Pension fund threshold

I

Interstellar

Registered User
Messages
33
Given the current problems with recruitment of senior gardai due to going over their PFT and the tax implications of same does anyone think this threshold is about to be increased?
 
Personally I think not as FF/FG won't win many votes by doing it. It's only a small percentage of the population who have pensions valued at €2 million or more. I'd speculate off my head that a good percentage of these are FF/FG voters already.

On the other hand, SF and further left parties would have a field day berating the government for improving the lot of "the elites" with "gold-plated" pensions at a time when homelessness is high etc.
 
It is the same issue with hospital consultants. There has been no talk in increasing the €2m limit, even as salaries have increased. SF want to drop it to €1.5m. I would say it is very unlikely that the "rich" will see the cap increase.
 
I see the uk did away with 1m limit recently driven mainly by hospital consultants early retirement
 
mtk said:
I see the uk did away with 1m limit recently driven mainly by hospital consultants early retirement
Click to expand...

Though the evidence for this was not, particularly, robust.

www.theguardian.com

Doubts grow over number of NHS doctors helped by pension giveaway

New figures reveal only 100 hospital doctors left NHS in 2022 due to voluntary early retirement, despite claims by Jeremy Hunt
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com

A targeted approach to public servants, might be meritied, if the evidence suggests, highly skilled individuals are leaving or avoiding promotions.
However, maybe a bit more imagination could be the answer. What about long service paid sabbaticals, or tapered reduced hours for those approaching retirement age? Its not always about the money.

It seems, almost certain, that the UK will reintroduce the threshold, at some level, after the next election.
The UK Labour Party ( lead by rampant, extreme socialist Sir Kier Starmer) has, categorically, stated that this handout to rich people will be reversed.

news.sky.com

Labour to reverse 'tax cut for the rich' pension reform if it wins the next election

Chancellor Jeremy Hunt announced he will also increase the pensions annual tax-free allowance under measures designed to increase the workforce by removing disincentives to being employed for longer. But Labour says it only benefits a wealthy few and will push for a vote on Tuesday.
news.sky.com news.sky.com
 
Last edited:
“The UK Labour Party ( lead by rampant, extreme socialist Sir Kier Starmer) has, categorically, stated that this handout to rich people will be reversed“

Correct labour do promise to reverse it …, creating a lot of complexity now and even more if they do eg for those who went over it during the “unlimited “ period and more so during the timeline to implement a change back should they win the election
 
Why don’t they just adjust the DB multiplier - probably could be justified given higher rates and would avoid all the nonsense from the politicians. Would give some relief to the higher paid civil servants
 
T McGibney said:
Er, that's exactly why the current mess exists in the first place.

Political consensus always means pandering to the lowest common denominator.
Click to expand...
This is the nub of the issue. Sinn Fein draw a lot of support from the lowest common denominator. There isn’t the brainpower there to think about the link between something like consultant recruitment and the pension cap.
 
Life_pondering said:
Why don’t they just adjust the DB multiplier - probably could be justified given higher rates and would avoid all the nonsense from the politicians.
Click to expand...
That’s a fair point and the same thing struck me during the week.

However, when you look at the multipliers they are still fairly generous - I certainly don’t think they exaggerate the value of DB pensions, even with the rise in annuity rates.

My own view is that the current SFT is in or around the right level and should be left well alone.
 
Sarenco said:
That’s a fair point and the same thing struck me during the week.

However, when you look at the multipliers they are still fairly generous - I certainly don’t think they exaggerate the value of DB pensions, even with the rise in annuity rates.

My own view is that the current SFT is in or around the right level and should be left well alone.
Click to expand...
I think you’re probably right, albeit what about indexation/inflation?
 
I agree with you re value. It was more of a possible suggestion as to how they could address the issue for the civil servants if there is a real need to find a fix for certain groups. It’s not fair for those of us with DC pots but I just can’t see the political leadership necessary to move the SFT higher for all…so a good old fudge !
 
Life_pondering said:
I agree with you re value. It was more of a possible suggestion as to how they could address the issue for the civil servants if there is a real need to find a fix for certain groups. It’s not fair for those of us with DC pots but I just can’t see the political leadership necessary to move the SFT higher for all…so a good old fudge !
Click to expand...
Why should the civil servants receive preferential treatment?
 
They shouldn’t obviously but if the concern is that the consultants, senior guards etc etc are going to early retire it seems like an easier way to mitigate it than dealing with the SF hysteria
 
Life_pondering said:
They shouldn’t obviously but if the concern is that the consultants, senior guards etc etc are going to early retire it seems like an easier way to mitigate it than dealing with the SF hysteria
Click to expand...
And what happens if private sector GPs retire early?
 
T McGibney said:
And what happens if private sector GPs retire early?
Click to expand...
Private sector GPs have DC pensions and can stop contributing if they are at risk of breaching the SFT.

Public servants are unable to pause contributions and very senior ones can suddenly face very high tax rates for getting a promotion and/or simply staying in employment.

A bit of creativity could fix this.
 
T McGibney said:
Er, that's exactly why the current mess exists in the first place.

Political consensus always means pandering to the lowest common denominator.
Click to expand...
They only pander to the lowest common denominator to win votes. If all parties went behind closed doors and came up with a long-term plan that they all stood behind without any leaks (yes I know that's asking a lot!) then they'd all be in the same boat so it wouldn't affect public opinion. Also isn't the whole reason we elect public representatives so that they can make complex decisions on our behalf?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top