Self-employed to get option of paying higher prsi to qualify for more benefits

The insurance analogy would work if the 'premiums' were in any way related to the 'risk' (payout). Or even if they were community related like Irish health insurance. But higher earning PAYE and very high earning self-employed subsidise lower earners and most of the self-employed. That's taxation, not (social) insurance.

Pretty much every country with a social insurance system has a strong pay-related component so there is a link between what you pay in and the benefits you expect to receive. Either contributions are capped or benefits are increased (or a combination) - why should Ireland be so different?
 

But it is a Social Welfare payment.


Agree, it is a fairer system, but can I refer you back to this part of your previous post:

"So for the sum of €15,000 (30 years of €500 contributions), a self-employed person can accrue a full pension which is generally accepted to be worth in the region of €300,000. My view that this is the bargain of the century (which it is...) is tempered by our fantastic system which gives pretty much the same benefit (albeit means-tested) to someone with no contributions..."

And if they pay another 20 years, then this a total of 25k in contributions over their entire working life - or two years of the state pension at today's rate?



 

No, I disagree, that is the very basis of "social" insurance. In Germany, for example, your benefit is based on your income (which of course defines your contributions), if memory serves, you receive about 75% of your last pay, but only for a defined period, I think it's 9 months, although it could be 12.

Then your benefit is reduced to a living benefit payment, so the incentive is there to return to work as soon as you can.
 

A dentist is a very good example of what I am proposing.

They generally have high incomes.
Their costs are low relative to their income.
Their need to invest in their business is particularly low.
I presume that they don't buy a new chair every year.

I know quite a few who have invested stupidly and are in financial difficulty and might be dependent on the state for their pension after years of high earnings.

I would have no practical or ideological problem with forcing them to put 10% of their earnings into a pension fund.

Brendan
 

It is not remotely like car insurance. I drive a modest car and pay a modest premium. I have no problem at all with that. I hope I never claim.

Pay Related Social Insurance is not pay related and it's not insurance.

Most people would accept that those of us who save more should be able to enjoy those higher savings in retirement. I presume you agree with that.

If the benefit is defined as " €300 a week for 18 months illness or unemployment", then charge everyone the same premium.

But it's unfair to charge an employee earning €100,000 a year €14,750 each and every year, and limit his claim to €300 a week for 18 months.

That is why I think that a personal account would work very well. Everyone would be encouraged to work.
 
ppmeath said:
But it is a Social Welfare payment.
Click to expand...
Yes but that doesn't make it a PRSI benefit which is what this thread is about.
Great. 25K contributions for 300K benefit. That'll give the high earners the warm and fuzzies.

Lots of things might or might not happen but there's no escaping the fact that this is a system where a person can accrue a full pension for 15K.

You disagree but then your example agrees? In Ireland benefits have no link to income except at the very lowest levels of income. PRSI is just another form of taxation so we might as well just roll income tax, USC and PRSI into one system - at least it would save costs.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
I presume that they don't buy a new chair every year.
Click to expand...

Well, my dentist might do so if he was proposing to open a chain of dental clinics...

But my point is really that the most efficient deployment of capital is best left to business owners - not the State.

Brendan Burgess said:
I know quite a few who have invested stupidly and are in financial difficulty and might be dependent on the state for their pension after years of high earnings.
Click to expand...

Is the State also going to decide how to invest these contributions (to avoid people making "stupid" decisions)? Maybe we should go the whole hog and nationalise the whole economy!
 
orka said:
Lots of things might or might not happen but there's no escaping the fact that this is a system where a person can accrue a full pension for 15K.
Click to expand...

As things currently stand, part-time employees earning as little as €38 per week can qualify for a full contributory state pension and they don't have to contribute anything at all to the fund.

Also, many higher income earners are actually employed by the State - no employer contributions there.

orka said:
PRSI is just another form of taxation so we might as well just roll income tax, USC and PRSI into one system - at least it would save costs.
Click to expand...

That sounds very sensible.
 

I disagreed with this part of your post, those who earn more subsidise those who earn less, that is a "Social insurance" - not taxation.

"But higher earning PAYE and very high earning self-employed subsidise lower earners and most of the self-employed. That's taxation, not (social) insurance"

orka said:
In Ireland benefits have no link to income except at the very lowest levels of income. PRSI is just another form of taxation so we might as well just roll income tax, USC and PRSI into one system - at least it would save costs.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that the system needs to be looked at, which is why I gave the German example, but it will mean higher contributions.

Brendan Burgess said:
It is not remotely like car insurance. I drive a modest car and pay a modest premium. I have no problem at all with that. I hope I never claim.

Pay Related Social Insurance is not pay related and it's not insurance.
Click to expand...
Two questions, the first is if you never claim do you expect a refund?

If you claim do you expect what you put in to be paid out? If you were insured for a year and had to claim? Would you settle for your modest premium returned?

Of course you wouldn't - you would be paid the value of your car and who do you think "subsidises" that? All the other people paying modest premiums who haven't claimed.

PRSI is insurance in the very same way - if you need it then it absolutely should be there for you - but if you can go through your life in a well paid job and live a good life without having to "claim" it then isn't this also a good thing?
 
Sarenco said:
Is the State also going to decide how to invest these contributions (to avoid people making "stupid" decisions)? Maybe we should go the whole hog and nationalise the whole economy!
Click to expand...

No need at all for that. They could be managed by the funds industry. At the moment, people are paying huge prsi and it's just going to pay current welfare payments.

Brendan
 
ppmeath said:
PRSI is insurance in the very same way - if you need it then it absolutely should be there for you - but if you can go through your life in a well paid job and live a good life without having to "claim" it then isn't this also a good thing?
Click to expand...

It's not remotely like insurance other than the word "insurance" is in the name.

If the people who designed prsi designed car insurance, everyone would pay the same premium. A 20 year old male, with a bad claims record, driving a Porsche would pay the same premium as a claims free 60 year old driving a Skoda.

I have no problem with a genuine social insurance product. I don't even mind if it's community rated. So we all pay €1,000 a year and if we claim we get €300 a week for 18 months. But anything above €1,000 a year goes into a pot with my name on it which will pay me more than the €300 and a higher pension.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
If the people who designed prsi designed car insurance, everyone would pay the same premium. A 20 year old male, with a bad claims record, driving a Porsche would pay the same premium as a claims free 60 year old driving a Skoda.
Click to expand...

Well............ He wouldn't get insurance Brendan, and that is the why the word "social" is in the name because it's inclusive.


Higher then 233.30 or just higher then someone who didn't contribute as much? Just curious?
 
Sarenco said:
But my point is really that the most efficient deployment of capital is best left to business owners - not the State.
Click to expand...
That's just a fancy way of saying I'd rather pay less tax because I will look after my money better than the State will (which I whole-heartedly agree with!). I would love to choose not to pay PRSI and for my employer to give me their employer's PRSI contribution instead of giving it to the state (I'll even split it with them so they are net better off too!). I'll look after my pension and insurance arrangements myself.

Unfortunately, that's not an option - but the self-employed are part way there in contributing less than an employed person's total employer and employee contributions.


Sarenco said:
As things currently stand, part-time employees earning as little as €38 per week can qualify for a full contributory state pension and they don't have to contribute anything at all to the fund.
Click to expand...
Their employer will contribute PRSI (€168 per annum) but I agree this is another massive bargain for the person.

Sarenco said:
Also, many higher income earners are actually employed by the State - no employer contributions there.
Click to expand...
Another topic which vexes me greatly – I won’t rant about public sector pensions here though…

ppmeath said:
I disagreed with this part of your post, those who earn more subsidise those who earn less, that is a "Social insurance" - not taxation.
Click to expand...
You don’t seem to understand what insurance is and how it is priced. Insurance pricing will either be risk related (high powered car insurance is more expensive than modest car insurance) or community rated like Irish health insurance. In both cases there are varying degrees of cross subsidy. High powered car premiums generally subsidise other high powered cars etc – there’s a relationship between what you pay in a year and what you (as a group of high powered car owners) expect to receive. In community rated health insurance, the young/healthy subsidise the old/sick and there’s a lifetime relationship between what you pay and what you (as a group) expect to receive. Great if you don’t need your benefits but as a group you have received value.


Insurance premiums are never related to pay unless benefits are also related to pay.


In your German example, contributions are related to income and benefits are related to contributions and income. There is a cap on contributions because there is a cap on benefits (we used to have that here when employee PRSI contributions were capped). That makes sense and it’s fair and it’s close to being true insurance.


The Irish systems bases contributions on income but benefits are (largely) flat – that is taxation.
 

Of course I do orka, you seem unable to understand that we belong to "a system of compulsory contribution to enable the provision of state assistance in sickness, unemployment, etc."
 
Brendan Burgess said:
They could be managed by the funds industry.
Click to expand...

Fair enough but that comes at a cost.

One of the key criticisms of the Chilean system is that it is very expensive to run and performance has been poor (relative to private pension funds). There are obviously administrative costs per contributor and workers with lower incomes (about half the workforce) find it more challenging to accumulate significant capital and ultimately have to fall back on the (means tested) system that runs in parallel. In practice, this ultimately this get you back to something resembling our own system in terms of its net result even though our current system, at least in theory, is a form of risk pooling, with a significant "social" element.
 
ppmeath said:
Of course I do
Click to expand...
Of course? Interesting. Most people don't.
ppmeath said:
you seem unable to understand that we belong to "a system of compulsory contribution to enable the provision of state assistance in sickness, unemployment, etc."
Click to expand...
I and my bank balance are very aware of the system...

Ireland has a very good social safety net. We also target a flat rate pension for workers after 30-50 years of working (or the social safety net of the same pension after not working). How should these things should be funded? You seem happy with our contribution system which is very different to any other country's. Do you think other countries' contribution systems are unfair in having contribution caps and pay-related benefits? Should they copy us? Why don't we copy their structures?

I personally would like a system like most of Europe - pay-related contributions with income caps providing minimum benefit standards with caps in line with contribution caps. And the self-employed contributing roughly the same as the combined employer/employee contribution and being entitled to the same benefits.
 
orka said:
the self-employed are part way there in contributing less than an employed person's total employer and employee contributions.
Click to expand...

That's far from universally true. Bear in mind that a significant proportion of the self-employed and employees have low annual incomes.

orka said:
And the self-employed contributing roughly the same as the combined employer/employee contribution and being entitled to the same benefits.
Click to expand...

That's certainly not the case in Germany - most self-employed workers fall outside their social security system completely.

It's not the case in the UK either. The self-employed pay 75% of what an employee contributes in NI up to £43k (there's no separate employer contribution) and 2% thereafter - same as an employee.

While I agree with your broader point that our income tax and social security systems have become completely unbalanced and anomalous, it is overly simplistic to suggest that this would be "cured" by simply requiring the self-employed to pay the equivalent of employer and employee contributions unless you subsequent adjust this through the tax system so that the self-employed are ultimately put in the same position as employees (which is the case in the US).

However, the real elephant in the room, IMO, is the level of State pensions. While I think it's a laudable policy that all workers should be entitled to receive a COAP equivalent to 35% of average weekly earnings, I personally don't think this will be remotely realistic in the future. We either adjust now or push this problem further down the road - when it will be immeasurably more difficult to address.

Our choice - no point blaming politicians.
 
Sarenco said:
It's not the case in the UK either. The self-employed pay 75% of what an employee contributes in NI up to £43k (there's no separate employer contribution) and 2% thereafter - same as an employee.
Click to expand...
They don't get full benefits with this reduced contribution - I think same contribution/same benefits is fairest.
 
ppmeath said:
Of course I do orka, you seem unable to understand that we belong to "a system of compulsory contribution to enable the provision of state assistance in sickness, unemployment, etc."
Click to expand...
That's what we have alright but it's not pay related and it's not insurance. It's a taxation system, not an insurance system.
 

It really isn't about being happy, I just see the present system in a different way then you do. I am not comfortable with trying to "punish" (not saying that this is where you are coming from) someone who may not have contributed because they didn't work - because this means that they have probably been living on benefits their entire life - then we have to design a system to see why this was the case.

I do think that we all agree that it won't be sustainable in the future and that we will all have to contribute more - and one of my main bug bears is the amount of "lower earners" who are excluded - I believe that everyone should pay something.


I fully agree with Sarenco here:



Purple said:
That's what we have alright but it's not pay related and it's not insurance. It's a taxation system, not an insurance system.
Click to expand...

Yes I believe it is and I agree with the points in relation that Sarenco makes very well here:

"While I agree with your broader point that our income tax and social security systems have become completely unbalanced and anomalous"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register