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.
SOCIAL PROTECTION MINISTER Heather Humphreys denies being “blindsided” about her department paying an additional €14 million a year to RTÉ for free TV licences for the over-70s.
The Sunday Independent reported that a row broke out at Cabinet last week and that the minister was only informed of the change the night before the announcement about the future funding of the national broadcaster.
The payment from the Social Protection department will rise from €70 million to €84 million.
Asked about the matter this morning, the minister said:
I wasn’t blindsided by that, I can assure you of that.
She described it as mere speculation, stating that she is “well fit to stand up for herself”.
“I make my case for my department of social protection and I’m not afraid to stand up to make sure that the pensioners of this country get the free TV licence,” she said.
Humphreys said there is an increased numbers of older people entitled to the free TV licence, which is why there is an increase in the pay out from her department, she explained.
Last week, the government announced that RTÉ is to receive €725 million in government funding over the next three years.
The station is to receive €225 million next year from TV licence fee revenue and direct Exchequer funding combined.
In 2026, the funding will rise to €240 million, rising to €260 million in 2027.
The announcement follows a year of crisis management at the national broadcaster over a series of governance and financial scandals which further fuelled a years-long trend in declining TV licence revenue.
The government decision was criticised by rival commercial broadcaster Virgin Media Television as a “reward for inefficiency and all-round bad practice”.
RTÉ director-general Kevin Bakhurst rejected the comments on last week, saying: “I don’t see it at all as rewarding a series of mistakes that RTÉ made.
“It’s long been the case that RTÉ’s funding has not been sufficient to deliver what our public service remit is.”
Bakhurst, who acknowledged it had been a difficult 13 months for RTÉ, said new procedures had been put in place to make sure past mistakes “do not happen again”.
“If you believe in public service broadcasting and media, it needs to be funded,” he said.
Humphreys was speaking this morning at the launch of a scheme extending free public transport for people who have never been able to drive due to a disability, and to drivers who have a licence and are medically certified as not fit to drive for a period of 12 months or longer.
“It will give people more independence so they can commute to work and go about their daily lives without having to worry about additional transport costs or relying on somebody else to give them a lift,” Humphreys said this morning.
There are currently over a million people eligible for free transport. The travel scheme also allows partners or companions to avail of free transport if accompanying the pass holder.
The extension coming into effect today is set to benefit around 32,000 people. It was announced as part of last year’s Budget.
- With reporting by Ayush Pandey
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
A nasty piece of begrudging journalism.
PRSI used to be 8.5% its now 4% .
Those getting close to retirement age paid far higher taxes in the 80’sand 90’s than younger people are paying now.
People who have worked constantly all their lives should not be begrudged their measly state pension and in fact should be paid more.
But those who have not worked and have been on welfare most of their lives due to laziness get almost the same pension as those who worked hard paying taxes all their lives. THATS NOT FAIR.
@Paul O+Brien: PRSI reduced when USC (Income Levy) was introduced, as the Health Levy portion was moved into it. You seem to be forgetting those 20 years of your working life you did not pay USC!
@Paul O+Brien: Your are correct in all your points. The lower taxes promised each budget has to be recouped some way. The obvious answer is reduce state services and benefits I like those prsi once gave us. This has been ongoing for decades by ffg and various publications feed the divide and conquer tactic with articles appearing regularly emphasising this. The state wasted the prsi by not managing it prudently and farming pensions out regularly to auto enrolment schemes few could afford to buy but yet still took the prsi from them. The state has failed us all in its financial mismanagement and failure to plan for our/ its future and seeks to scapegoat the workers and elderly for their failings.
@Paul O+Brien: My Dad paid 70% paye in the 1970′s under then finance minister Richie Ryan.
@Paul O+Brien: Paul’s out to get the boomers. Cant really blame him.
@Spanner:
Until you progressively tax wealth, introducing a new tax bracket of 45% for income over €100,000, 50% for income over €150,000, and 55% for income over €200,000.
Implementing a wealth tax of 1% on net assets over €1 million, 2% on net assets over €2 million, and 3% on net assets over €5million.
Until then the rich will keep your money, the money they got from you in our capitalist system of exploitation and it will not be available to fund the services you are so heavily taxed for only to see them crumble year after year.
Until we raise our voices this will continue. Brexit was a great example of the people forcing political parties into positions they didn’t originally support. Now they do. Democracy is participatory but the people can still force change on the establishment. Only in unity though and these comments sections don’t seem to demonstrate much unity.
@Chutes: Complete nonsense, we paid close to 250k paye, prsi and USC last year income is high but its worked for not given for free, we additionally pay 10k for health insurance, we have educated our children with a 20% tax credit of €7000 cost 12500 for our daughters Masters……and we came from nothing and you can whistle for your ideas as they simply stunt people bettering themselves and their families.
If you are happy living on handouts so be it , it’s your life but we and 100 of thousands more are sick to death of being criticised for being successful.
@Paul O’Mahoney: Ah boohoo, cry me a fkn river!
@Paul O’Mahoney: You paid for your daughters Masters? That’s a nice advantage for her to have eh?
How much of tax payers money does it take for pensions for TDs Senators I would say a lot more than for the people
@Pauline Cahill: Good point. Do they receive the nice pension packet for life or just for the number of service?
@Pauline Cahill: Any councilors who lost their “job” (or whatever they call them) will be paid up until the end of this year. 6 months pay for doing less than nothing.
@Pauline Cahill: 8 years work and they have full pension.
@David Corrigan: have you never been paid in lieu of notice, or redundancy, or garden leave? All common practise in the private sector, and let’s face it, councillors get paid feck all and can be voted out of their job every five years. I for one wouldn’t begrudge them a small goodbye and thank you payment
@SYaxJ2Ts: All jobs I ever worked ceased payment the day I left the office for the last time. I work in the real world though.
They lost their jobs as clearly they didn’t perform. They do not deserve a penny more than they got while in office.
It’s as simple as that.
@David Corrigan: no, they lost their jobs because they weren’t re-elected. Some may not have “ performed” as you put it, but it’s not the point as performance is subjective. I’ve been made redundant 4 times – on each occasion I was paid statutory redundancy plus other redundancy plus pay in lieu of notice. Why shouldn’t councillors receive a small amount of compensation when voted out. Seems fair to me
@SYaxJ2Ts: Because it makes no sense. If you are fired from your job, you get nothing.
You find excuses for them all the time. It’s painful stuff to have to deal with.
@David Corrigan: it really is tough for you that I don’t think like you – you can’t just post and not expect to be challenged. And btw, they weren’t fired, they were just not re-elected, and that could be for a whole plethora of reasons. And it’s not excuses, it’s about fairness
@SYaxJ2Ts: They weren’t up to the job so they were voted out i.e. fired. You can spin it what way you like but those are the facts.
@David Corrigan: it’s not spin David, it’s an ability to think critically. How many SF councillors for example lost their seat because the party strategists ran too many candidates? How many lost their seat because of their particular party’s immigration policy, for example? Sure some lost their seat because they did bugger all for five years, but the overall picture is not so simple
@SYaxJ2Ts: I don’t care if they were from SF, FF, FG or Manchester bloody United. If they lose their job, pay stops. Full stop.
@David Corrigan: well I don’t David, and you getting angry about it is not going to change that fact
@SYaxJ2Ts: * don’t agree
Pyramid (what Americans call Ponzi) schemes are illegal.
That is because they need more and more people to join to keep going, forming the shape of a pyramid, and always fail when they inevitably run out of people to join at the bottom.
So why did the state establish its state pension as a pyramid scheme?
Investing the PRSI would have been a far more sensible approach.
@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere: I thought they do invest, or am I mistaken.
@Daniel Roche: I think that is mistaken.
They did establish a fund some years back, but I think that was for civil service pensions, or something like that.
And then the gave it to the IMF, or the IMF took it, or something like that when the government of the time crashed the economy.
‘Twas a while back, and my memory is not entirely clear on the fine details.
But the ordinary state pension is paid to those who have retired, by the PRSI paid from those still in employment.
A typical Pyramid Scheme.
@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere: It is not a pyramid scheme, but it does depend on the working population being much larger than the pension receiving population.
Until quite recently that has been a safe assumption, most people did not live long past retirement.
Now however people are living much longer – 60 is the new 40 and all that jazz.
Coupled with this is a decline in the birth rate in recent decades, this is common in all developed countries.
Finally the boomers are approaching retirement. We (for I am a boomer) were the school overcrowding problem of the 60s and 70s, the youth unemployment problem of the 70s and 80s, the middle management bulge of the 80s to now and soon we’ll be the pensions crisis of the 2020s and 2030s.
All predictable for the last 60 years.
@Steve O’Hara-Smith: If it depends for its survival on the constant supply of new people, then it is a pyramid scheme.
@ItWasLikeThatWhenIGotHere: Then life is a pyramid scheme. If there isn’t a constant supply of new people then pretty soon there will be no people.
It’s only a pyramid scheme if all the money winds up at the top ONE person. This is not a pyramid there’s no point at the top.
@Steve O’Hara-Smith: Not quite.
Life would continue even if 2 people were born for every 2 that die, on average.
Indeed life would continue if the population were to decline back to a few billion, or even a few hundred million before that ratio took effect.
But if every worker paid 20% of their salary towards the pension of those retired, then there would need to be 5 workers for every pensioner, all things being equal.
And as the population grows there will be more and more retired in 10 years time than now, requiring more and more to support them, and more and more in 20 years times, requiring more and more to support them.
And so on until the limits of population growth, and inevitable population decline, set in.
And which point the pyramid scheme collapses, if it hadn’t before then which is more likely.
I know I taking liberties, but the point stands.
If on the other hand, the state had invested the pension funds from the beginning – what they want us all to do now – then the pension scheme would not only be fully funded, but would most likely be showing significant profits.
Even more damning how empty heads vote for FF for wrecking our economy and Fg that drained billions from our public pension funds as bail out conditions, and then you have clowns like Paul here nearly shaming people for the audacity for wanting to retire with a state pension, which people have paid into. It should be incumbent on FFG to keep that right for its people as well as the EU, as we held the can for a large portion of the banking collapse.
@James Reardon: The pension which you and your employer pays into remains, what is changing is the amount you pay in.
Even if someone has a private pension you still get the State pension if you have enough ” stamps ” and nobody pays PRSI once aged 66 and above.
The State didn’t raid the Public Pension, whatever that is, they imposed a levy on private pensions…..if you are going to get angry at least have your facts correct.
@Paul O’Mahoney: Edit, prsi contributions from Employers and Employees
@Paul O’Mahoney:
“In addition to the levy on private pensions, Ireland stripped the state retirement fund to finance the contribution demanded by its bailout partners as part of the bank rescue..”
@James Reardon: which has been removed and in truth cost those of us with private pensions very little in the scheme of things. Ireland never had a ” pension fund” that was big enough to satisfy predicted pension, our state pensions , in all variety were and are funded out of general taxation
@James Reardon: very well said and true
@James Reardon: When the two biggest parties are as joined as they are they have captured government completely have they not? They clearly don’t support their citizens equally.
The sad fact is there is no alternative until someone has the cajones to tax the rich fairly imo.
More feckin taxes! Abolish USC
@Sean Money: So less tax revenue and more pensions to be paid out. How do you fund the enormous gap that creates?
@Tom O’ Donnell: The same way that those massive pensions politicians give themselves and the “selected” in the public service.
@David Corrigan: Politicians are a tiny proportion of the population. If we stripped all of them of their entire pension and distributed around the state pension it might add a tenner a week.
@Steve O’Hara-Smith: It’s a deal, I’ll take it.
FF robbed the pension pot when they wrecked the country. What was it? 20 billion. That’s the main reason why we are in trouble.
They say its because of the aging population but what about the millions of young people coming here every week?
@Dave Taxi: young people don’t collect a pension.
@Shane Kinsella (Kinsey): They pull from the honey pot. A lot.
@Dave Taxi: Millions??? Every week?? That would overfill the country very quickly.
There are only five million people here in total and the vast majority of them were born here.
Immigration added less than eighty thousand people to the population in the whole of last year.
So make that hundreds per week not millions. The figures don’t even justify saying thousands.
One would be mad to rely on a state pension.
@smatrix mantra: It depends. If you have a small house and no mortgage on it and a small piece of land also, then you can live pretty well on a small income. Grow your own veggies, keep a few hens and keep things simple. I know plenty who live that way and they live a pressure free life.
Of course that’s not for everyone but it can be done.
@smatrix mantra: yes the government screwed the contributory pensioners in 2013 with what Pascal called the Blonkers Pension System.
@Criostoir Mac Raghnaill: how? The country was broke and they needed to raise funds or reduce expenditure which is what needs to be done if you want an economy to recover from a mess.
@Paul O’Mahoney: None of the measures affected them though Paul. A small cut to salary was backfilled with unvouched expenses. It’s not a level playing field.
@David Corrigan: It’s a wise person to practice such a lifestyle while earning and building a nestegg.
If you can’t live like that now, you won’t be able to do it then.
@David Corrigan: ‘Tis not easy to garden when you get old, and can’t bend or kneel, or get up again if you do.
@David Corrigan: crunched the numbers and balanced this equation of salary cut versus increase in expenses? No, of course you haven’t
@SYaxJ2Ts: Plenty of evidence highlighting the fact that they don’t lose. If you believe otherwise, then you are thicker than I thought.
@David Corrigan: well show the evidence if, as you say, there is plenty of it. And remember we’re talking here about an increase in unvouched expenses received, which is your allegation
@David Corrigan: and this compensates for the salary cut?
@Paul O’Mahoney: But politicians and Civil Servents all got their salaries and pensions brought back to normal
@SYaxJ2Ts: In your world no but in everyone elses yes. Try and see the light will you? Just for once try?
@David Corrigan: see the light? Such arrogance
@SYaxJ2Ts: You seem to enjoy blocking progress and thrive in the role of being controversial.
Not good traits to be honest. Not good at all.
@David Corrigan: such arrogance
When the government coffers were stuffed with cash wasn’t it Charlie McCreevy then Minister for Finance who said he’d spend it while he had it and failed to make any provision and then when the crash came didn’t another Minister for Finance, Noonan, raided the private pension funds of those who had saved their money prudently for retirement. So lay the blame where it’s deserved, political failure.
Rip off Ireland ..
Remember they told us we needed to import more workers to pay our pensions . Then we asked who is going to pay the more workers pensions.. The said , we will get more workers to Pat the more workers pensions.. That folks is called a pyramid scheme .
WE ARE BEEN Robbed BLIND and left with nothing to show for it
@barry lyons: No I don’t remember that. Got a reference?
@barry lyons: It’s not just about pensions, a shrinking workforce means a shrinking GDP, economic de-growth, recessions and unemployment. It also means a shrinking tax-base to pay for all services including the healthcare and pensions of the people who have worked here their whole lives. We can’t avoid this problem now, things have gone too far. Without new workers coming in, young people will end up shouldering the cost (giving them one more reason to leave). We should ,of course, devote efforts to ensuring young workers have the economic security to plan for families. But by your definition, that too would be a ponzi scheme as you would find yourself needing more children to pay for the pensions of children you’ve already had. The problem is not that pensions are a ponzi scheme, the problem is the fertility rate combined with the overall eternal growth model of economics. We could go the route of a managed de-growth economy? It seems like people want to have their cake and eat on this one. De-growth or immigration is the question? Because in the short to medium term, we can’t just reverse a trend in the fertility rate, That will take time and there is no way of knowing how long it will take. If we take actions that stop immigration from allowing our workforce to expand, then we get a recession and most people won’t be planning children in a recession, which means the fertility rate dropping further and after three years of de-growth, you have a depression. This was thirty years in the coming. Same as the housing crisis- entirely predictable but with no long-term planning to deal with it. Anything we do as concerns immigration has to consider the economic implications of a shrinking workforce.
Bring in a poll tax for the long term unemployed scrounged. Everyone who finished education and is over 21 should pay something.
@Paul O+Brien: Taxing the unemployed is a really silly idea. It’s just taking money out of one government fund and putting it in another.
@Steve O’Hara-Smith: might make them get up of their hole and get a job
lol. The housing market has been designed to squeeze as much as possible of somebody’s lifetime income from them to the point that they are leveraged up to their necks beyond retirement. Factor in childcare costs which are like another mortgage on top of that along with the general cost of living and poor return in terms of public services that we get for our money and this is laughable.
Until you progressively tax wealth, introducing a new tax bracket of 45% for income over
€100,000, 50% for income over €150,000, and 55% for income over €200,000.
Implementing a wealth tax of 1% on net assets over €1 million, 2% on net assets over €2 million, and 3% on net assets over €5million.
Until then the rich will keep your money, the money they got from you in our capitalist system of exploitation and it will not be available to fund the services you are so heavily taxed for only to see them crumble year after year.
Until we raise our voices this will continue. Brexit was a great example of the people forcing political parties into positions they didn’t originally support. Now they do. Democracy is participatory but the people can still force change on the establishment. Only in unity though and these comments sections don’t seem to demonstrate much unity.
@Chutes: Ireland already has one of the most progressive income tax systems in the world.
@Chutes: Complete Nonsense
@Paul O’Mahoney: Why? Try to offer an argument that isn’t just all about you this time maybe?
@Pat Hazzard: Clearly not getting it done.
Just tax everyone on minimum wage at least with a small percentage instead of increasing the threshold until tax gets deducted every time the min wage is increased. This is not sustainable, why should middle and high earners carry all the burden.
@no no no: simply because the narrative of what you say wouldn’t get anymore elected if a family with 2 earners of 40 k each get a bonus of say 5 grand each it’s taxed at 52% , Joe on the dole or on min wage pay no tax who is winning after other social welfare benefits????
It certainly isn’t the hard working family.
Yup, ‘progress’ was the greatest illusion these twits decided to row in behind, at what point do people ask is this getting better? or worse? I though the idea is that the retirement age would come down! But apparently were not digging to get to the other side rather were just digging because a handful of people make a whole lot of money for it.
Paul, you did not cover the Self Employed PRSI Class ‘S’. It needs to be increased to Class ‘A’ levels to cover the benefits self employed now receive, however the government is afraid to do so.
@Mark R: Can you explain please?
What is Class S?
What are it’s obligations, and it’s payments?
And it’s benefits?
@Mark R: please explain why , Class S doesn’t give a full contributory pension. It
A contributory pension awarded to a worker with a 39 week per year average gets less than a non-contributory pensioner who never worked at all!
Is this fair?
James Reardons obviously an empty headed shimmer or PBP fan.
@Paul O+Brien: neither dumb dumb
Which circus were you in Fossets or Duffy’s BOBO?
stop funding the ridiculous public service payoffs and the more ridiculous pensions and there might be enough to go around
Not forgetting all those who pay/paid prsi to ensure heath/hospital care only to be scared into paying for private health cover
TOO so they could jump the public health queues !!!!!! … ( (another) example of double taxation ) you couldn’t make it up .. then again almost 50% of the sheep voted for ‘same again’..
Ha ha , that’s a good one. We’ll be lucky if there is a pension available. Combined with low birth rate, surge in aging incoming immigration. There’ll be huge numbers looking to draw pension with less numbers working thanks to the future with has been created with no affordable housing or futures. Not to mention huge numbers coming to pension age still paying high rent and now suddenly quite understandably unable to keep those payments up. But sure tis all thought out and carefully planned and prepared by same said tick government about to be voted back into power, absolutely amazing.
Throw it all on Crypto and we’ll be grand!
Scroungers
I recently retired after paying prsi and tax for nearly 50 years and I still have to wait another year for my pension why can’t the pension depend on how long you have contributed almost 20 percent of your wages to the state
Robbed blind. Empty pockets. Adequate income according to finance minister. Live on this then.
I’ll tell ya how you safe it… you stop sending to Africa and Ukrainians and Arabs afghans Georgians Albanians and everyone esle who’s milking g the state
Paddy they got a few ministers for footpaths elected…you’ll see a big difference in General election ppl will vote when it counts… just like last referendum… they definitely havnt won no election yet… but I agree with everything you said… this country is a joke the government arnt fit to lead a nation… they have never represented me and that’s a fact
have your say