Follow @PoliticsIE
 
 
 
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Extending Retirement ages

  1. #1

    Default Extending Retirement ages

    I don't get it. I know the argument is that it reduces exchequer pension costs by keeping people in employment longer.

    Is that it ?

    What about reducing retirement age ?

    Generally, older staff will carry higher wage costs due to being further up the ranks.

    And naturally, increased age leans towards increased health costs and sick leave costs.

    So why postpone the inevitable retirement of these people when it seems they're not particularly happy about it.

    Would it not make more sense if

    • These guys retired at the established age.
    • The system eventually moved everyone up one notch to replace them.
    • Then some bright young people get a job, a career and a life.

    The economic equations don't make any sense to me on this subject. Nor do the social equations.
    Redacted.

  2. #2
    Politics.ie Member spidermom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,182
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    AGREED....employ me...as a frontline health worker at 68(FFS...I'll be on a zimmer frame myself)..at the top end of the employment scale...or pension me off...and employ a graduate at less pay!

    What you save by employing me still, you have lost in the cost of training and mentoring....
    While you would probably save by trading me in for a younger model!!
    When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute and it's longer than any hour. That's relativity.

    ALBERT EINSTEIN

  3. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spidermom View Post
    AGREED....employ me...as a frontline health worker at 68(FFS...I'll be on a zimmer frame myself)..at the top end of the employment scale...or pension me off...and employ a graduate at less pay!

    What you save by employing me still, you have lost in the cost of training and mentoring....
    While you would probably save by trading me in for a younger model!!
    Well yes, shifting people up via promotions to replace their previous seniors creates a new onus for people. Productivity automatically increases.

    How much productivity do you get out of a 65 year old when they have been told they have to work until they are 67 ?

    What does that do to the mindset of the immediate sub-ordinates ?

    Compared to a 20 year old who is taken off the dole to go and work.
    Redacted.

  4. #4
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    3,121
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    I believe its a plan of the rich and elite to slowly do away with the welfare state.

    We have seen what 13 years of FF/PD idealogy has done to our health service. Cystic fibrosis sufferers in ireland have a life expantany of 25, in canada its 45. This is solely due to their facilities. To date there is no dedicated unit for CS patients in this state.
    Add to this the fact that whilst we are closing public hospitals private ones are opening.
    I would love to see the percentage of public v private facilities in ireland today compared with 20 years ago.

    Increasing the retirement age, forcing people into private pension schemes whilst enriching pension fund managers and investors is the goal.
    It will be no surprise to me to see the state pension rot in line with inflation.


    Thing is, what will the rich and elite do when the less well off and the lower paid revolt?!!

  5. #5
    Politics.ie Member spidermom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    9,182
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Red face

    Quote Originally Posted by SKELLY View Post
    I believe its a plan of the rich and elite to slowly do away with the welfare state.

    We have seen what 13 years of FF/PD idealogy has done to our health service. Cystic fibrosis sufferers in ireland have a life expantany of 25, in canada its 45. This is solely due to their facilities. To date there is no dedicated unit for CS patients in this state.
    Add to this the fact that whilst we are closing public hospitals private ones are opening.
    I would love to see the percentage of public v private facilities in ireland today compared with 20 years ago.

    Increasing the retirement age, forcing people into private pension schemes whilst enriching pension fund managers and investors is the goal.
    It will be no surprise to me to see the state pension rot in line with inflation.


    Thing is, what will the rich and elite do when the less well off and the lower paid revolt?!!


    WHEN.......or if?
    When a man sits with a pretty girl for an hour, it seems like a minute. But let him sit on a hot stove for a minute and it's longer than any hour. That's relativity.

    ALBERT EINSTEIN

  6. #6
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    738
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EvotingMachine0197 View Post
    How much productivity do you get out of a 65 year old when they have been told they have to work until they are 67 ?
    One could say that's a temporary effect.

    In general, one could say how much productivity does one get out of somebody who is two years from retirement - but that applies currently as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by EvotingMachine0197 View Post
    Generally, older staff will carry higher wage costs due to being further up the ranks.

    And naturally, increased age leans towards increased health costs and sick leave costs.
    That appears to be only relevant to PS workers. The State also pays pensions to private workers as well as non-contributory pensions where are higher than welfare payments. For the people working, they get two more years' income tax rather than have the money go the other way. And if the arguement is that people in their 60s earn a lot, that could be quite a lot of income tax.

  7. #7
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,326
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EvotingMachine0197 View Post
    How much productivity do you get out of a 65 year old when they have been told they have to work until they are 67 ?

    Compared to a 20 year old who is taken off the dole to go and work.
    Er, I'd suggest that even an unmotivated 65 year-old can be more productive than a 20 year old. Experience counts for a lot. Obviously job-dependent.

    I think before retirement ages are increased other steps should be taken:

    - link pensions to CPI, not wage increases
    - change pension basis to career average rather than final salary
    - move to defined contribution model

    Increasing retirement age should be the final step. Should not be done unless other steps don't provide necessary savings.

  8. #8

  9. #9
    Politics.ie Member Panopticon's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    5,575
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EvotingMachine0197 View Post
    I don't get it. I know the argument is that it reduces exchequer pension costs by keeping people in employment longer.

    Is that it ?
    Increasing life expectancy means pensions have to pay for more life years after employment than before. People life a lot longer than they used to. Women live longer than men, and women are now a larger portion of the workforce, so this has an extra small effect, but the main fact is that life expectancy after 65 could potentially double, and that's a lot of non-work years to cover with the same number of work years.

    That's the argument. Increase work years, reduce non-work years. If you think about it, one or two extra years doesn't even cover it, in an era where many people will work for 40 years and draw pension for another 20.

    Quote Originally Posted by EvotingMachine0197 View Post
    What about reducing retirement age ?

    Generally, older staff will carry higher wage costs due to being further up the ranks.

    And naturally, increased age leans towards increased health costs and sick leave costs.

    So why postpone the inevitable retirement of these people when it seems they're not particularly happy about it.
    I'm afraid these are fallacies. If you make old people retire early, there are still going to be people "further up the ranks". They will just happen to be younger. Increased age itself doesn't increase health costs that much, at least not up to 65, because most health costs are associated with childbirth and with end of life. Few people die before 65 nowadays.

    Quote Originally Posted by EvotingMachine0197 View Post
    Would it not make more sense if

    • These guys retired at the established age.
    • The system eventually moved everyone up one notch to replace them.
    • Then some bright young people get a job, a career and a life.

    The economic equations don't make any sense to me on this subject. Nor do the social equations.
    Not really sensible. As I said earlier, pensions are expensive. Also, the signs are that life expectancy is going to keep rising. More non-taxed years and more pension expense. Finally, I don't understand what you mean by "the system": this is always going to happen because people are always going to retire; three years or so won't make that much difference. And outside the public sector, it doesn't.

  10. #10
    Politics.ie Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,834
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EvotingMachine0197 View Post
    The economic equations don't make any sense to me on this subject. Nor do the social equations.
    I don't think most people realise how expensive pensions are. To fund a pension of 40k a year, nowadays you'd need about a million in a pension fund.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •