Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,121
- Where possible, the same terms and conditions regarding the provision of insurance, financial services and related benefits should apply to all employees, subject to the availability of these benefits from providers and the cost not being disproportionate for employers;
Either PRSI is a working-age contribution to finance out-of-work and retirement benefits.It would significantly reduce the attractiveness of saving within a private pension, given that there is no relief from PRSI on pension contributions.
Indeed, especially when one considers the commission chair was head of the revenue commissioners.Just heard the Commission's Chair on the radio admit that they really had no idea how much additional revenue would be generated by the recommended PRSI changes.
Doesn't exactly fill you with confidence that the Commission applied any analytical rigour in discharging their functions....
Doesn't exactly fill you with confidence that the Commission applied any analytical rigour in discharging their functions...
It's still the right idea. You can't give people who contribute €800 a year in PRSI full pensions for up to 30 years.
Either PRSI is a working-age contribution to finance out-of-work and retirement benefits.
Or it's just another tax like the USC.
It can't really be both
No PRSI is paid by those over 66 and annuities aren't liable to PRSI at all. Under the recommendation, these will now be liable to PRSI as well as people still working past the age of 66. A 4% tax increase for the retired? Might as well put VAT on children's shoes!I don't see any reference to the prsi applied to ARF's. The current rate is S class 4%.
Are we going to see a gradual increase to over 10% being applied to distributions from ARF's for people under 66 ? If the rate of prsi is increased on ARF's it would be a further blow to anybody making AVC's or paying into a PRSA.
Under the proposals the increase to a retired person under 66 with an ARF would be 6%+A 4% tax increase for the retired?
What is the 6%? It was recommended that anyone over age 66 pays Class K PRSI. There is no recommendation to increase this class of PRSI.Under the proposals the increase to a retired person under 66 with an ARF would be 6%+
I am referring to a retired person with an ARF under age 66. Currently they pay prsi S class at 4%. Under the proposals this would increase to over 10% at class S. This is the 6%+ increase I am referring to. At a time when the government want to implement auto enrollment to private pensions this is a ludicrous proposal. It would be a further blow to people making pension contributions, on top of the previous blows of Michael Noonan removing funds, and no refund for PRSI and USC on contributions. Pensions are a very long term investment. Why would anybody enter into a long term contract when the government keep changing the rules to ones less favourable to the pension contributer.What is the 6%? It was recommended that anyone over age 66 pays Class K PRSI. There is no recommendation to increase this class of PRSI.
Given that most people haven't contributed enough PRSI during their working life to fund their State pension why shouldn't pensioners pay full PRSI?No PRSI is paid by those over 66 and annuities aren't liable to PRSI at all. Under the recommendation, these will now be liable to PRSI as well as people still working past the age of 66. A 4% tax increase for the retired? Might as well put VAT on children's shoes!
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?