State Pension 67 in 2021, 68 in 2028

[hunter1]

@hunter1, back in 2014 Howlin, to force PS employees out in their 50's, dangled the redundancy carrot and raided the pension pot to get PS to retire early. Most of these are now early 60's and utilising the Supp Pensions to top up the pension until the State Pension is available.

Its farcical, Dept of Public Reform brought in the Supp rule requirement, Social welfare have to pay it and vet the claimants for unemployment assistance. Raises the cost for Social Welfare.......

As I just commented on another thread, this "supplementary" pension, which allegedly is there to bridge the gap between the new pension age of 66 from 65, was actually created back in 1995, when no such gap existed. It was clearly not designed for this purpose.

I tracked it back, the entire system is a joke and each time the rate of the state pension increases, our occupational pension decreases, so we are left, bizarrely, more dependent on the State Old age pension that we cannot be entitled to because of our age, to make up our "retirement" pension.

 

[josh8267]

We seen what happened to labour when the got found out letting down there own
Interesting to see will FG follow them,having let down the people who got up in the morning and went to work for up to fifty years,

 

[Early Riser]

Its farcical, Dept of Public Reform brought in the Supp rule requirement, Social welfare have to pay it and vet the claimants for unemployment assistance. Raises the cost for Social Welfare......

That is not quite accurate. The Supplementary Pension was introduced in 1999, which was well before their was a Dept of Public Expenditure and Reform ( see Circular S 10/99 :[broken link removed]). It followed from the transfer of all public servants to Class A PRSI in 1995.

Also, Social Welfare do not process or pay Supplementary Pensions for retired public servants. They only process applications for standard Social Welfare payments. In the case of Class A public servants retiring before State Pension age, this would normally be for Jobseekers Benefit. A retiree must exhaust this first before applying to their former employer's pension/pay office for a Supplementary Pension. The only role for Social Welfare is to confirm that the person is no longer eligible for a Social Welfare payment (and why).

 

[galway_blow_in]

This is one seriously expensive country to live in compared to the UK

It's no more expensive than the UK

 

[Nordkapp]

@hunter1, interesting. To get PS to "go early" Supp was used. If no Supp pension you would be "going early" only if you have to. Personally want Supp gone and the disparity or reduction in the occupational pension sorted out. They are putting huge doubt in PS minds to the extent that some will not contemplate retiring as each Government continually changes the goal posts

 

[Early Riser]

As I just commented on another thread, this "supplementary" pension, which allegedly is there to bridge the gap between the new pension age of 66 from 65, was actually created back in 1995, when no such gap existed. It was clearly not designed for this purpose.

Not so. The Supplementary Pension was introduced to bridge the gap between normal retirement (at any time from 60) until the payment age for a Social Welfare (State) pension. Back then that payment age was at 65, it is now 66 and will soon be 67. After 2004 the retirement age for new PS entrants was raised to 65, so for these retireees there is no possible eligibility for a Supplementary Pension before 65.

 

[Nordkapp]

It's no more expensive than the UK

They have free health care, we pay for everything. Their 20% tax rate stops at £50k (€60K), Give me a pension of that and I would be sitting on a beach drinking tequila.

 

[galway_blow_in]

They have free health care, we pay for everything. Their 20% tax rate stops at £50k (€60K), Give me a pension of that and I would be sitting on a beach drinking tequila.

Sorry, thought this thread was about those who have retired, we also have free health care for pensioners

 

[hunter1]

That is not quite accurate. The Supplementary Pension was introduced in 1999, which was well before their was a Dept of Public Expenditure and Reform ( see Circular S 10/99 :[broken link removed]). It followed from the transfer of all public servants to Class A PRSI in 1995.

Also, Social Welfare do not process or pay Supplementary Pensions for retired public servants. They only process applications for standard Social Welfare payments. In the case of Class A public servants retiring before State Pension age, this would normally be for Jobseekers Benefit. A retiree must exhaust this first before applying to their former employer's pension/pay office for a Supplementary Pension. The only role for Social Welfare is to confirm that the person is no longer eligible for a Social Welfare payment (and why).

No it wasn't. It was introduced on the 11th March 1995, and even if it was, it was still years earlier than when the gap existed.

 

[hunter1]

@hunter1, interesting. To get PS to "go early" Supp was used. If no Supp pension you would be "going early" only if you have to. Personally want Supp gone and the disparity or reduction in the occupational pension sorted out. They are putting huge doubt in PS minds to the extent that some will not contemplate retiring as each Government continually changes the goal posts

But we are not going early, we're going when they tell us to go, either at 65, or in my case, 60.

 

[Early Riser]

No it wasn't. It was introduced on the 11th March 1995, and even if it was, it was still years earlier than when the gap existed.

The gap existed as soon as all public servants entrants were changed to Class A PRSI and placed on "cooordinated" pensions, ie. 1995. The retirement age was left at 60. So there was a "gap" until a state pension eligibility (then 65). The Circular setting out how the Suppplementary would operate and eligibility criteria is linked in the post above.

 

[Early Riser]

But we are not going early, we're going when they tell us to go, either at 65, or in my case, 60.

As we know from another thread you are in a different situation from the majority of post 1995 public servants. The majority do not have to go at 60 - they can go at 60 (without actuarial reduction on benefits accrued) or they can stay on. As I understand it, your sector has compulsory retirement at 60 which is a differnet scenario.

 

[Conan]

It's completely ludicrous. I recently discovered that this is what I have to do - when I retire. Why would I sign on the dole and make myself available for work to get part of my retirement pension? It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

If you are aged 62 or older when claiming JB, you DO NOT have to make yourself available for work. The recent articles in the IT, the Indo and on the Journal are all misleading in this regard. Furthermore if you claim JB at age 65, you get paid for the 12 months up to age 66. Again the articles mentioned earlier are misleading in this regard also.

 

[hunter1]

As we know from another thread you are in a different situation from the majority of post 1995 public servants. The majority do not have to go at 60 - they can go at 60 (without actuarial reduction on benefits accrued) or they can stay on. As I understand it, your sector has compulsory retirement at 60 which is a differnet scenario.

I have to admit to being somewhat confused, maybe you can explain the retirement ages to me.

 

[hunter1]

If you are aged 62 or older when claiming JB, you DO NOT have to make yourself available for work. The recent articles in the IT, the Indo and on the Journal are all misleading in this regard. Furthermore if you claim JB at age 65, you get paid for the 12 months up to age 66. Again the articles mentioned earlier are misleading in this regard also.

The problem is, I will be 60.

 

[G123]

Saw a bit of the Tonight Show just now. It looks like pre-election jitters means that all parties are now promising full pensions for everyone, under one guise or another, from age 65.

 

[Early Riser]

I have to admit to being somewhat confused, maybe you can explain the retirement ages to me.

For the majority of the public service, workers who joined before 2004 have the option of taking normal retirement from 60. By "normal" I mean that they can get a pension based on their years served without any actuarial reduction. However, they do not have to retire at 60 and very many don't for a variety of reasons. Some just prefer to continue working. Most probably won't have the full 40 years service by 60, which they require for a full pension. Many prefer a full salary to a pension in any event. It used to be that these PSs had to retire at 65 but they now have the option to continue.

Certain categories of worker have an earlier, compulsory retirement age, eg, 60. I think Gardai, Prison Officers and some others. This is not the norm.

For post 2004 entrants to the general public service, the age for normal retirement was raised from 60 to 65. From 2013, entrants to the Single Scheme have the retirement age tied to the State Pension age (eg, it will be 67 from 2021 and 68 from 2028). Again people in special categories, such as yours, have different arrangemments.

The Supplementary Pension was introduced to fill the gap for Class A PRSI retireees on coordinated pensions who were entitled to take normal retirement before the State Pension age (either 60 or 65) and who did not qualify for any other Social Welfare payment in the meantime.

 

[moneymakeover]

Rather than the issue being to ensure public servants are allowed to continue working after age 65 as mentioned earlier I think the issue for me is why the private sector will only be getting state pension after age 66,67,68 while public servants can retire age 64 and get the state pension (supplementary)

Independent:
"public servants get a "supplementary pension" before they can qualify for the State contributory pension at 66. ... Public Servants are getting a full supplementary pension payment even in cases where they do not have sufficient PRSI contributions to give them the maximum State pension.Nov 13, 2017"

 

[hunter1]

For the majority of the public service, workers who joined before 2004 have the option of taking normal retirement from 60. By "normal" I mean that they can get a pension based on their years served without any actuarial reduction. However, they do not have to retire at 60 and very many don't for a variety of reasons. Some just prefer to continue working. Most probably won't have the full 40 years service by 60, which they require for a full pension. Many prefer a full salary to a pension in any event. It used to be that these PSs had to retire at 65 but they now have the option to continue.

Certain categories of worker have an earlier, compulsory retirement age, eg, 60. I think Gardai, Prison Officers and some others. This is not the norm.

For post 2004 entrants to the general public service, the age for normal retirement was raised from 60 to 65. From 2013, entrants to the Single Scheme have the retirement age tied to the State Pension age (eg, it will be 67 from 2021 and 68 from 2028). Again people in special categories, such as yours, have different arrangemments.

The Supplementary Pension was introduced to fill the gap for Class A PRSI retireees on coordinated pensions who were entitled to take normal retirement before the State Pension age (either 60 or 65) and who did not qualify for any other Social Welfare payment in the meantime.

If we're required to sign on the dole, regardless of whether our retirement age is 60 or 65, then clearly we do qualify for a social welfare payment.

It doesn't make any sense, it's completely illogical to ask people who are retiring to sign on the dole from the social welfare department and then revert back to our employing department for the supplementary pension.

 

[hunter1]

According to Charlie Weston this morning:

Charlie Weston: 'Private sector workers are hung out to dry as taxpayers left to fund unfair gold-plated system'

You have to admire public servants. The biggest issue in the election so far is the State pension age being raised. Yet our public servants managed to insulate themselves from this costly change.

www.independent.ie

"Take a public servant on €80,000, retiring after 40 years at age 64.

Her public service pension is worked out at €27,045 a year. When this is added to the State pension of €12,956 gives her a 50pc final salary pension, according to calculations by pensions expert Tony Gilhawley of Technical Guidance.

But she won't get the State pension until she is 67.

Provided she is not working, her public service employer will pay her a 'supplementary pension' of €12,956 a year between retirement at 64 and State pension age at 67.

In effect she will get the State pension immediately except that for the first three years it's paid by her employer as a supplementary pension."

But from what I have been reading on this site from other Garda as well as ourselves, this is not the case because we have been advised that we have to first sign on the dole for 9 months (leaving us with a shortfall of the difference between JSB and the State pension) and then apply for the supplementary pension from our own department.

Now what Charlie is saying makes much more sense in a way, where it ceases to make sense is why, when we are entitled to half our salary from our employer on retirement, that part of this is classed as a "supplement", we're not asking for or getting any more than the 50% that is our pension package.