Madam, – In reply to Messrs Flanagan, Bell and Moloney (May 13th), may I state the facts about public service pensions? I am a retired community school principal.
1. We paid for our pensions throughout our working careers. 2. My pension and those of my retired colleagues have been reduced by payment of public service pension reduction and pension levy since January 2011. 3. When the current pension was being negotiated we, in the ASTI, proposed that our contributions be put in a managed fund. This was not accepted by Finance. I was one of the delegation that proposed this some 45 years ago.
These are the facts. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – I don’t have a huge issue with the new pension fund levy tax in the current circumstances. However, what does concern me is the appalling performance of the fund managers who look after my fund. After 10 years, my fund is still worth less than what I have contributed. The main reason Irish people have continued to invest in pension funds is the very generous tax reliefs available, not the investment performance of these funds. This levy and the future reduction in tax relief may force the pension companies to finally deliver on what they’re paid to do. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – My understanding is that an individual cannot assign his/her pension, or any part therof.
Neither can any individual, or entity hold an effective assignment over a pension. This legislation was enacted by government to protect pension savers and holders.
How then can a government take the quantum leap and start raiding the same pensions, by way of levy?
Does it not make a mockery of the non-assignability legislation? Can we test the legality of the levy, given the protection that should follow from existing legislation? – Yours, etc,
Madam, – If the Minister for Finance, Michael Noonan, insists that the pensions industry should have no problem in absorbing the cost of the pensions levy, why doesn’t he put his money where his mouth is, and pass legislation to that effect? – Yours, etc,
Madam, – It seems to me that this tax is age-discriminatory. The older you are, the more likely it is that you have a larger fund, and therefore the more you will pay. I can’t think of any rational reason why this is equitable. – Yours, etc,