With pension funds struggling to grow by even a steady 3% year on year does this not just consign pensions to a near zero % growth level going forward.
“Pension fund” was mentioned not “Pension contribution”.
As Pension funds can’t be transferred overseas how would one avoid the pension fund levy? bite the bullet and realise the pension on the first day you can draw it down e.g. 50 or 55 years old rather than waiting until you hit 65 or 67.
From what i’ve heard the scheme doesn’t have to be in profit to be charged the levy. It is supposed to be applied on the value of the whole fund regardless…
For now, according to an article in the Financial Times, under the terms of the Portuguese bail-out public sector pay and pensions are to be frozen until 2013 and a “special tax” introduced on pensions above €1,500 per month. Only a matter of time before similar measures are applied here.
This is not the GO signal for Public/Private circular argument leading to thread de-railment.
Public sector workers already pay a 7% levy to provide for their pensions.
A levy on private sector pensions was inevitable. If you can afford to fund your pension, you can afford the levy. Those with the means to pay for the deficit should pay most.
I pay X% of my salary into a private pension to provide for my pension. I can’t remember exactly how much it is because you know courtesy of underfunding and a few AVCs to ensure I was fully funded at the age of retirement it’s gone up quite a significant bit in the last few years. This at a time when my primary salary has also gone down and my tax has gone up quite a lot.
You tell me Public sector workers pay a pension levy to provide for their pensions. Where is the difference between their pension levy and my pension contribution?
Does any mandarin in DoF realise that I’m looking at all this and wondering why I should bother providing for a pension at this stage? I’ll be working until I’m 68 at least, and 70 probably. Given the utter stress involved in trying to modern life I’ll probably be dead of a heart attack before hand.
What is the point here? The idea is to encourage people to provide for their aging days. It seems to me that policies of this nature make me think I’d be better off dead before I have to retire.
I’ve a chunk in a self directed pension cash deposit that doesn’t pay much; take out the 1% “Management Charge” ( yes - even for a Cash account…) and the 0.5% Govt charge and I’m almost going backwards
Lots of private sector people who can “afford pension contributions” as you put it are little people who are putting 100 a month or less into a prsa and hoping it amounts to something. I am one of them and will probably not bother putting in any more and just write the whole damn mess off.
I fund my pension such as it is fully myself - would love if I had to pay just 7 per cent and be guaranteed a defined benefit. why should I pay another levy again? It has nothing to do with the cost of providing for my pension, the state doesnt pay a penny into my fund. By all means abolish the income tax deductions, if that is a state subsidy the state cannot afford any more.
But am not looking to go into PS bashing on this thread, I actually have sympathy for the younger Irish Ps workers who will pay 7 per cent and get a lot less than they think when the time comes.
the bottom line is that pensions are easily stolen to pay for the bank debt, easier than depsoits; so pensions will be stolen over the next while in various guises, and the cupboard will be bare when the time comes…Ir gov bonds, a great return, we know shurra there will never be a default!!!
Did you vote Fine Gael? This proposal was in their manifesto.
Look folks, there’s no point cribbing and moaning about something that you 80% of the population voted for. We have all effectively signed up to the social contract. That those with the means to pay for the banking crisis and our IMF/EU loan, will pay most.
The really shitty thing is that you could have lost your job and could also be approaching retirement age and you will still be hit by this levy…not everyone contributing to this banking crisis can can afford it!
No, actually. On this occasion I voted Labour because I had no alternative. But that’s not the point. And you’re missing the point. It’s a stupid policy and a lot of stuff which winds up in manifestos doesn’t get implemented. The bad stuff gets implemented. The good stuff does not. That is because people like you suggest we should suck it up.
It’s a lousy stupid policy. Whether it was in a manifesto or not does not change that.
I am of course being a little tongue-in-cheek, the basic points are true though. The vast majority of us have voted for political parties that have committed to paying the private bank losses and satisfying the EU/IMF. If the government can’t go after broke developers, bankers or the unemployed, that means that we have to pay for their profligacy.
