Retired people are at a much lower risk of poverty than younger people

NoRegretsCoyote said:
The main source of wealth for older people is housing which continues to increase at double-digit rates, still ahead of inflation.
Click to expand...
See @Red Helmet's post:
Red Helmet said:
It is also difficult to benefit from downsizing, unless your house is very expensive( and so having a large enough margin over the new property) when you take into account the costs involved including furniture, decoration etc etc and not forgetting the hassle of moving if you are happy in your own home.
Click to expand...
In addition, where would older people move to? There is a housing shortage.

Would all of the housing stock in the hands of older people equal the need of younger people in terms of size, location, condition and affordability?
 
Purple said:
I don't think anyone is worried about them having too much.
The discussion is about social and economic policies that are built on the false assumption that all or most older people are poor.
Click to expand...
I think the norm of older people being poorer is about to be restored. Things have changed fundamentally with the return of inflation.
Reduction in income for those with ARFS( + inflation ( which over time will affect those on fixed or reducing incomes more.). For those still working incomes eventually adjust as they did in the 70's. Those younger people with mortgages will benefit as debt is inflated away. Governments will like this also whatever they say. Also any extra property tax will be coming from this reduced income. Energy costs in the home are higher for older people more also( more at home and less active).
Lets see how it looks in 2-3 years.
It might be reasonable to reduce the amount of tax free inheritance and/or increase inheritance tax and /or not allow the use of inheritances/gifts as deposits for houses.
The problem is a housing shortage essentially which should be sorted. The demand side might reduce soon -I believe some IT companies are laying off staff and you'd expect there will be a rush for the exit home by people from abroad
 
Purple said:
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.
Click to expand...
If you don't have enough contributions you get a reduced pension, the PRSI is paid to contribute to pension, why should a person pay PRSI a 2nd time on what they contributed
 
Purple said:
I agree. My issue is that social and taxation policy presumes that all retirees are poor. That is certainly not the case.
Click to expand...

Red Helmet said:
I think the norm of older people being poorer is about to be restored.
Click to expand...
Leaving aside that retirees are at a relativity high risk of poverty or social exclusion, it violates the basic principles of taxation of equality and neutrality if you look for certain socio-economic groups or other categories who you can then soak for taxes. Taxation should be neutral and should not be geared towards penalizing particular social groups, just because they are perceived as ‘less poor than they were in the past’, etc., or because you just don’t like them.
 
PMU said:
Leaving aside that retirees are at a relativity high risk of poverty or social exclusion
Click to expand...
No they are not.

Retired people are less at risk of poverty than students, the unemployed, the disabled, and those on caring duties (see yellow bar).

Material deprivation rates are even lower than those in employment (light green bar).

figure-32-poverty-and-de.jpeg

The state pension system does a pretty job of ensuring that most pensioners are not in poverty.
 
I'm Nobody said:
I've worked 7 days a week as well.
My first wage in 1973 was 8 pounds a week.
Most People now have stuff, too much of it, that they don't need we had nothing in the 60's and 70's.
Where I am living now there were people living in mud huts against a ditch in the 1960's in Ireland.
Click to expand...

Ah will you stop it, i grew up in the 60s in a brand new bungalow, i knew no one living in a mud hut against a ditch, thats famine era stuff
 
PMU said:
Leaving aside that retirees are at a relativity high risk of poverty or social exclusion, it violates the basic principles of taxation of equality and neutrality if you look for certain socio-economic groups or other categories who you can then soak for taxes. Taxation should be neutral and should not be geared towards penalizing particular social groups, just because they are perceived as ‘less poor than they were in the past’, etc., or because you just don’t like them.
Click to expand...
I agree. It should be neutral. It certainly shouldn’t be giving lower rates to well off people simply by virtue of their age.
 
roker said:
If you don't have enough contributions you get a reduced pension, the PRSI is paid to contribute to pension,
Click to expand...
Sorry, I probably should have been clearer. For many people the contributions they made, while all that was asked of them, were insufficient to fund their State pension. Basically PRSI rates are too low.
 
If you like to look up the book, Images and Chronicles from the archives of the Kerryman newspaper, on page 154 you will see a photograph of the mud hut from the 1960s, and the Egan family that lived there.
 
I'm Nobody said:
If you like to look up the book, Images and Chronicles from the archives of the Kerryman newspaper, on page 154 you will see a photograph of the mud hut from the 1960s, and the Egan family that lived there.
Click to expand...
One mud hut is not reminiscent of the living conditions in Kerry in the 1960s. My parents built a four bedroom bungalow in the early 60s with the modern bathroom and palour of the era, in fact all the houses in our rural area were built of block or stone. Didnt the government embark on a massive social housing program in the 50s where thousands of houses were built all over the country in towns and rural areas.
 
I'm Nobody said:
If you like to look up the book, Images and Chronicles from the archives of the Kerryman newspaper, on page 154 you will see a photograph of the mud hut from the 1960s, and the Egan family that lived there
Click to expand...
Then as now people view things from their own situation and often don't see the poverty that surrounds them.
 
Purple said:
Sorry, I probably should have been clearer. For many people the contributions they made, while all that was asked of them, were insufficient to fund their State pension. Basically PRSI rates are too low.
Click to expand...
And what about the tax rates?
 
I'm Nobody said:
If you like to look up the book, Images and Chronicles from the archives of the Kerryman newspaper, on page 154 you will see a photograph of the mud hut from the 1960s, and the Egan family that lived there.
Click to expand...

So, even in the 1960s when the photo was taken, presumably The Kerryman regarded such a salubrious residence as noteworthy.
After all, if everyone in Kerry had been living in mud huts and eating roadkill and raw insects, then it wouldn't have been worth a picture.
 
Obviously not, but there was great poverty in this country in the 1960's,
even in Dublin in different parts, 3 tenements collapse in 1963 killing 4 people.
Not everyone lived in a bungalow with a bathroom and a parlour.
Luxury sure Luxury. Try telling that to the young people today to quote Monty Python.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top