I am all in favour of cutting payments to under 26 year olds - signing on should not be a lifestyle option you walk into after school. If the dole is not attractive then people will have more incentive to go and get training/education. UK are following this model and we need to do to start to remove social welfare as a lifestyle option.
decrease you mean?
My pension doesn’t remain unchanged. I have a final salary pension so my pension has been cut in line with my diminishing salary.
In addition to that my pension contributions have increased by 8 per cent due to the public sector pension levy. So my contributions are now a completely unaffordable 15 per cent of salary and I have no right to opt out of my pension payments. They are compulsory so they are a tax rather than a ‘contribution’.
In addition I am one of those public servants whose employer had a pension scheme floating in the stock market, but it was appropriated by the government under the financial emergency measures legislation and added into the national pensions reserve fund. There was no consultation about this and as far as I am concerned it was stolen from me. I would prefer to take my chances in the stock market rather than rely on the government, but they didn’t ask.
Don’t get me wrong, my dad lost his entire pension when his employer went to the wall in the 1980s, so I am well aware of the downsides of the alternatives to a government supported pension but I am sick to the back teeth of people suggesting that public sector pensions are somehow ‘gold plated’. Current retires got a good deal on the back of contributions which varied from 0% to 3%, but my deal is far less attractive and I have no confidence that I will actually get a pension at the end of it all.
This can be a source of some confusion. I’m fairly confident that when I checked I was informed my UK interest was taxed at my marginal rate, not as DIRT. Now I look, the first result, from AAM, confirms what you say. My confusion appears to stem from a change in the rules. Until 2005, I was taxed at my marginal rate.
(link to revenue document appears to be broken; they’ve probably moved it).
Also, form 12, (for those whose income is mostly PAYE, rather than self-assessed) just has an “other foreign income” box, after specific ones for dividends, rental income, foreign employment, etc, rather than a dedicated “EU deposit interest” one, so you do have to trust the Revenue staff to recognise that you’ve said it’s deposit interest and tax it at the appropriate rate.
Anyway, my income from the UK is mostly dividend distributions, rather than interest so that differential tax rate isn’t significant to me at present. OTOH, I wouldn’t have any hoops to jump through to move money back into accounts I opened before moving here, other than informing the revenue in writing that I’d done so.
Thanks for the clarification on tax rates.
I’m not seeking to public-sector-bash, but by way of a comparison with defined contributions…
15% of salary over 40 years of linearly increasing salary makes 300% of final salary, which would buy an annuity of 15% final salary even at the rather optimistic 5% rate. You will presumably qualify for rather more than 15% of final salary after 40 years.
You also haven’t answered the question about % increases in take home pay from 2000-2008.
Our GP swears by it. When our breast-fed nipper was getting her shots last Winter, he mentioned a lot of the formula-fed babies had to be sent away due to various cold’s and flu’s. The breast-fed babies were all fine to get their shots though.
FFS, a guard retiring in his mid-fifties pension was costing about €1m. A good deal!!, what the f**k would a great deal be?
Informing the Revenue is relatively simple. The problems come from informing the bank in whatever non-EU country that you have your account in that you are now non-resident. Did you inform them? Maybe your non-EU bank is lax with rules on non-resident accounts but from my own past experience that is rarely the case. Many banks force you to close an account when you become non-resident if you openly inform them or in some cases change the classification of the account and reduce the interest rate to zero or worse still they freeze the account.
The broader point is that operating non-resident non-EU non-EUR bank accounts, for tax reasons, is not for Joe Soap.
Forgive the presumption but I’ve fixed your post
Updated list of Budget 2014 details leaked but still to be confirmed
That bereavment grant was one I simply couldn’t fathom. A few years ago my cousins sold their deceased parents house in Raheny (both died in the space of a year). They netted about Euro130,000 each on the deal - but they applied for - and got - the bereavment grant in both cases. And the thing is - they didn’t even know about the grant until they contacted the Welfare office to cancel the pensions etc., and they were told they’d be sent a form for the bereavment grant.
Intended to defray funeral costs, I presume. It doesn’t sound like your cousins needed it, but a pensioner whose spouse has died might be in a different situation.
The bereavement grant exists to prop up the funeral service market…much like rent supplement places a floor on rents
That’s why funeral insurance will never take off. Let someone else pay.
I’m still not getting how this will actually be administered without costing a fortune and confusing a huge number of people
Not that I agree or disagree with your sentiments but aren’t you getting this anyway?
Edits to get highlighting right!!
Banks will ask customers to state their marginal rate of tax on a form.
We’ve been here in the 1990s. It didn’t end well.
That’s the social welfare rate for a qualified child (under 18 or in education), the child benefit is received on top of this (the poster has ignored it in their calculation above as it is received by everyone).
It won’t, but why should that stop them?