Sir, – Is the writer of your Editorial (“A lucky generation”, August 19th) trying to be sarcastic or ironic? Probably not: he/she is probably guilty of the same failing as our politicians, economists and our other “strategic thinkers”, of selective analysis of the parts of the issue which suit their argument, aimed at softening us up for yet more cuts and service reductions in the forthcoming budget.
I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of any “golden circle”. I was, for more than 47 years a payer of PRSI (or “social insurance”, as it was called when it was first extracted from my then-meagre pay). That “social insurance” was the government-mandated and government-controlled “insurance pot” from which existing and future pensioners were paid. I have, therefore, already been paying for my social welfare and health benefits and those of others – the only benefits I was entitled to were occasional dental and optical “benefits” which in later years were reduced to farcical levels. Oh, I almost forgot the “health levies” – and the “insurance levies”, extracted to compensate AIB for its ICI fiasco.
In the late 1970s/early 1980s, we bought a house shortly before the mortgage rate went up to 18 per cent; repayments taking more than 60 per cent of my net salary. We are now paying property tax on a notional value eight times that which we paid for the house. As with many of our generation, we are therefore “asset rich” (supposedly, if we could ever realise the value of the house) and “income poor”.
I paid into a pension scheme (which has been called “deferred salary”!) over which I had no control. The insurance company managed to lose more than 37 per cent of that pot just three years before I needed to draw on it. With tax on the drawings from the depleted fund, and “management fees”, even despite the tax relief on the original income, I would have been better off putting aside the money and “investing” it in my local credit union or building society.
In spite of the extortions from our income, we managed to pay for our daughters to attend university – yes, we had to pay – forgoing holidays, foreign and otherwise, but, now we are living on “cushy” old-age pensions aggregating to a gross (for both of us) €21,500 per annum, out of which we have to pay €3,500 health insurance – at just the time when we cannot afford to cancel it. We also have to pay property tax and, soon, water charges. So, yes, I suppose we are “a lucky generation”. – Yours, etc,
JOHN P McENEANEY,
Clane Road,
Celbridge,
Co Kildare.
Sir, – Your Editorial, “A lucky generation” contained some glaring errors. All pensioners over 65 do not get bus passes: they have to wait until they are 66. Electricity allowances – amounting to less than €3 per week and telephone allowances – amounting to a fabulous €1 per week together with a free TV licence are all means tested – at least in Cork they are.
Contributory pensioners haven’t any increment pension payments nor have they had a pay rise in five years. Out of a meagre €230 many pensioners have to pay out €140 per month on medicine and €30 per week on health care. – Yours, etc,
DANIEL COSTELLO,
Castleowen,
Blarney,
Co Cork.
Sir, – Your Editorial “A lucky generation?” claims that “Between 2004 and 2011 the average income of the elderly increased by 41 per cent or almost four times more than those (18-64) in the traditional working age groups.”
You fail to give actual figures, ie, 41 per cent of nothing is nothing. On the other hand I have some actual figures, from a letter in The Irish Times dated December 11th, 2007: "The Budget's increase for old-age pensioners amounts to €728 a year for which they are expected to be most grateful, whereas the taoiseach's recent increase of €730 a week moved him to declare himself to be poverty-stricken." Prior to making any further comment on this topic you might usefully research some actual figures, rather than take the slipshod approach adopted in the above-mentioned leading article. – Yours, etc,
ANNE CAHILL,
Laurel Park,
Clondalkin,
Dublin 22.
Sir, – In his critique of your Economic Editor’s coverage of the Central Statistics Office Survey, Eamon Timmins (Letters, August 17th) spells out the practical impact of Government policy on elderly citizens.
Government commitment to maintain the basic social welfare rates demonstrates the importance of the welfare system in maintaining a social cohesion and has prevented a significant increase in the number of pensioners at risk of poverty (as defined by the criteria used in the CSO survey on income and living conditions). However, changes in non-income supports (eg the drug payment scheme and respite care) seriously impact on frail elderly, particularly those whose sole income is a social welfare pension. Property tax and the increasing cost of heating, particularly for housebound elderly, present serious challenges for those on fixed incomes.
Research across the European member states has repeatedly shown that intergenerational support in Ireland scores highly. Anecdotal evidence in this era of austerity indicates pensioner parents are likely to be supporting children struggling with unemployment, negative equity and personal debt. With commendable restraint, organisations working with and for senior citizens and older people themselves have refrained from public protest over their reduced circumstances.
If we are to avoid creating new poor, and if we are to preserve intergenerational solidarity and ensure that the generation that in earlier times coped with the highest ever dependency rates is guaranteed an adequate income, the first step as we recover from our years of austerity is to protect social welfare pensions. – Yours, etc,
SHEILA SIMMONS,
Director,
Irish Association of
Older People,
Sussex Street,
Dún Laoghaire,
Co Dublin.