# Jobseeker allowance discourages people to find work?



## davegaa (26 May 2011)

Folks, first time poster here, I was interested in what people thought about yesterdays statement by the OECD, suggesting that people on certain jobseekers allowances and unemployment benefit are not encouraged to go out and find a job. 


Obviously everybody's situation is different, what do people make of it?


----------



## Sandals (26 May 2011)

I overheard a woman saying the other day in local shop she turned down part-timework due to her FIS payments.....she had thought the employer was goin to pay cash.


----------



## sustanon (26 May 2011)

What is an unemployed person on Jobseeker's net take home pay per year? typically?


----------



## Protocol (31 May 2011)

http://www.welfare.ie/EN/Pages/unemployed.aspx

*Weekly Jobseeker's Benefit payment in 2011:*

*Average weekly earnings  **Personal rate   **Qualified adult rate*
Less than €150                       €84.50      €80.90
€150 - €219.99                       €121.40     €80.90
€220 - €299.99                       €147.30      €80.90
€300 or more                          €188            €124.80


188 pw for most people.


----------



## Protocol (31 May 2011)

*Jobseeker Allowance rates from January 2011*

*Jobseeker's Allowance maximum rate for people aged 25 or over*

*New and existing claimants            **Personal rate               **Increase for a Qualified Adult               **Increase for a Qualified Child*

Maximum rate                                €188                      €124.80                                   €29.80



*Jobseeker's Allowance maximum rate for people under 25 years of age **Age*

*                          Personal rate                 **Increase for a Qualified Adult*
18 - 19              €100                       €100
20 - 21              €100                       €100
22 - 24              €144                        €124.80


----------



## nediaaa (31 May 2011)

I think the problem is not with the recently unemployed but with the long term unemployed. There is a certain % of the LTU who will never work or want to. It is not only JSB but accomadation payed for and other benefits as well.
I would personally step down the payment maybe 10% every 6 months ensuring their is the incentive to go out into the workplace.
Being no jobs out there is a bit of a problem also


----------



## csirl (31 May 2011)

Dont forget rent suppliment. It is paid in addition to the €188 per month. The Dublin couple with 2 children rate below would get you a nice 3/4 bedroom semi-d in a middle class area (€1,050 p/m).

So the couple with 2 children essentially gets a nice semi-d to live in and €188 plus €124.80 plus 2x€28.90 = €370.6 per week for food/bills. When rent allownace is included, its equivalent to €32k year of take home pay. And this does not include all the other benefits e.g. medical card. The country cant afford to be paying people this amount of money not to work.



*Maximum rent per month**County**Single person in shared accomodation**Couple in shared accommodation**Single person**Couple with no children**Couple with 1 child or one-parent with 1 child **Couple with 2 children or one-parent with 2 children**Couple with 3 children or one-parent with 3 children*Carlow €260€300€468€500€600€650€660Cavan €195€200€368€400€450€500€510Clare €220€260€407€450€550 €600 €650Cork €285€290 €468€610€705€765 €800Donegal €235 €240€368 €455 €500 €550 €560Dublin - Fingal €350€390€529€770 €930€1,000€1,050Dublin - other local authorities €390€400 €529€800€930€1,050 €1,100Galway €255€260 €468 €550€700€750€760Kerry €235€240€407€500€550€640 €650Kildare€320 €325 €485€600 €750€850 €900Kilkenny €260€300€468€520 €600€650€665 Leitrim €190 €200€368 €390 €400 €450 €500Limerick €255 €260 €446€500 €605 €650€700Laois€235€240€407 €485 €550€590 €600 Longford €195€200 €345€350 €400 €450 €500Louth €285 €286 €468€529 €600€685 €700Mayo €220 €225 €450 €455€550€600€610 Meath€260€265 €468€550 €650 €700 €750 Monaghan€195 €200€368 €390€500€540€550Offaly€220 €240€407 €485 €550 €590 €600 Roscommon €190 €195 €370 €375 €450 €500€520 Sligo €220 €240€407 €485 €540€550 €600Tipperary North €260 €265 €407 €450 €550 €640€655 Tipperary South€250 €255 €468 €455€555 €645 €650 Waterford€270€280€468 €470€550 €650 €660 Westmeath€220 €260 €407€450€550 €590 €600 Wexford€260€300 €468€520€600 €650 €660Wicklow€315 €325 €529€710 €850€900 €910


----------



## Protocol (31 May 2011)

Yes, the 188 pw for a single person on JSB or JSA is not the biggest problem.

It's the non-cash benefits that cause the unemployment trap.


----------



## nediaaa (31 May 2011)

I am also an employer and cannot get any one to work part time because they would lose their benefits. 
  I believe the Job seekers allowance should be handed over to employers to take people on.
 This way unemployed people will be upskilled and trained and employers like me who may not be able to take people on now can.
If i paid the equivalent of the JSA to the eployee as well they have a full salary and as the situation improves could take the person on full time


----------



## csirl (31 May 2011)

According to the examples circulated at the budget, a similar couple with one earner earning €55k per annum would only take home €29,600 per annum.


----------



## Protocol (31 May 2011)

Some int'l comparisons (2007 OECD data):

NB: UI = JSB

*AUSTRIA*

9m of UI at 55% of former net wage, max 14750 pa

*BELGIUM*

UI paid with no time limit, 60 / 50% of former gross wage

No dole, as UI lasts forever

*DENMARK*

UI for 2yrs at 90% of former wages, max 24k pa

JSA / dole = none in Denmark

*FRANCE*

UI paid for 23 months at 57-75% of former wages.

JSA = 100 pw

*GERMANY*

UI paid for 12m at 60% of wages

JSA = 359pm = 83pw

*USA*

UI paid for 26-99 weeks at 50% of wages, up to 450 USD pw.


----------



## ondeball (31 May 2011)

I was laid off just before Christmas last year and I had a queue of lads in the local pub advising me how to stretch out my time on the dole for as long as possible. Most of these guys have been out of work since the building industry started to go belly up in general and have had no issue in being int he pub 4/5 nights per week and financing their lifestyles.

A lot of them are living with their parents and claiming full rental allowance.

There's is also the trend of couples living together but not getting married because they'd lose the unmarried mother's allowance.


----------



## nediaaa (31 May 2011)

It annoys me as a self employed person when trying to keep my company afloat i see on a daily basis certain long term unemployed outside the pubs and bookies spending my hard earned tax. 
  What annoys me even more is if i was to go belly up in the morning i would not get a penny in assistance.


----------



## JoeRoberts (1 Jun 2011)

It appears that the impending property tax will exempt welfare recipients adding a further disincentive to work.


----------



## csirl (1 Jun 2011)

Most of Government expenditure is on social welfare and health. Both these systems need to be tackled head on to reduce costs and eliminate inefficiencies. Cuts in other services can only generate small change in comparison with these two areas. I do not sense any appetite from Government to reform social welfare - all we've seen to date is token cuts around the margins. While the banking situation may have plunged us into crisis, the failure to tackle these areas will kill us off totally. 

People who have worked and paid social insurance should be entitled to a % of previous taxable income for a set period of time and this should be paid out of the social insurance fund (thus being cost neutral). Those who dont and wont work should be on much lower rates, if anything at all. There should be no 'means testing', rent allowances and other add ons which generate costly administrative work - if you are unemployed, you get a set amount full stop.

Strange thing is that, as any political analyst will confirm, long term unemployed people generally dont vote and most are not even registered to vote. So tackling this issue will not lose votes.


----------



## Purple (1 Jun 2011)

Speaking as a social welfare recipient I have no problem with reform and cuts.
As a family where both parents work and both earn a good income we still receive €7’500 a year in non-means tested tax free welfare.
I find that crazy.
I also find it crazy that the state pumps tens (hundreds?) of millions propping up the rental market through rent relief/rent allowance. This money creates a floor in the rental market that protects landlords from enduring the real market rate. In effect it is a direct subsidy to landlords.

While benefits that unemployed people get are certainly a disincentive to work there are other areas of the welfare system that also need to be reformed as part of an overall review of the entire welfare structure. In that context I’d be all for a system that links benefits to former income levels and then steps down to a lower long-term rate over a few years.


----------



## AlbacoreA (1 Jun 2011)

nediaaa said:


> I am also an employer and cannot get any one to work part time because they would lose their benefits.
> I believe the Job seekers allowance should be handed over to employers to take people on.
> This way unemployed people will be upskilled and trained and employers like me who may not be able to take people on now can.
> If i paid the equivalent of the JSA to the eployee as well they have a full salary and as the situation improves could take the person on full time



The problem then is companies have no incentive to hire people not being paid by the Govt. Which is exactly what has happened with the current WPP scheme. Its being abused by employers.


----------



## Protocol (1 Jun 2011)

I can never understand this anomaly:

Most normal, reasonable people would support the idea of generous short-term income and other supports for the unemployed, but also declining support for those longer-term unemployed who don't engage in training, education, jobs, etc.

Yet no politician seems to support it???


----------



## AlbacoreA (1 Jun 2011)

High cost of living, is a problem. The idea of a staggered reduction from a % of previous  salary seems reasonable. It doesn't help there are simply no jobs.


----------



## csirl (1 Jun 2011)

Protocol said:


> I can never understand this anomaly:
> 
> Most normal, reasonable people would support the idea of generous short-term income and other supports for the unemployed, but also declining support for those longer-term unemployed who don't engage in training, education, jobs, etc.
> 
> Yet no politician seems to support it???


 
Our parish pump politicians spend a huge proportion of their working week running 'clinics' at which a high proportion of 'clients' are work shy social welfare recipients looking for the local TD to exert some pressure to continue their welfare payments, get them more money or get them additional payments. So you can understand why the average TD is given the mistaken impression that the majority of Irish people want extra benefits for long term social welfare recipients.


----------



## shnaek (1 Jun 2011)

And now with the water charge which will in all likelyhood not apply if you are on the dole, there will be another addition to the incentive not to work. A household charge of €200 makes the person not paying it around €400 better off. Add to that a property tax, with the same exemptions, and the incentive not to work could be increased by over €1000 when income tax is taken into account - perhaps even more depending on the charge.


----------



## Protocol (1 Jun 2011)

Note that in the USA the unemployed must continue with their property tax payments - no waivers AFAIK.


----------



## Chris (2 Jun 2011)

csirl said:


> People who have worked and paid social insurance should be entitled to a % of previous taxable income for a set period of time and this should be paid out of the social insurance fund (thus being cost neutral).


I agree with the gist of what you are saying, but there is no social insurance fund. In fact, if a private company were to run an insurance product like the government run social insurance it would be prosecuted for running a ponzi scheme. 



Purple said:


> In that context I’d be all for a system that links benefits to former income levels and then steps down to a lower long-term rate over a few years.


I would only be in favour of this if the whole system were run like an insurance product, that was not allowed run at a loss and stood in open competition with similar private products. Two chances in that happening though.


----------

