
Will starting a pension now exclude daughter from availing of auto-enrolment?
My daughter is not part of any pension scheme and only pays PRSI. I have been encouraging her to take out a small PRSA to help in the future.
She has been waiting almost two years for the Government auto-enrolment scheme to start. Would taking out a PRSA prevent her from joining the auto-enrolment scheme, when it eventually starts?
Mr R.H.
Ah, when it eventually starts. Not that it will reassure you much, but there are people who have been waiting on this for considerably longer than your daughter.
READ MORE
Auto-enrolment
– an arrangement that would automatically enrol workers in a scheme to provide
private pension
income in
retirement
– has been a subject of discussion in government circles since
Séamus Brennan
was minister for what was then called the department of social and family affairs almost 20 years ago, in 2006.
It has been long-fingered by successive governments, presumably concerned at a political backlash from workers at the notion of seeing their pay packets being reduced to fund such a scheme. Meanwhile,
occupational pension
coverage of the Republic's workforce outside of the State pension has more or less stagnated.
Just recently, the latest deadline was pushed back from September to the start of next year. But with the news last week that the chief executive of the new National
Automatic Enrolment Retirement Savings Authority
(Naersa), which will be responsible for administering the scheme – will only be appointed in autumn – even that must be in doubt.
It doesn't give them much time to get things up and running, even if there are no further delays. Even the notice of that chief executive recruitment stated the scheme was 'due to launch early next year' as against the start of next year, which is not exactly reassuring.
I'm very conscious that younger people think their working life will extend forever, but the reality is that your daughter is already likely one-twentieth through her working life. With the magic of pensions being investment performance over time, that's not insignificant.
And, in terms of her pension, the data on women and pensions suggest that she could well lose a chunk of time (and, subsequently, pension) due to family commitments at some point over the coming years. That may be discriminatory, even sexist, but it is also a fact. The figures do not lie.
All of which makes it even more important for women to start a pension as early as possible in their working life.
So should she wait for auto-enrolment? And will opening a PRSA – a personal retirement savings account – stop her accessing auto-enrolment when it does eventually come on line?
No and no are the succinct answers to those, but as always, there are caveats.
I understand from your query that her company does not offer an occupational pension option –
PRSA
or otherwise. They should do so, by law, but they would be far from the only employer to have sidestepped that obligation over the years.
To quote the
Pensions Authority
– the regulator of the sector: 'There is no legal obligation on an employer to set up or contribute to a pension scheme.' However, 'if your employer doesn't have a pension scheme or if you are an 'excluded employee', your employer will need to provide you with access to at least one standard personal retirement savings account (PRSA).'
Of course, it is the Pensions Authority that should have been keeping tabs on employers over this, but there you go.
If your daughter opens a personal PRSA and makes contributions directly into it herself, it will not adversely affect her ability to sign up under auto-enrolment. However, if she is making those contributions through her employer – via payroll – then she will not be eligible for auto-enrolment, either by being enrolled by the State or opting in.
As the Department of Social Protection put it in answer to my query: 'If they are investing in a personal PRSA outside of payroll, that is a personal choice and Naersa will not have sight of that arrangement.
'If an employee is investing in a personal PRSA and is actively making contributions through payroll [that means directly from their payslip], they are not eligible for the scheme and will not be automatically enrolled.
'Opt-in is only available to those who are between 18-66 with no active supplementary pension contributions recorded on their payslip.'
That means there is no reason for her to long-finger the process. So what's the advantage of going now?
First, she starts investing money for retirement, giving it as much time to grow into as large a fund as possible. More attractive to her, probably, is the tax relief that will allow her to boost the fund.
Contributions to an occupational or personal pension attract tax relief at your marginal, or upper, rate up to a certain maximum. For someone in their 20s, you can put up to 15 per cent of your salary into a pension and get full relief.
This means she pays no income tax on anything up to 15 per cent of her salary that she puts in the pension. In effect, if she pays tax at the top 40 per cent rate, every euro going into her pension costs her only 60 cent, or 80 cent if she pays tax and the standard 20 per cent rate.
As she gets older, she can put even greater portions of her salary into a pension – provided her personal finances allow.
Certainly, for those paying tax at the 40 per cent rate, the benefit is greater than it will be under auto-enrolment where the Government commitment is only to pay €1 for every €3 invested by the employee.
So why should she be keen to avail of auto-enrolment then?
Well, in her personal PRSA, the only contributor is her, albeit with attractive tax relief. Tax relief under auto-enrolment may not be quite as attractive – at least if you are paying tax at the higher rate – but her employer will also have to match her contributions. That makes it a more attractive option for someone in her position.
And the even better news is that there is nothing in the rules around auto-enrolment to prevent her also contributing to her PRSA, if financial circumstances allow.
That is important, especially in the early years of auto-enrolment. Initially, the new workplace pension scheme will take just 1.5 per cent of her gross salary. With the matching contributions of her employer and the €1 for €3 pro-rata contribution from the State, her auto-enrolment pension account will get contributions of just 3.5 per cent of her gross salary for the first three years of its existence.
That will rise over time – to a combined 14 per cent of her salary from year 10, of which 6 per cent will come from her pay – but that's still 10 years down the line by which stage she will be over a quarter of the way through her working life, even assuming she takes no time out for family or other commitments.
Her private PRSA will allow her 'top up' her retirement fund on a private basis, with the benefit of income tax relief.
It would be no harm for her to put in the 6 per cent of gross salary from the outset, which will get her used to the ultimate impact of auto-enrolment. As auto-enrolment kicks in and the contribution levels rise every three years, she could offset that by lowering her PRSA contributions if finances were tight.
Ideally, she would set aside a bit more but even if it is less, it is better to get started now than to wait. Apart from anything, the pension savings habit is worth nurturing.
And if she decides not to invest further in the PRSA once auto-enrolment kicks in, at least initially, her PRSA fund will continue to be invested and, barring market mayhem, grow over time.
The 15 per cent limit to how much she can put into her pension fund for tax relief purposes applies across both auto-enrolment and the PRSA ... as long as her contributions to that PRSA do not come through her employer's payroll.
So, she loses nothing by opening a private PRSA now. In fact, it will increase her options if and when auto-enrolment arrives, not exclude her from it.
And if she moves jobs and joins a company with a better pension scheme down the line, she can opt out of auto-enrolment at that stage.
Please send your queries to Dominic Coyle, Q&A, The Irish Times, 24-28 Tara Street Dublin 2, or by email to
dominic.coyle@irishtimes.com
with a contact phone number. This column is a reader service and is not intended to replace professional advice
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


RTÉ News
an hour ago
- RTÉ News
Govt moves to change Rent Pressure Zones system
The Government is moving towards changing the current Rent Pressure Zones (RPZs) system ahead of a crunch Cabinet meeting on the matter next Tuesday. Intensive discussions have already taken place on this politically sensitive issue between the Taoiseach, the Tánaiste and a number of ministers. Further talks are set to take place on Monday night in advance of the Cabinet meeting on Tuesday morning. The current legislation on RPZs caps annual rent increases at 2% or at the rate of inflation, whichever is lower. However, it will lapse at the end of December and the Government is now likely to begin preparing new legislation which will change the present system. This will, the Government believes, "give certainty to the market". The Taoiseach has consistently stated that a stable climate has to be created to incentivise developers to invest in the domestic rental market. Senior figures in the coalition believe that "doing nothing" is not an option and if the RPZs legislation is allowed to lapse, then it would be a return to market rents for tenants. To avoid this, new legislation will be brought before the Oireachtas. The Housing Commission last year recommended "reference rents" which would tie rates to local homes of a similar quality. However, opposition parties have warned that any move to abolish the "modest protections" provided by the RPZs will be strongly resisted.


Irish Times
5 hours ago
- Irish Times
The Irish economy grew by 22% over the past year. Yes, you read that right
Ireland's economic data was always going to be a bit special at the start of this year. But Thursday's figures were mind-bending. It is impossible to overstate the extent to which we now stand out in international comparisons. And this is not just a curiosity – it matters. The economy, as measured by gross domestic product (GDP) , was 22 per cent larger in the first quarter of 2025 than one year earlier, according to the latest estimates from the Central Statistics Office . Think about it. The figures suggest that for every €1 of activity last year, there was €1.22 in 2025. Even comparing GDP in the first quarter of this year with the last quarter of 2024, there is a rise of close to 10 per cent – this is roughly the extent of growth across the euro zone over the past decade. Of course this bonkers data is not real, in the sense that it does not reflect what is happening in the underlying economy in which we all live. How could it? As has been long discussed the headline economic data is entirely distorted by the activities and tax planning of a small number of very big US tech and pharma companies. From time to time, this has created huge distortions in the figures. A decade ago, top US economist Paul Krugman famously described a 26 per cent GDP growth rate reported for the Irish economy (later revised up to over 30 per cent) as 'leprechaun' economics . At the time the figures were distorted by massive tax-driven investments by the companies concerned, including Apple, essentially a manoeuvre by the companies involved to try to keep their tax bills down as international rules changed. READ MORE Now, as one observer put it, we are seeing another 'Krugman' moment. This time the reasons are different. Big pharma companies have been rushing product over to the US to try to get drugs and key ingredients into the market before Donald Trump announces tariffs on the sector. This has led to a surge in exports, feeding into the GDP data. Many of these are manufactured here – and some are made elsewhere but organised by Irish subsidiaries and so also show up in our figures. And so we see a massive surge in Irish GDP in the first quarter of this year. A big – temporary – decline in pharma exports in GDP will follow at some stage, as the firms involved must now have massive stocks jammed into every free warehouse in the US. Much will depend on how the tariffs story plays out. [ Welcome (back) to the era of Leprechaun economics Opens in new window ] Whether Krugman renews his leprechaun offensive or not, let's not pretend this won't be noticed. Ireland's GDP data is not some irrelevance in a quirky economic corner. The amounts of money being moved through Ireland are now enormous. Daniel Kral, chief economist at Oxford Economics , calculates that Ireland – which accounts for 4 per cent of the euro zone economy – accounted for half its total growth over the past year. Analysts have taken to looking at the figures 'excluding Ireland'. How do we pull back from all of this to judge the underlying health of the economy? Total demand in the domestic economy – adjusted by the CSO to remove the multinational factors - rose just 1 per cent over the year. But we need to look under the surface here, too. Consumer spending, a good measure of how we feel, was up by a decent 2.5 per cent. But the overall figure was dragged down by a fall in business investment, presumably reflecting the international uncertainty. So households continued to spend in the first part of the year, but businesses are taking a wait-and-see approach to big capital spending. This is likely to be reflected in the jobs market as the year goes on – and here AI is also changing the game in many sectors. Consumers may get more cautious too. Uncertainty is starting to slow the economy and this is a trend we need to watch as the year goes on. The piece of data that seemed a bit out of line this week was a 30 per cent fall in corporation tax in May compared with the same month last year. This was affected by the comparison with a strong May last year – which the Department of Finance suggests was boosted by once-off factors. Two of our biggest taxpayers, Pfizer and Microsoft – pay significant amounts of tax that month. But the key early indicator for most of the big companies is June – and what happens here will give a good pointer for the year as a whole. The figures do underline one point. It is our huge reliance on the opaque affairs of four or five massive companies – and our exposure to the sectors they operate in, their own performance and complex decisions on how their tax structures are set up. Our latest bout of data exceptionalism again puts Ireland in the spotlight, when it would have been better to keep the head down. It underlines the outsize take Ireland is getting from pharma and tech activity in the EU – both contentious points in the White House. Notably, the US added Ireland to an economic watch list this week, based on the size of our trade surplus. We are very much on the radar in Washington. Our corporate tax take and manufacturing base are looked on enviously not only from the US , but from elsewhere in Europe. [ 'No long-term commitments to anything' – Ireland's economy is experiencing a silent slowdown Opens in new window ] The advance shipping of products again focuses attention on the scale of activity and tax planning in Ireland by big pharma companies. And this causes a rollercoaster of cyclical activity. But what really counts is longer-term, structural issues. Will these pharma giants decide over time – and it would take years – to relocate some of their production to the US? Will their profits and thus tax payments here be hit by Trump's policies? Or will they – or some of the tech giants – alter their corporate structures so that they pay significantly less tax here? It comes down to whether Trump's policies change the way the economic and corporate world operates fundamentally, a fair bit or not much at all. As Ireland benefits from the current system so much, the more it changes, the more risks there are for us. The coming months will tell a lot.

Irish Times
6 hours ago
- Irish Times
Nine-figure payouts to Ryanair and Starbucks CEOs are controversial, but Michael O'Leary can point to results
Michael O'Leary has hit his target. Ryanair 's share price stayed above €21 for 28 days, earning him a €125 million bonus if he stays until 2028. The deal has its critics. 'Morally questionable,' said Luke Hildyard of the High Pay Centre, a UK think tank. Others argue such payouts reward luck more than leadership, with cheap oil, index inclusion and billions in share buybacks all helping lift Ryanair's stock. O'Leary might counter that Ryanair shares have more than doubled since the deal was struck in 2019, comfortably outperforming rival airlines. Contrast that with Starbucks , where Brian Niccol was handed a reported $113 million sign-on package last August to replace embattled CEO Laxman Narasimhan. Shares soared 25 per cent on the news, adding $21 billion in market value. READ MORE [ Corporate tax receipts drop 30% as Trump's tariffs bite Opens in new window ] Since then, Starbucks has slashed head office jobs, trimmed menus and promised a return to its coffeehouse roots. But the results remain bitter. Margins and profits are down. Competition remains fierce in China. The stock tanked after last month's earnings miss and has now given up almost all of its Niccol bump. Niccol may yet prove his worth – his turnaround of Chipotle is textbook stuff – but the caffeine hit investors got from his arrival has faded fast. O'Leary, never one to miss a jab, might well look at Starbucks and say: at least I had to do something to get my millions.