Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE AVERAGE ANNUAL employer pension contribution for executive directors in the private sector is nearly 36 times more than for other employees according to an ESRI research paper.
The research based on annual accounts for 2009 on pension arrangements for 147 executive directors for 48 companies showed contributions for the top executives was €100,000 on average compared to €2,700 for other employees.
The average employer pension contribution rate for executive directors was almost 26 per cent of salary whereas for other private-sector employees it was about 7 per cent.
If executive directors had to retire in 2009 they would have been entitled to a pension of €199,100, or 17 times more than the annual State pension of €11,976 on which most pensioners depend, the research said.
In 2009, the costs of State tax reliefs for private pension arrangements amounted to €2.7 million and they were concentrated on executive directors and other high income earners who have higher marginal rates of tax and larger pension contributions.
Author of the paper Gerry Hughes, visiting professor at Trinity College Dublin, said the playing field could be levelled by taking into account the National Pension Policy Initaitve recommendation that the combined value of the State pension and private pension should replace 50 per cent of gross pre-retirement earnings.
“This could be done by reducing the present earnings contribution limit from €115,000 to €75,000 and the cap on the size of individual pension funds from €2.3 million to around €0.6 million”, he said.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
40% of people who live in the USA are suffering from a chronic illness of one sort or another. Think on that. That’s nearly half of the population of the USA. Pesticides, unlabled GMO foods, food riven with additives, growth hormones, ammonia, have a huge bearing on that figure of 40%. When Monsanto can place its people in the Supreme Court, and on the board of the FDA there will never be any chance of that number of 40% decreasing. The number will only rise.
@Dave Doyle: Sedentary lifestyles and too much calorie-laden, salty processed food is the cause of those problems.
Glyphosate is used just as widely in Europe as it is in the US, so there’s very little basis for your above post wrt. pesticides.
@Dave Doyle: Likely nothing to do with Monsanto or Glyphosate but to do with the adulteration of the food chain with sulphite preservatives & sulphite colorants.
Sulphur dioxide & sulphites are the only one of 14 allergens that can be legally HIDDEN in food if the levels are below 10mg/kg or 10ml/l. Imagine if same rules applied to peanuts.
The sulphites are driving chronic inflammation which we suspect is exacerbating a newly defined disease called Mast Cell Activation Syndrome that may already be an epidemic in developed nations even Ireland. The disease is an immune disease likely triggered by environmental factors such as smog, diesel exhaust, of gassing polyurethane plastics and other household chemicals we assume are safe WD40, 3 in 1 oil, deodorant propellants….very long list.
Once the genie is out of the bottle, Mast Cells within the immune system start to misidentify threats and one threat it mis-identifies are sulphites in food which are now ubiquitous. Sulphites are used to cheat on shelf life and cheat on colour.
Acute exposure by thousands of personnel to vast amounts of known sensitizer chemicals at the Air Corps at Baldonnel has left a medical trail that will be very valuable to any scientist looking to get to the bottom of this problem. Young men suffered MCAS symptoms in late teens/early 20s when the measured profile of the illness in the USA is confined 80% to middle aged women.
Monsanto is a convenient bogie man but the answer is likely simpler and happening every time we eat breakfast, dinner and tea as well as nibbles and a glass of wine.
@Chemical Brothers: A well researched, reasonable and balanced response but you’re dealing with Journal prejudice where everybody goes off pushing their own little barrow.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is the primary agency of the European Union for risk assessments regarding food safety.
In October 2015, EFSA concluded that ‘glyphosate is unlikely to pose a hazard to humans and the evidence does not support classification with regard to its carcinogenic potential’.
@James Brady: Study after study has shown that is does cancer -Common weed killer glyphosate increases cancer risk by 41%, study says https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/14/health/us-glyphosate-cancer-study-scli-intl/index.html
Weedkiller glyphosate a ‘substantial’ cancer factor
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-47633086
2 recent cases in US have been win by people who sued and win.
Have you ever wondered why cancer is skyrocketing why bees are dying etc
@GO GREEN: Jury Rules Against Bayer in California Glyphosate and Cancer Trial https://www.agriculture.com/news/crops/jury-rules-against-bayer-in-california-glyphosate-and-cancer-trial
@James Brady: that conlusion only came after the heavyweight German corporations got involved. The WHO has been compromised for a good few years now.
@Cormac Ó Braonáin: actually, the WHO considers that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic”, inline with findings from the IARC. It’s the EFSA, completely unrelated to the WHO, that is compromised.
@GO GREEN: But the resurges agreed that the findings are limited. Also it is unlikely to cause cancer when handling in a proper way. Everything can be harmful if not proper used.
“The plaintiff’s assumed technical knowledge does not excuse the lack of information on the product and its harmful effects – a farmer is not a chemist.”
French judges appear to show sense. The State Claims Agency has managed to successfully argue in an Irish Court that military aircraft mechanics in the Irish Air Corps with ZERO medical training were able to diagnose themselves with chemical injure thus starting the statute clock.
SCA have argued that an Air Corps technician going to an doctor asking did chemicals harm me and doctor saying maybe or maybe not means the technician had “knowledge” that the chemicals had harmed him.
Like I said the French judge appears to have displayed common sense against a formidable corporate foe.
have your say