pension when they get old, or pushing the entitlement age out another few years, once a decade is simply not satisfactory or equitable, without significant action in other areas at the same time.

The list goes on... but hopefully Leo V. is reading and this has given him a few ideas ;)
 
Last edited:
Mr Earl ,
Agree , you talk sense ie, that's your first mistake ! ; because vested interests , politics and general short termism gets in senses way.!

Most things get really sorted by incremental change so if Leo V would enact change bit by bit , year on year , we will get there.
 
Most things get really sorted by incremental change so if Leo V would enact change bit by bit , year on year , we will get there.

That's a very big "if" Gerry.

While acknowledging the problem - the unsustainability of State pensions at their current level - there is absolutely no indication that Minister Varadkar has any intention of actually doing anything about it.
 
Mr Earl ,
Agree , you talk sense ie, that's your first mistake ! ; because vested interests , politics and general short termism gets in senses way.!

Most things get really sorted by incremental change so if Leo V would enact change bit by bit , year on year , we will get there.


To be honest, I think that would be the wrong approach.....

All it needs is for FG to get a bit of drop in support, for Leo to bottle it etc and the tasks never get completed. Furthermore, while no one is going to be happy with changes (which have appear to have a negative impact on them), if everything gets done at the same time there will be some sentiment of equality and fairness across the population.
 
Big Bangs , normally cause disruption.

Leo,s pals were able to sneak in a nasty bit of stealing from pension pots , small nuff , not to create waves.Even though it was thievery! they got away with it.

So can Leo and pals not quietly enact little changes that cumulatively end up sorting things .
 
Leo,s pals were able to sneak in a nasty bit of stealing from pension pots , small nuff , not to create waves.Even though it was thievery! they got away with it.

The private pension levy was well flagged in the relevant FG manifesto - it may well have been outrageous but it certainly wasn't sneaked in.

I don't know how you could possibly consider the appropriation of over €2billion by the State from private savings to constitute "small nuff". It was a very significant measure by any standards.

The idea of trying to tackle this problem incrementally outside the parameters of a long term plan makes no absolutely no sense. This problem cannot be endlessly kicked down the road - it needs to be addressed with a degree of urgency, having regard for the interests of all age cohorts.
 
Back
Top