Landmark legislation to introduce Pay-Related Benefit in Ireland passed by the Oireachtas

T

TheJackal

Registered User
Messages
335
Landmark legislation to introduce Pay-Related Benefit in Ireland passed by the Oireachtas

Landmark legislation to introduce Pay-Related Benefit in Ireland passed by the Oireachtas

www.gov.ie www.gov.ie

Key features of the new Pay-Related Benefit scheme include:
  • The weekly rate of payment for people who have at least 5 years paid PRSI contributions will be set at 60% of previous earnings, subject to a maximum of €450 for the first 3 months.
  • After that, the rate will reduce to 55% of earnings, subject to a maximum of €375 for the following 3 months.
  • A further 3 months will be paid at the rate of 50%, up to a maximum €300 payment.
  • For people who have between 2 and 5 years paid contributions, the rate will be set at 50% of previous earnings subject to a maximum for €300 per week and 6 month’s duration.
  • The scheme will be available to persons who become fully unemployed after the commencement of the scheme.
  • The Minister will bring forward a commencement order for the introduction of Pay Related Benefit later this year once the necessary IT systems have been developed.
  • People who lose their job before that date will be remain entitled to the existing Jobseeker’s Benefit.
Click to expand...
 
Have to see how this pans out with the rules applied but straight away I see some people

a) taking strategic redundancies/quiting to get paid during a year out/travel, then get a new job.
b) near retirement going a year early
 
Does this not also now introduce a discrepancy in the rates between Jobseeker's Benefit and the Benefit Payment for 65 year olds ("BP65", still listed at max. €232 max)? These rates were - until now - equivalent.

It would now seem to be more beneficial for someone who turns 65 to quit and apply for Jobseeker's, which could be as much as €450.
 
Hmmmm my contract states that retirement age is 65. Since the state pension age moved to 66 retirees usually sign on for the year. This is going to bite!

I’d happily look for a new job but can’t see many options at my current salary (€100k).

I wonder if I’ll have a choice re retirement date, I’d happily work another year but the company has pushed people out on their birthdays in the past.
 
TheJackal said:
a) taking strategic redundancies/quiting to get paid during a year out/travel, then get a new job.
Click to expand...

I doubt this will be possible. You’ll have to prove continuing residence in the State.

TheJackal said:
b) near retirement going a year early
Click to expand...
Big incentive to do this. If you’re a middle-income earner something like 60% gross will be around 75% net, and if you remove commuting and other work-related costs you won’t be much worse off.
 
Great to see this. It’s a safety net that I hope I will never have to use.

It’s important that there is a very different level for what the state will provide you if or a reasonable time between jobs. This is something that could impact us all or especially those who are will to take an element of risk in enployer (which is a good thing).
http://thejournal.ie/pay-related-maternity-benefit-heather-humphreys-6449794-Jul2024/
https://www.thejournal.ie/pay-related-maternity-benefit-heather-humphreys-6449794-Jul2024/

Heather Humphreys pushing for the next government to look at doing the same for mat leave. Would be very welcome and the stuff FG should have delivered. A real benefit for working people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mtk
At last a sensible move to make it fair for hard working professionals who pay higher taxes but get same benefits in difficult times. What is strategic Redundancy ? Anyone I have ever known was not made redundant by choice.
 
But didn’t I see somewhere on AAM that a new law is in from Aug 1st that means people like me anyway who retire on integrated pensions. Ie. I have to draw unemployment benefit for 9 months - will no longer have to do so but will go straight to supplementary pension???

No wonder!!!!!
 
blanketyblank said:
go straight to supplementary pension
Click to expand...
.... I think that you would need to have applied for, and been refused, a social welfare benefit in order to be eligible for the supplementary pension.

If you intend to retire on turning 65 (which was compulsory in the public service until 2017), if I understand things correctly*, you would now have the option of applying for the Benefit Payment for 65 Year Olds at a current rate of up to €232/week from the day of your 65th birthday, or applying for Jobseeker's Benefit (now pay-related, which could be as much as €450/week), getting (rightly) refused, and thus potentially becoming eligible for a supplementary pension (assuming you existing scheme has such a provision).

*There are a lot of "ifs" there, and my first advice is always to not take any financial advice from me.
 
Am I correct in believing that this Pay-Related Benefit only applies Jobseeker's Benefit (employed) and not Jobseeker's Benefit (Self-Employed)?

The notes say 'self-employed people will continue to be catered for under the current Jobseeker’s Benefit (Self-Employed) Scheme' but it also says self employed PRSI will increase to pay for this new benefit.

So essentially self employed are being asked to pay for extra insurance from which they cannot benefit.

So just another sneaky tax rise from a government awash with cash.


​

 
Once again high earners pay PRSI on their high incomes but only get the same benefits as those on low incomes.

PRSI really is a monster now. No one really pays attention but PRSI take is now one third of all income tax, USC, and PRSI take combined.

PRSI really should be capped at something like €100k.
 
It was capped. The idea bring you only received a limited benefit, so it was unfair to take unlimited PRSI off higher earners. May have been Charlie McCreevy and Bertie who removed the cap.
There is also the problem of Class S players not paying enough for the benefits they now receive.
 
Last edited:
Towger said:
It was capped. The idea bring you only received a limited benefit, so it was unfair to take unlimited PRSI off higher earners. May have been Charlie McCreevy and Bertie who removed the cap.
There is also the problem of Class S players not paying enough for the benefits they now receive.
Click to expand...
Lenihan I believe in 2011 during the financial crisis.

At the same time PRSI was added to all sorts of non-pay related income, non Pay Related "PRSI" that in almost all cases as far as I understand provides no entitlement to Social Insurance. Also tax relief on PRSI for pension contributions removed.

A major disadvantage of implementing a negative change against middle to high earners is that it's politically nearly impossible to reverse so we end up stuck with every dumb decision for decades or effectively life times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top