Work until 70 - Poll added


QNHS Pension Provision
Quarter 4 2015 … onsq42015/

Pension coverage for persons in employment aged 20 to 69 years

Q4 2009 51.2% (Male 53.1%; Female 49.0%)
Q4 2015 46.7% (Male 47.2%; Female 46.2%)

Includes occupational pension, personal pension, or both.


The figure is even more dire for 25-34 year old’s.

Studies have shown that contributing to a pension in the 25-34 period is absolutely vital as the early contributions are the ones that are given the most amount of time to compound. For 2/3’s of people in the 25-34 age bracket to have nothing means they will either have to contribute much more when they do start a pension, or just work longer into retirement. Given the fact that people without pensions are least likely to be able to afford them even later on, the situation for them is likely to only get worse as times passes.


This is precisely the same time you are saving every last cent for a house deposit and having kids…


Exactly, and some would argue that money off a mortgage gives a better return than money into a pension. There is some merit to this view.


Hooray for higher density living, apartments and townhouses, we basically dont find it conducive for raising families big enough to replace ourselves and therefore retire.


Did Britain Just Bankrupt Dutch Pensions? - -> … Pensions-/


Pensions gap doubles in Ireland’s largest companies … -1.2750929


If you buy it yourself, it should be relieved at source. If your employer pays it, you can claim relief. I think you can do this on the MED1 or MED2 or else, at worst, the Form 12 PAYE tax return. If your financial affairs are simple, even this only takes half an hour to fill in.


I think he means that if his employer pays for medical insurance BIK is charged on it? It’s because you’re not buying it, your employer is.


Yup. And the stated policy of all parties is to phase out private health insurance in favour of… er something wonderful that involves collecting underpants.

#671 … 68936.html

*"The warning came as it emerged the average worker has only enough in their private pension fund to give them a weekly income of €60 - that’s €8.50 a day.

The head of the State’s pensions regulator said that expectations around retirement income were unrealistic."


The main article is here: … 68732.html

I get my pension statement every year and, I’m probably lucky, it’s value is almost exactly what has been put into it. The charges certainly don’t help.


Mine is up 36% over 8 years of contributions. Lots of colleagues are well in the red.

I have fun every year with the folks that come around from the company’s investment partner, who keep telling us young folk we should be piling into the riskier funds for better returns i.e. the same blanket advice they give regardless of the environment.

“I’m out performing your advice by sticking with the long term growth fund”

And they protest that I need to be in higher risk funds in the long term.

“But I can exit the long term growth fund at any time, I’m not allowed to move lump sums into it however, so if I see a significant tailwind I can rebalance, but I can’t get into the long term fund if I see headwind. Presumably you like to protect the growth funds from being hollowed during bad news”

“But you might not get the returns in the medium term if there’s an up-tick”

“Sure amn’t I getting over 50% from the company match and the tax breaks alone, as well as out-performing your advice, not to mention I consider there to be considerable short-medium term risks in a market that’s inflated by quantitative easing”

“But those high growth fund units could shoot up well above the value of your units in the long term fund”

“That is predicated on the market not being over-valued today”

It usually becomes apparent that these ‘advisors’ have a hymn sheet with only three hymns on it. I’d feel sorry for them (taking shit from me), except that I don’t agree with their advice about forgetting about it and letting it all balance out over 40 years, nor do I agree with them pushing that advice heavily “You have control, but here’s what to do…”.

Everyone can make their own minds up, but I don’t accept that there is a blanket strategy for 25-35 year olds, one for 35-45 and one for 45-55 etc. I’m making and contributing enough to have a livable pension with modest long term growth


Something has went badly wrong there. Even with high fees, you should be up.


How much (in real terms) has the old age pension increased since 2000?

FG tried to buy a few grey votes last budget increasing it (probably fair as it had been cut so viciously in the recession :nin ) and aren’t Fianna Failure proposing another hike?


I thought Vradaker was promising annual hikes a few days ago?


Is there something bizarre about all this effort to get people to work until they are 66, 67, 68 etc. at a time when the requirement for labour seems to be under threat of a massive reduction. Surely we will go through the effort only to create something equivalent to a pension payable from a much earlier age (albeit maybe for a few days work per week). Either that or we will build an army of robots to eliminate the proles. It will be us calling the shots won’t it.

PS Just checked it out with my time machine chrome plugin - David Hall, Gillian Godsil and Tom Parlon got the robot killer army up and running in 2027 (taking the idea from a David McWilliams article in the indo). They went for the Pin subscribers first.


I call BS on the part in bold above. What Irish politician is going to recommend a cut in the old age pension? In reality it seems to be going the other way. The Government will just bleed the tax payers to pay for it.


Especially as when the number of retirees increases, then the number of votes in that grouping increase too. The retiree population will have the greatest political clout when it represents the greatest burden (through force of numbers on both accounts).


I’ve only been in it 8 years if that makes any difference.