Supplementary Pension question please....

[sidzer]

Hi folks - I have a question about the Supplementary pension which I'd appreciate if someone could clarify for me please

The following is one of the conditions for qualifying for the supplementary pension:

'He/she does not enter other employment which involves the payment of a social insurance contribution'


I have a rental property - does the income from this 'classify as other employment which involves the payment of a social insurance contribution?

Thanks -Sidzer

 

[Early Riser]

I understand that the restriction applies to being "employed in any capacity which involves the payment of a PRSI contribution (including self employment)" - https://www.education.ie/en/Educati...ns/supplementary-pension-explanatory-note.pdf

I don't know the answer to this. You would not be "employed" but does the rental income (and PRSI) mean you are classed as "self-employed"?

PRSI does not automatically disqualify someone, eg, Class S on an ARF distribution. But rental income? Hopefully someone else can advise.

 

[Allpartied]

Good luck with this one. The supplementary pension, paid to Public Sector workers on A rate PRSI is a complete mess.



I am not sure of the answer, but it is a clear disadvantage to the previous public sector pension ( the one payable to the D rate employees). "A" rate pensioners have to jump through hoops to get their equivalent pension and then have to worry about any additional income they may receive.




If you are, currently, retired did you have any problems getting the supplementary pension paid when you retired?

 

[Early Riser]

If you are, currently, retired did you have any problems getting the supplementary pension paid when you retired?

No problems as such. I had to apply and then show that I met the conditions (sign a declaration and have a form completed by the DEASP). Then I waited a few months until it came through (it was backdated).

 

[Allpartied]

No problems as such. I had to apply and then show that I met the conditions (sign a declaration and have a form completed by the DEASP). Then I waited a few months until it came through (it was backdated).

Did you go through the farce of claiming jobseeker's allowance? How does that work?

 

[Early Riser]

Did you go through the farce of claiming jobseeker's allowance? How does that work?

Whether or not it is a farce depends on your point of view.

I did not have an issue with it. I applied and was granted. Signing once a month for 9 months. As it happens, the Jobseekers Benefit payment was higher than I would have been receiving on the Supplementary (or subsequently received). Also, I welcomed the PRSI credits. I would have had no option but to apply as the form that the DEASP had to complete as part of my Supplementary application referenced the JB. I assume that if the DEASP had refused the JB application I would have been eligible for the Supplementary at that stage, but I can't confirm.

 

[Allpartied]

Whether or not it is a farce depends on your point of view.

I did not have an issue with it. I applied and was granted. Signing once a month for 9 months. As it happens, the Jobseekers Benefit payment was higher than I would have been receiving on the Supplementary (or subsequently received). Also, I welcomed the PRSI credits. I would have had no option but to apply as the form that the DEASP had to complete as part of my Supplementary application referenced the JB. I assume that if the DEASP had refused the JB application I would have been eligible for the Supplementary at that stage, but I can't confirm.

Well, it is a bit farcical. You retired, and then you have to make yourself available for work. If you said you were not available for work, I presume you would have been denied the allowance, which would further complicate your access to supplementary pension. Does the phrase " through no fault of your own", open up the possibility of the supplementary pension being denied?

I have had pension advisors tell me that this is the case. That the employer can say that retiring at 60 or any age prior to 67/68 could be classified as " your own fault" and therefore allow them to deny the retiree access to the supplementary pension.

I am reassured that this didn't happen to you, but as the bill for public sector retirement starts to spike in the next decade, it remains a very grey area.

 

[Gordon Gekko]

Whether or not it is a farce depends on your point of view.

I did not have an issue with it. I applied and was granted. Signing once a month for 9 months. As it happens, the Jobseekers Benefit payment was higher than I would have been receiving on the Supplementary (or subsequently received). Also, I welcomed the PRSI credits. I would have had no option but to apply as the form that the DEASP had to complete as part of my Supplementary application referenced the JB. I assume that if the DEASP had refused the JB application I would have been eligible for the Supplementary at that stage, but I can't confirm.

It is an affront to people who’ve worked hard all their lives; forced to “sign-on” like Jimmy Rabbitte.

 

[hunter1]

Hi folks - I have a question about the Supplementary pension which I'd appreciate if someone could clarify for me please

The following is one of the conditions for qualifying for the supplementary pension:

'He/she does not enter other employment which involves the payment of a social insurance contribution'


I have a rental property - does the income from this 'classify as other employment which involves the payment of a social insurance contribution?

Thanks -Sidzer

Having a bit of an issue here too. Heading into retirement and checked this out and was surprised to see that I would not be getting the pension that I believed I would be entitled to when I began in employment in the public sector. It seems somewhat bizarre that on RETIRING, that I would be obliged to "sign on" and make myself available for employment?????

Currently have some queries logged, not quite sure what is going on to be honest.

 

[Early Riser]

It is an affront to people who’ve worked hard all their lives; forced to “sign-on” like Jimmy Rabbitte.

Nah. That is just a state of mind. I consider myself fortunate to have been in the pre-2004 pension scheme which allows normal retirement from 60. It is the post-2004 people and, even more, the Single Scheme people who have been disadvantaged. And you can forget the "Jimmy Rabbite" stereotype. Any people I met in the queue were just ordinary people from a variety of interesting backgrounds and situations. Jobseekers Benefit is short term and based on PRSI record. Social Welfare staff were all fine also.

 

[hunter1]

Nah. That is just a state of mind. I consider myself fortunate to have been in the pre-2004 pension scheme which allows normal retirement from 60. It is the post-2004 people and, even more, the Single Scheme people who have been disadvantaged. And you can forget the "Jimmy Rabbite" stereotype. Any people I met in the queue were just ordinary people from a variety of interesting backgrounds and situations. Jobseekers Benefit is short term and based on PRSI record. Social Welfare staff were all fine also.

I think that's a bit flippant, to be honest, I am being told that I won't receive the pension that I believed I was to receive, that's not a state of mind, that's a major game-changer.

 

[Early Riser]

I have had pension advisors tell me that this is the case. That the employer can say that retiring at 60 or any age prior to 67/68 could be classified as " your own fault" and therefore allow them to deny the retiree access to the supplementary pension.

I would suggest that this is just sales talk - or else idle speculation. If you are pre-2004 your normal retirement age is anytime from 60. You cannot be penalised for retiring from then on. (If you take CNER before that you cannot claim Supplementary until 60 of course). "No fault of your own" would refer to situations beyond the claimant's control, eg, Jobseekers Benefit used to be for one year - it was only after this that you could claim Supplementary then. It could be reduced to 6 months in the future in which case the Supplementary would be payable at that stage - or the DEASP could change the conditions in some other way - or the person could refuse to apply at all (that clearly is in the person's control).

I am well aware I am not alone - I know others in my situation who have also gone through the process. Of course, I have no way of knowing if this is the universal experience. As I say, I do not know what would have happened if DEASP had denied my claim outright - I can only guess that I would then have been able to apply for the Supplementary straight away (on the basis that this would have been "outside of my control" also).

 

[hunter1]

I would suggest that this is just sales talk - or else idle speculation. If you are pre-2004 your normal retirement age is anytime from 60. You cannot be penalised for retiring from then on. (If you take CNER before that you cannot claim Supplementary until 60 of course). "No fault of your own" would refer to situations beyond the claimant's control, eg, Jobseekers Benefit used to be for one year - it was only after this that you could claim Supplementary then. It could be reduced to 6 months in the future in which case the Supplementary would be payable at that stage - or the DEASP could change the conditions in some other way - or the person could refuse to apply at all (that clearly is in the person's control).

I am well aware I am not alone - I know others in my situation who have also gone through the process. Of course, I have no way of knowing if this is the universal experience. As I say, I do not know what would have happened if DEASP had denied my claim outright - I can only guess that I would then have been able to apply for the Supplementary straight away (on the basis that this would have been "outside of my control" also).

My compulsory retirement age is 60 and after serving my full service, paying full Class A PRSI contributions for 42 years (I worked in the private sector for 12 years prior to joining the public sector at age 30), then paying a personal pension contribution on top of this when I joined post 1995 and my employer paying their contribution, I am being advised that I will not receive my full pension when I retire, which is now in five years. I have been advised that I must first sign on the dole for nine months, even though I am retiring. Currently the rate of JSB still actually leaves me short of my full pension, when that exhausts after 9 months, then I have to apply for the supplementary allowance to bring me up to the pension that I believed that I would be in receipt at when I retired at 60. I have never signed on the dole in my life and it is beyond bizarre to me that after working my entire life and paying all of the required contributions that I will not receive the pension that I believed I was entitled to when I have no choice but to retire at age 60.

 

[Early Riser]

I think that's a bit flippant, to be honest, I am being told that I won't receive the pension that I believed I was to receive, that's not a state of mind, that's a major game-changer.

I am not meaning to be flippant. But what you believed and what were the actual terms of the scheme may not have been the same thing. As far as I know, the terms of the pre-2004 scheme have not changed since the inception of "Integration" in 1995, except for the introduction of the Supplementary Pension in 1999 ([broken link removed]). Nothing happened in relation to my retirement that was not consistent with the terms of the scheme. And this scheme is, in my opinion, significantly more attractive than either the post-2004 scheme or the Single Scheme.

 

[Early Riser]

My compulsory retirement age is 60 ...............

and my employer paying their contribution, I am being advised that I will not receive my full pension when I retire, which is now in five years. I have been advised that I must first sign on the dole for nine months, even though I am retiring. Currently the rate of JSB still actually leaves me short of my full pension, when that exhausts after 9 months, then I have to apply for the supplementary allowance to bring me up to the pension that I believed that I would be in receipt at when I retired at 60. I have never signed on the dole in my life and it is beyond bizarre to me that after working my entire life and paying all of the required contributions that I will not receive the pension that I believed I was entitled to when I have no choice but to retire at age 60.

If yo have a compulsory retirement age of 60 then you are not in one of the mainstream public sector schemes but one for a special category of workers. That being so, I am not familiar with it and cannot comment directly. However, just a few observations.

Did the terms of the scheme change suddenly or were you just unfamiliar with the terms? These are two very different scenarios and you would have considerably more rights in one of them. What you believed you were entitled to and what were in the terms of the scheme are not necessarily the same (and I not being flippant).

As regards the Jobseekers Benefit being less than you would be entitled to with the Supplementary. This being so, then the terms of the Supplementary allow for a reduced Supplementary to bring you up to the relevant amount. So if your full Supplementary Pen. should be €260 p/w and Jobseekers pays €200 p/w, you would be entitled to a Supplementary of €60 p/w for the duration.

 

[Gordon Gekko]

It’s a disgrace. Just pay these people their pensions. Humiliating them by forcing them to sign on for the scratcher is truly bizarre. The whole charade probably costs more to administer than just paying people what they’re owed and leaving them at it.

 

[hunter1]

I am not meaning to be flippant. But what you believed and what were the actual terms of the scheme may not have been the same thing. As far as I know, the terms of the pre-2004 scheme have not changed since the inception of "Integration" in 1995, except for the introduction of the Supplementary Pension in 1999 ([broken link removed]). Nothing happened in relation to my retirement that was not consistent with the terms of the scheme. And this scheme is, in my opinion, significantly more attractive than either the post-2004 scheme or the Single Scheme.

I'm sure you didn't, but I believed that my pension was half my final salary, that's not the case now or so it seems. I am post 1995 but pre 2004. The terms of my scheme were very clear, 40/80ths of my final pensionable salary, but that is not the information that I am now receiving. There is a significant shortfall and I will be required to sign on the dole for 9 months - which I cannot understand at all, even on doing this, I still won't receive the full pension, when this exhausts then I must make an application for this supplementary pension. I don't understand what is supposed to be "supplemented" as I will have paid all the relevant contributions. I have done exactly what was required of me and yet I will not receive the pension that I signed up for. I have five years left in my job and it just beggars belief that after "working" my entire life and on never having to sign on the dole, that on "retiring", that this is exactly what I will be required to do? Sorry, but there is something deeply wrong with this.

 

[hunter1]

If yo have a compulsory retirement age of 60 then you are not in one of the mainstream public sector schemes but one for a special category of workers. That being so, I am not familiar with it and cannot comment directly. However, just a few observations.

Did the terms of the scheme change suddenly or were you just unfamiliar with the terms? These are two very different scenarios and you would have considerably more rights in one of them. What you believed you were entitled to and what were in the terms of the scheme are not necessarily the same (and I not being flippant).

As regards the Jobseekers Benefit being less than you would be entitled to with the Supplementary. This being so, then the terms of the Supplementary allow for a reduced Supplementary to bring you up to the relevant amount. So if your full Supplementary Pen. should be €260 p/w and Jobseekers pays €200 p/w, you would be entitled to a Supplementary of €60 p/w for the duration.

No, the terms never changed.

With respect to the supplementary payment, the information I have received clearly states that before I can apply for this then I must exhaust all my social welfare entitlements, so if I am in receipt of JSB, then I can't apply for the supplementary.

 

[Early Riser]

The terms of my scheme were very clear, 40/80ths of my final pensionable salary, but that is not the information that I am now receiving.

You are clearly not in one of the mainstream PS schemes if you have a compulsory retirement age of 60 and you can get full pension after 30 years of service. As I am not familiar with this scheme I will not comment further, other than to note that, post "integration" in 1995, all retirement benefits were integrated with Social Welfare. Perhaps this was not circulated in your sector but it seems surprising that incorrect information would have been in circulation for all of this time.

 

[Early Riser]

With respect to the supplementary payment, the information I have received clearly states that before I can apply for this then I must exhaust all my social welfare entitlements, so if I am in receipt of JSB, then I can't apply for the supplementary.

I am pretty sure (but cannot guarantee!) that if your Social Welfare payment is less than the applicable rate for the Supplementary in your particular situation then you can apply for a reduced Supplementary to make up the shortfall. You do of course have to "exhaust all your Social Welfare entitlements" (that is apply for what you are entitled to) but if, through no fault of your own, this falls short of the applicable Supplementary, then you can apply for the difference.