State Pension 67 in 2021, 68 in 2028

moneymakeover

Frequent Poster
Messages
620
Also Irish times

Why are people so annoyed?
There are two reasons, really. First, it’s a matter of money. The maximum weekly payment under Jobseekers’ Benefit is €203 – and that only lasts nine months. After that, your payment will be means tested. With the State pension, you can receive up to €248.30 a week.
A second, and not insignificant, issue is more personal. Many people object to being obliged to apply for unemployment welfare payments. They have worked all their lives without needing to rely on welfare and do not see why they should be forced to on retirement instead of receiving a pension for which they have been paying PRSI all their working lives
 

Allpartied

Registered User
Messages
137
It was Mary Hanafin who introduced the changes, back at the fag end of the last FF govt. Calmly telling the people that they would just have to keep working until they were nearly 70. She then lost her seat and retired on a very generous pension, aged 50.
She's not the only one, of course, but that took some neck.
 

Conan

Frequent Poster
Messages
1,115
There is an article in the Irish Times today which incorrectly outlines how Jobseekers works for those retiring at age 65 currently.
The article states that JB is payable for 9 months. However it is current practice that if the individual is receiving JB after age 65, it will continue for the 12 months to age 66 (when currently the State Pension kicks in). The IT suggests that after 9 months the JB is means tested. Wrong. What is means tested is Jobseekers Allowance, but not relevant for those retiring at age 65.
Furthermore, the article states that the claimant must be available and actively seeking employment. Wrong. Once the claimant is over age 62 it is again the practice that they are not required to take part in any “activation “ process, so not required to be available or seeking employment.
What is not decided, is how this will work from 2021 when the State Pension age goes to 67. That will be a decision for any new Government.
 

RedOnion

Frequent Poster
Messages
4,594
There is an article in the Irish Times today which incorrectly outlines how Jobseekers works for those retiring at age 65 currently.
The article looks like it was effectively written by SIPTU. It's hardly going to be factual...
 

SBarrett

Frequent Poster
Messages
3,489
Why do people keep on comparing the Irish system to the French system? They are a country of 67 million people and their tax income is multiples of ours. Employers also pay much higher levels of PRSI.

The pension age is only going to be extended as we live longer. The intention of the government is to have each generation receive the OAP for the same amount of time based on mortality rates.

What can you do about it? No one is forcing you to work until 67 or 68. You can retire whenever you want. But the government is saying they can't afford to pay you the OAP from 65. So if that is when you want to retire, save the money yourself. Put a few quid aside every week or month and use it to provide yourself with an income for those few years.

It's incredible how much people ignore the need to save any money preferring to spend it instead. But then when they actually need money, they give out that the government aren't providing for them.


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie
 

moneymakeover

Frequent Poster
Messages
620
FF and FG in desperate bids to hold on to grey vote amid claim older people used as election 'pawns'
The planned increase in the State pension age to 67 will be deferred pending a review if Fianna Fáil takes power, Micheál Martin has promised.

Fine Gael, meanwhile, has pledged to bring in a new "transition payment" so older people don't have to sign on to the dole until they qualify for the pension.
Social Protection Minister Regina Doherty said the payment would be a "pensions pathway" but provided no details of the sums involved or the qualifying criteria.
 

moneymakeover

Frequent Poster
Messages
620
Why do people keep on comparing the Irish system to the French system? They are a country of 67 million people and their tax income is multiples of ours. Employers also pay much higher levels of PRSI.

The pension age is only going to be extended as we live longer. The intention of the government is to have each generation receive the OAP for the same amount of time based on mortality rates.

What can you do about it? No one is forcing you to work until 67 or 68. You can retire whenever you want. But the government is saying they can't afford to pay you the OAP from 65. So if that is when you want to retire, save the money yourself. Put a few quid aside every week or month and use it to provide yourself with an income for those few years.

It's incredible how much people ignore the need to save any money preferring to spend it instead. But then when they actually need money, they give out that the government aren't providing for them.


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie
The state pension is total 36k over the years 65 to 68
Maybe 72k for a couple.

Saving
500 per month would take 144 months
12 years!

Have I got this right?

But isn't saving for retirement the point of pensions?

Why do individuals have to start worrying about these gap years.

And if you draw down your private pension aged 65 it goes lot less than if you draw down at 68
 

MrEarl

Frequent Poster
Messages
1,957
Hello,

This is all very simple - the Government can't afford to cover its obligations to the people of Ireland, hence they pushed the age out for commencement of the oap.

The population is living longer, so the cost is rising. That's making the problem even worse.

It's long past time that everyone accepted the reality of this situation, had honest conversions about it, and put alternative arrangements in place - the State should be top of that list btw, and speed up the roll out of a new plan, for future generations of pensioners.

At the very same time, the State also needs to do away with its exceptionally generous pensions for civil servants (including TDs etc). Sure, they won't like it, will go on strike, protest etc but it's long past time that we all had a reality check here. Ireland doesn't have the money to pay what it has promised, simple as that.
 
Last edited:

moneymakeover

Frequent Poster
Messages
620
The key issue is forced retirement from work at 65, no? This will definitely need to change.
Definitely one issue. Perhaps the main issue.
Demonstrates the lack of thinking that some think people can't work beyond 65 and at same time others are expected to work to 68!

Private sector may not wish to continue working beyond say 66. What about them?
 

misemoi

Frequent Poster
Messages
186
So our expectations and financial planning need to change in line with the new standard of living. My Dad always says people were old and crippled at 50 in his youth, but now with joint replacement, better meds for arthritis etc 60s isn't old. So the old retire at 50 needs to become the new retire at 60. Also note the later ages at which people are having children, meaning dependents at a much later age. There has to be some level of personal responsibility.
 

SBarrett

Frequent Poster
Messages
3,489
The state pension is total 36k over the years 65 to 68
Maybe 72k for a couple.

Saving
500 per month would take 144 months
12 years!

Have I got this right?

But isn't saving for retirement the point of pensions?

Why do individuals have to start worrying about these gap years.

And if you draw down your private pension aged 65 it goes lot less than if you draw down at 68
It's €12,911 per person, so €38,734 to save per person. If I got a modest return of 2% on my savings, saving €300 a month for 12 years would meet that target.

And yes, saving for retirement is the exact point of pensions. The only people who have to worry about gap years are those who haven't saved for retirement and who stop before they receive the OAP. In cases where an employer has a mandatory retirement age of 65, this will have to be changed.

If people want to rely on the State telling you when you can retire and how much you can live on in retirement, they can carry on doing nothing and then complain when the State changes the rules.

The whole purpose of saving and investing is going without now so you can use the money later. That's lost on a lot of people.


Steven
www.bluewaterfp.ie
 

michaelm

Frequent Poster
Messages
1,777
The State pension age will probably have to be pushed out to 70 over time. However there should be an option to drawdown from age 65 on a actuarially reduced rate such that it would be cost neutral for the State. This might suit those who have a private pension or other provision and therefore may not require a full rate pension to live reasonably comfortably.
 

jpd

Frequent Poster
Messages
2,017
I love the way people say "The State must pay my ....."

What would make the arguments much clearer would be to say "The taxpayer must pay my ...." or to make it even clearer "Those paying tax must pay my ...."

Almost everyone pays tax of some kind (income tax, prsi, usc, VAT, excise tax, etc) so when we say X will pay it is really "We"
 

Early Riser

Frequent Poster
Messages
908
As usual the government has already looked after their own, further pension apartheid:

That article is not entirely accurate.

The PS person retiring at 65 would not be entitled to claim the Supplementary Pension until they have exhausted any Social Welfare payment to which they may be entitled. In effect this means claiming Jobseekers Benefit. It is only when JB runs out that they can claim Supplementary - or if the amount of the JB is less than the Supplementary to which they may be entitled . Supplementary is only equal to the value of the State Pension for those with full service, usually 40 years.
 
Last edited:

Sarenco

Frequent Poster
Messages
6,393
The Citizens' Assembly (which, IMO, has been a surprisingly successful innovation in our political system) met back in 2017 to consider how best to respond to the challenges and opportunities of an ageing population.

On the pension front, the Assembly made the following recommendations:-
  • 87% of the members recommended that the Government should introduce some form of mandatory pension scheme to supplement the State pension.
  • 96% of the members recommended the removal of the anomaly, which arises when a person who must retire at 65 is not entitled to the State pension until 66.
  • 86% of the members recommended abolishing mandatory retirement based on age.
  • 88% of the members recommended benchmarking the State pension by reference to average earnings.
  • 100% of the members recommended that the Government should take steps to rationalise private pension schemes to include greater transparency in relation to fees.
 

josh8267

Registered User
Messages
95
PGF2016,
This is one of very few unpopular but prudent decisions made by a government that I'm aware of. It makes perfect sense to increase the retirement age as people live longer and in better health.
[/QUOTE]
Not as prudent as you might think
The done away with the transition year and got people to start using up there PRSI NOT A VERY GOOD IDEA to cover them up to 66 as a direct result of this prudent decision, the Government were forced to changed the rules so people over 65 can draw there PRSI up to 66, FG are now going to allow this up to the new pension age by the look things

This prudent Government no longer require people from the age of 62 to prove the are looking for work,brought in after the pension age going to 66

I myself started work 1n 1968 paying an Insurance stamp until the 1970s when prsi came in i have most of my payslips going back to when PRSI first started,
Payroll PRSI deductions average close to 20% all of my working life until the USC came in,

The government are killing the goose who is laying the golder egg,

Expect the goose to stop laying earlier than normal and start enjoying some of the 20% , Seeing the Government put the idea of claiming from there PRSI into there Head

I suspect the poor goose will have a underlying illness and will not feel like laying anymore,
 
Last edited:

Deiseblue

Frequent Poster
Messages
777
Hello,

This is all very simple - the Government can't afford to cover its obligations to the people of Ireland, hence they pushed the age out for commencement of the oap.

The population is living longer, so the cost is rising. That's making the problem even worse.

It's long past time that everyone accepted the reality of this situation, had honest conversions about it, and put alternative arrangements in place - the State should be top of that list btw, and speed up the roll out of a new plan, for future generations of pensioners.

At the very same time, the State also needs to do away with its exceptionally generous pensions for civil servants (including TDs etc). Sure, they won't like it, will go on strike, protest etc but it's long past time that we all had a reality check here. Ireland doesn't have the money to pay what it has promised, simple as that.
In fairness to public sector employees it should be pointed out that they will not receive any additional OAP after retirement as their occupational pension is integrated with the social welfare pension.
To put matters in some perspective both myself and my wife are both retired from Bank of Ireland and both of us receive occupational pensions from a defined benefit scheme and both of us ameliorated our pension entitlements to avail of tax free capital sums and received the maximum state redundancy payment- all for pension contributions of approximately 1/3rd of those paid by public sector workers + our PRSI contributions.
In addition , if we survive , we can then claim the OAP bringing our combined income to approximately €90,000 annually.
Is this fair ? , should pensioners be means tested before receiving any OAP ?
Naturally I would be very disappointed to lose any portion of the OAP but in the interest of fairness I would reluctantly accept it.
However it would seem I have little to worry about in the light of recent media reports it seems that instead of a cautious approach to the question of pensions the major parties are simply going to kick the can down the road and instead are promising to increase the OAP and possibly reduce the pension availability age.
I think it’s perhaps slightly naive to suggest that the State could continue to function in the face of an all out public sector strike and if there’s anything guaranteed to keep people out for as long as it takes then that is a threat to their pensions.
The reality is that successive Governments have shown that the groups they most fear and are anxious to placated are pensioners and the public sector unions.
 
Top