I never suggested I want to debate it
You've shouted down any and all attempts at discussing the changes to mitigate the cost of pensions for future retirees.
You've also managed to land a dig with your assertion that public servants don't appreciate the value of their pensions, but I'm off topic when
... so there doesn't seem to be much scope for discussion...??
Same Sex Marriage?
Can we stick with the topic at hand?
Thanks.
Well then why did you introduce the point in the context of this discussion? Again, I'm more than happy to debate the point in a separate thread but I'm trying to keep this thread on topic.
Again, I'm more than happy to debate the sufficiency or otherwise of the steps that have been taken to date to address the State's pension liabilities elsewhere.
However, a number of posters suggested that the calculations in the article were bogus because they failed to take account of these changes. I simply pointed out that these changes had zero impact on calculating the present value of current PS pensions. I had to repeat this point of a few occasions because it was raised on a number of occasions but I hope I was courteous to other posters at all times.
I actually said that I am regularly surprised at the extent to which public servants underestimate the true value of their pension entitlements. That's hardly a dig - it's simply been my experience. Many of the contributions to thread are a good example of this phenomenon.
I'm inclined to agree but some posters are still arguing that the article is bogus and hence the ongoing discussion.
At least three other posters said the article was bogus (or used words to that effect).No, the article is not bogus, don't believe anyone said it was
It's not actually.it's your article
More than happy to give full consideration to all substantive points. Did you intend to make one?you're not listening
Any chance you could ease up on the condescending tone?Give it a rest like a good lad, you're a very unique person, just like everyone else.
At least three other posters said the article was bogus (or used words to that effect).
It's not actually.
More than happy to give full consideration to all substantive points. Did you intend to make one?
Any chance you could ease up on the condescending tone?
Many thanks.
By synopsising my replies to suit yourself you are proving yourself to be the master of the condescending tone. Thankfully, others opinions have more than proved themselves correct, without trying to be superior in any way. I'm guessing that's what's called intelligence.At least three other posters said the article was bogus (or used words to that effect).
It's not actually.
More than happy to give full consideration to all substantive points. Did you intend to make one?
Any chance you could ease up on the condescending tone?
Many thanks.
As a civil servant I'd have no problem with what you suggest, as long as my employer also increases my salary by the additional ~20% that I could earn in the private sector in an equivalent role...! I'd be delighted to have been earning 20% more gross, and not paying the PRD or PPC, for the last couple of years while starting a family and saving the deposit for a house...
No, the article is not bogus....QUOTE]
Hi noproblem,
Just one question - do you accept the accuracy of the annuity rates emanating from the Irish Life quotation system?
The point that many seem to be missing is that the cost of an annuity where an insurance company must make a profit is very different to the cost of providing an annuity.
If anything, the analysis as to what lump sum would be required to purchase an annuity to provide an income in retirement comparable to a PS pension actually underplays the true cost of PS pensions to the taxpayer. The annuity quotes detailed above all assume that the annuity payment will escalate in line with inflation, subject to an annual cap. However, PS pensions do not escalate in line with inflation - they increase in line with salary increases of serving PS employees.
The Department of Public Expenditure estimated a couple of years ago that the State would reduce its pension liabilities by around €16 billion if it linked future PS pension increases to the cost of living rather than increases in the salaries of serving PS employees. A saving of €16 billion would go a long way to securing the sustainability of the State's pension liabilities.
Could l respectfully suggest that using the cost of annuities offered by 'for profit' insurance companies presents an overly gloomy prospect for the retiree. In the US, an invested pension fund of €1.5m would be estimated to facilitate a safe withdrawal rate of 4% giving approx €60k pension per annum, based on the Trinity study. We should broaden this discussion to include non annuity mechanisms.
Hi noproblem,
I think we are a little at cross purposes. I think what you are saying is that post retirement some folk will die shortly thereafter and some will live for ages. And also that some people will never make it to retirement age. All of this I accept fully.
My question is if you have someone who is not a member of a defined benefit plan but is a member of a DC plan - and this person arrives at retirement age and has a DC fund equal to €1.5m and wishes to buy an annuity with this fund, do you accept that the annual amount of the annuity (pension) that he will receive is c. €24k (based on the nature of the annuity as described)?
Your question is not broad enough and is trying to get me to agree with an assertion based on a confined spread. Neither do I think public servants should have to apologise to anyone for what they get. There's a very good job done over the past few years by FG in particular in the divide and conquer department between private and public sector workers. A very nasty development and copied with great skill by FG from our conquerors in the past.
Look, everyone has an opinion on pensions, some seem to believe their opinion is exact, others like to debate that fact and, there's no proper answer really. One thing I do agree with though, the person/company selling the pension will do well out of it. Any other discussion from me on this is pointless, but
Could l respectfully suggest that using the cost of annuities offered by 'for profit' insurance companies presents an overly gloomy prospect for the retiree. In the US, an invested pension fund of €1.5m would be estimated to facilitate a safe withdrawal rate of 4% giving approx €60k pension per annum, based on the Trinity study. We should broaden this discussion to include non annuity mechanisms.
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?