# Is there a reason why JB is paid for a max of 1 year?



## Worried62 (16 May 2010)

Is it because it is expected that you would have got employment again by that stage, or something?

I'm just wondering what the reason for the distinction between Jobseeker's Benefit and Jobseekers Allowance is.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (16 May 2010)

Jobseekers Benefit is the payment of an insurance claim. Your premium was your PRSI contribution record. So they insure one year of your claim in exchange for you paying PRSI. 

JA is lower and is means tested. If you have other wealth, you don't get JA. Your other assets and income is ignored for JB purposes.


----------



## Worried62 (16 May 2010)

Thanks for the explanation, B.B.


----------



## Protocol (16 May 2010)

Paying Unemployment Insurance for too long may reduce the incentive to seek work.

Many countries pay UI for 6 months, some for 12, some for up to 24 months.


----------



## Worried62 (17 May 2010)

Thanks, Protocol.


----------



## demoivre (17 May 2010)

Brendan Burgess said:


> JA is lower and is means tested. *If you have other wealth, you don't get JA*.



I'm not speaking from personal experience but I don't think that this is  accurate at all. If you have savings in the bank you might still be entitled to some level of JA. See here. As I understand it the person in the example with €55,000 in savings, giving a means of €90 per week, would still be entitled to a JA payment of €106 per week ie the maximum personal JA rate of €196 per week minus the means of €90 per week.


----------



## Marietta (19 May 2010)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Jobseekers Benefit is the payment of an insurance claim. Your premium was your PRSI contribution record. So they insure one year of your claim in exchange for you paying PRSI.
> 
> JA is lower and is means tested. If you have other wealth, you don't get JA. Your other assets and income is ignored for JB purposes.


 

JA is not lower it is the exact same payment as JB. And if you have other wealth it does not necessarly bar you from claiming JA, you are allowed to have a certain amount of savings and still claim it. I think the figure is 20,000 euro in savings but I am not exactly sure. Anything over this figure or any other income an unemployed person has such as rental income, maintenance, divident payments etc is means tested and the rate of JA that is payable is reduced accordingly.  Your own home is not assessed as means for JA purposes.


----------



## pudds (19 May 2010)

Marietta said:


> JA is not lower it is the exact same payment as JB. And if you have other wealth it does not necessarly bar you from claiming JA, you are allowed to have a certain amount of savings and still claim it. I think the figure is 20,000 euro in savings but I am not exactly sure. Anything over this figure or any other income an unemployed person has such as rental income, maintenance, divident payments etc is means tested and the rate of JA that is payable is reduced accordingly.  Your own home is not assessed as means for JA purposes.



20k is correct.



> If you have €55,000 savings:
> The first €20,000 is assessed as nil, €20,000 to €30,000 is assessed  as €10, €30,000 to €40,000 is assessed as €20, €40,000 and €55,000 is  assessed as €60.
> €10   €20   €60 = €90
> Savings of €55,000 gives a means of €90 per week.


----------



## gipimann (19 May 2010)

JA can be lower than JB if the person claiming is under 25, as the maximum amount of JA payable is €100 for 18-21 yr olds, and €150 for 22-24 yr olds.


----------



## Marietta (19 May 2010)

gipimann said:


> JA can be lower than JB if the person claiming is under 25, as the maximum amount of JA payable is €100 for 18-21 yr olds, and €150 for 22-24 yr olds.


 

Yes you are right, there have been so many recent changes its nearly a full time job keeping on top of it all


----------



## Welfarite (19 May 2010)

All this info is in the keypost at top of thread


----------



## Birroc (24 May 2010)

pudds said:


> 20k is correct.


 
Would it be a good idea to throw any savings over 20k at the mortgage and thus be eligible for higher JA?


----------



## Pope John 11 (27 Aug 2010)

Birroc said:


> Would it be a good idea to throw any savings over 20k at the mortgage and thus be eligible for higher JA?


 
Has anyone done this?

It seems to work very much to the disadvantage to one who has saved frugally over the years, became redundant & now does not benefit.

I would be interested to know if anyone has done this.


----------

