I often thought that the state pension should be divided into two elements;That's because as a cohort they are rich and under taxed. There was a time when they were poor and needed support and we constructed our taxation and welfare structure accordingly. Now they are rich and don't need those supports but the structures remain the same.
A far more targeted approach is necessary. Things like free travel and medical cards should be means tested. They should pay the full rate of PRSI since it's very unlikely that they contributed enough to fund their State pension over their working life. Social transfers should be given to those who needs them, not to those who don't.
I'm sure there'll be lots of the usual "I/they worked hard all their life" entitled nonsense in response.
Means testing is a recipe for poverty traps and all sorts of anomalies. For example, at the moment, SUSI is docking 2022/23 third level grants for students who earn more than €4,000 a year from summer or part-time work.I often thought that the state pension should be divided into two elements;
a) a basic minimum,, say €180 - €200pw and
b) a means-tested top-up for the remaining €70pw
I have no mathematical basis for picking the rates but its illustrative. I think Michael O'Leary has previously ridiculed that he will get the full standard rate of €253.30pw in due course. Yes, I know civil servants hate the idea of means-testing (too much work!) but the principle of paying €253.30pw to everybody regardless of their wealth seems crazy
I get that but the principle of giving for example Michael O'Leary a state benefit of €253.30pw is bizarre notwithstanding he has paid his full quota of PRSI contributions. I am not sure how actuarily sound a 4% PRSI funding rate is for a quasi index-linked benefit of €253.30pw?Means testing is a recipe for poverty traps and all sorts of anomalies. For example, at the moment, SUSI is docking 2022/23 third level grants for students who earn more than €4,000 a year from summer or part-time work.
And I get your point too. The problem is that with all the bureaucracy, it's nearly cheaper and definitely easier to give O'Leary the extra few bob and be done with it.I get that but the principle of giving for example Michael O'Leary a state benefit of €253.30pw is bizarre notwithstanding he has paid his full quota of PRSI contributions. I am not sure how actuarily sound a 4% PRSI funding rate is for a quasi index-linked benefit of €253.30pw?
The State transfers funds using a leaky bucket. It's the same everywhere but we don't pay enough attention to it.And I get your point too. The problem is that with all the bureaucracy, it's nearly cheaper and definitely easier to give O'Leary the extra few bob and be done with it.
Yes, I know civil servants hate the idea of means-testing (too much work!) but the principle of paying €253.30pw to everybody regardless of their wealth seems crazy
Hello,I often thought that the state pension should be divided into two elements;
a) a basic minimum,, say €180 - €200pw and
b) a means-tested top-up for the remaining €70pw
I have no mathematical basis for picking the rates but its illustrative. I think Michael O'Leary has previously ridiculed that he will get the full standard rate of €253.30pw in due course. Yes, I know civil servants hate the idea of means-testing (too much work!) but the principle of paying €253.30pw to everybody regardless of their wealth seems crazy
I think Michael O'Leary has previously ridiculed that he will get the full standard rate of €253.30pw in due course
Some suggestions to re-balance supports slightly away from over 65s:
(1) do not remove FTP, as that is too political / too tangible / very well-known
(2) do not remove GP Visit Card
Tax measures
(3) abolish the 18k/36k exemption
(4) abolish the DIRT exemption
(5) abolish the Age tax credit
(6) abolish the lower rates of USC
(7) maybe make the GMS medical card means-test a bit stricter
I support the idea of a flat-rate state pension as an anti-poverty measure and to ensure that everyone who pays in gets something out. But the universal benefits that kick in for over-70s are very hard to justify from any kind of equity perspective.Any opinion on the HBP? Why should I (and Enda Kenny and Bertie and Michael D Higgins) get free TV licences and some free electricity every month when we're well able to pay for it from our own resources?
I support the idea of a flat-rate state pension as an anti-poverty measure and to ensure that everyone who pays in gets something out. But the universal benefits that kick in for over-70s are very hard to justify from any kind of equity perspective.
Means testing is complicated and time consuming of course but by the time you've got to 70 your income is generally stable and wealth is declining. A single means test at 70 with periodic reassessments would make a lot of sense and there isn't huge risk of overpayment they way there is with young people whose income is much more volatile.
But of course!But only for newbies of course! We oldies must be allowed to keep it!
But of course!
It's like the old question, "Who are the rich?" The answer is "Anyone who has more than me."
But of course it does!If you look at it dispassionately, doesn't it make you all warm inside to know that I'm a beneficiary of a small portion of all of the taxes that you pay? (Not forgetting your employer's generous PRSI contribution, of course!)
Sure, but so were pensioners back then. We construct our taxation and social police as if that was still the case when clearly it isn't. That's what this thread is about.Is that not the way of the world.
The pensioners of today were poor when they were in their 20's.
I know I was.
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?