Discussion in 'The Government's Pension Consultations' started by Brendan Burgess, 11 Oct 2018.
As far as I can make out, there are only three TDs or Senators present
John Curran - Chairman
Alan Brady of Sinn Fein
Alice-Mary Hughes Independent Senator
Chairman: Is it 6% or nothing from the employee?
Dept: That is the current proposal. If they opt out, they opt out. They can't choose 6%
Chairman: clarifies tax treatment. Those on the top rate will lose out. Those on lower rates will gain.
Dept: If they are in a pension scheme at present and getting the top rate of relief, they should not switch to this. But they would have to do their own calculations.
Chairman: If someone has a pot already, can they migrate it to the new system?
Dept: Both are possible.
John Brady Sinn Féin
People are oblivious to this.
Why are low paid workers and zero-hours contract employees excluded?
Bogus self-employment will be encouraged so that employers avoid the 6% contribution
Who will manage this overall - the private sector or the public sector? The private sector are rubbing their hands already.
What do you mean by high risk, low risk and medium. People lost their pension funds due to austerity.
We have had public consultations but they were mainly attended by boffins.
But we are also running focus groups.
The Minister wants the public to attend these meetings but we can't get the public excited about pensions
We had some at the Dublin forum which was very interesting. It was interesting to hear what ordinary people think.
We have about 40 submissions so far. Short ones mainly from individuals.
Women are disproportionately represented lower on the income groups so are more likely to fall below the €20,000 earnings limit.
Senator Higgins (Formerly worked with Trocaire, Older and Bolder and the National Womens Council)
The state targets higher earners with their pension reliefs.
We need proper basic pensions.
Where does the risk sit? Shouldn't the pension companies take some of the risk?
The risk should not sit with the individual. If it doesn't sit with the company, the state should underwrite the risk.
The companies should guarantee that they will get at least their money back.
(It's a good job there is a ban on bad language on askaboutmoney.)
How can people make sure that they don't invest in fossil fuels or arms?
Why are employers allowed to write off the full contribution against Corporation Tax? That means that the state is subsidising contributions from both employers and employees.
They should be allowed to take money out before the age of 68.
Why is there a cap on matching? It's a good idea, though.
What happens if a scheme goes bust? Who underwrites it?
This should be extended to higher earners.
We should stop subsidising higher earners.
1% of the population have 15% of the schemes.
This is a better scheme for someone on €50k
We envisage the cap at twice the average wage.
Some people will be coming late to pensions. Can they contribute more than 6% and will the government match it?
A 50 year old might like to pay more than 6%
The scheme allows that [ but the top up will be limited to 2% !!!]
This system will help people but will not be the Sun, Moon and stars.
What about the state pension scheme for CE Supervisors and the not for profit sector?
Will they be able to fund the 6%?
You will be taking a huge lump out of the economy. What will the impact of that be?
Separate names with a comma.