Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 54,757
The proposal is about the taxation of the pension lump sum, not ongoing pension income.However, I don't think that the marginal tax rate proposal is quite as stark as Brendan outlines. It would just be that any income drawn from the pot would be taxed as income at marginal rates (20% on first 36K, 40% after that plus USC/PRSI?).
That's a very good point. For my own selfish reasons I'm looking forward to the tax free lump sum but (a) it's difficult to know what the rationale is for it and (b) looks like I may be disappointed anyway?There really is no logic to the tax-free lump sum element of our pension code.
The whole point of our pension regime is to provide a reasonable income in retirement - not to amass a tax-free lump sum.
It certainly wouldn’t suit me, but I can’t see any good arguments for the retention of the TFLS.
We really need to start thinking how we are going to equitably fund our State across generations in the face of an ageing population.
No, it's simple recognition of the reality that pensioners should not be heading into retirement with overhanging debts or similar commitments arising from the rearing of children or the maintenance of a home throughout their working lives, and that releasing a modest percentage of their accumulated pension pot upon retirement is as good a way as any of helping to minimise that nightmare scenario. The provision for it to be paid tax-free is presumably to encourage its drawdown.There really is no logic to the tax-free lump sum element of our pension code.
The whole point of our pension regime is to provide a reasonable income in retirement - not to amass a tax-free lump sum.
Don't worry. There's zero chance of this or pretty much any of the Commission recommendations being adopted in the foreseeable future.For my own selfish reasons I'm looking forward to the tax free lump sum but....looks like I may be disappointed anyway?
25% is hardly a modest percentage?releasing a modest percentage of their accumulated pension pot upon retirement is as good a way as any of helping to minimise that nightmare scenario.
Why not?25% is hardly a modest percentage?
Why did you find this funny?Don't worry. There's zero chance of this or pretty much any of the Commission recommendations being adopted in the foreseeable future.
Because one quarter of something is obviously not a modest fraction?Why not?
Mistake. Fixed.Why did you find this funny?
Well I think it is. It is certainly counted as such when taxing low earners, for example. But I'm not demanding that you agree.Because one quarter of something is obviously not a modest fraction?
Agreed.…pensioners should not be heading into retirement with overhanging debts
..pensioners should not be heading into retirement with overhanging debts
If you agree, what alternative policy measure(s) do you propose to ensure pensioners aren't burdened with overhanging debts in old age?Agreed.
But I don’t see why they should get a tax-free lump sum to discharge their debts.
Only if you contend that the State should maximise its tax revenue at all costs.Ultimately that forgone tax revenue will have to be funded by somebody else.
It's simply to allow as many government related workers as possible receive their pension lump sum tax free, they don't have to worry about balancing a one off lump sum against reducing their subsequent retirement income.That's a very good point. For my own selfish reasons I'm looking forward to the tax free lump sum but (a) it's difficult to know what the rationale is for it and (b) looks like I may be disappointed anyway?
I can see some merit as there are some things that are good to spend big on early in retirement before your income falls. Like a car or home renovation.It certainly wouldn’t suit me, but I can’t see any good arguments for the retention of the TFLS.
I didn't read it like this at all. I read their intention as reducing the tax free lump sum and there being no balance taxed at a different rate. Throughout the part that I have read, they don't want anomalies in the tax code, so it would be reduced lump sum and that's that.
Tax free money doesn't suit you? It suits meThere really is no logic to the tax-free lump sum element of our pension code.
The whole point of our pension regime is to provide a reasonable income in retirement - not to amass a tax-free lump sum.
It certainly wouldn’t suit me, but I can’t see any good arguments for the retention of the TFLS.
We really need to start thinking how we are going to equitably fund our State across generations in the face of an ageing population.
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?