Madam – Coverage of teacher-TDs and their double pensions is just another example of one rule for our politicians and a different rule for “ordinary” people.
Back in 2004 there was an outcry from widows when Mary Coughlan took away their existing entitlement to sick pay or unemployment benefit (for which they had paid via PRSI contributions). She justified the cut because of financial difficulties at the time. Her spokesperson was quoted in the media at the time as saying the decision was based on “the general principle common to social security systems that a person is entitled to one maintenance payment at one time”. Why is the same rationale not being applied to our teacher/TDs? Renouncing the teaching pension should not be at the discretion of the TD (and usually only when the individual has been shamed into it!) – Yours, etc,
Madam, – I feel Richard Stokes’s letter (February 21st) regarding perks of former taoisigh is only touching the tip of the iceberg. While I fully agree with his sentiments, more fundamental I think is the issue of Ministers’ and TDs’ salaries and related pensions, all of which I feel are totally out of line with our present financial situation.
I believe that all TDs and Ministers should fund their own pension funds, just like the rest of us have to do during our working life. Rather than “tinkering” with individuals’ pension funds (I understand that Fine Gael propose to introduce a levy on Approved Retirement Funds and tax withdrawals at 41 per cent) it would be more fitting if they would address the bigger anomaly of their own pension situation. Should the levy be introduced, will there be a nominal fund associated with each member of the Dáil so that they too be levied and taxed accordingly? We are being told that reviews of salaries and perks including expenses of TDs and Ministers will be carried out, let’s make sure we are playing on a level playing field. – Yours, etc,