Supplementary Pension question please....

[Early Riser]

Yes, I see that, but it won't be declined because you don't have PRSI entitlement to it, it will be declined because you refused to abide by the rules of the scheme.

In the example given in the PNA document the person would be declined but not because they declined to abide by the rules. On the contrary, they are declined because the conditions state that (in addition to having sufficient and relevant PRSI payed credits) they are available for, and seeking, work. The person here is proclaiming that they they do not meet one of the eligibility criteria - that they are retired, full stop. I think it is interesting that the PNA suggest in their advisory to members that this person would then be eligible to apply for Supplementary.

 

[Conan]

Worth bearing in mind that if you are claiming JB and over age 62, you are not required to take part in the "activation process" ie be available and seeking work.

 

[hunter1]

In looking at this issue, you have to wonder about the implementation of this, the resources that this will take.

In the example given in the PNA document the person would be declined but not because they declined to abide by the rules. On the contrary, they are declined because the conditions state that (in addition to having sufficient and relevant PRSI payed credits) they are available for, and seeking, work. The person here is proclaiming that they they do not meet one of the eligibility criteria - that they are retired, full stop. I think it is interesting that the PNA suggest in their advisory to members that this person would then be eligible to apply for Supplementary.

Yes, retired full stop - so it begs the question why they have to sign on for JSB in the first place.

 

[Early Riser]

Worth bearing in mind that if you are claiming JB and over age 62, you are not required to take part in the "activation process" ie be available and seeking work.

Conan - I have to slightly disagree with you there. You should not be required to engage in the "activation process", eg, attend for interviews about employment or attend prescribed back to work courses. However (and unless I am mistaken), if applying for Jobseekers Benefit over age 62 you have to complete the same Application Form in which, among other things, you are asked to confirm that you are available for work. This is one of the conditions for the Benefit. I take it that if you answered emphatetically that you are not, then the Benefit would be refused? There are no variations in the stated conditions for the Benefit, whether you are over or under 62:

Unemployed (you must be fully unemployed or unemployed for at least 4 days out of 7)
Capable of work
Available for work
Genuinely seeking work

It is the "activation" as regards these conditions that change.

 

[Conan]

Conan - I have to slightly disagree with you there. You should not be required to engage in the "activation process", eg, attend for interviews about employment or attend prescribed back to work courses. However (and unless I am mistaken), if applying for Jobseekers Benefit over age 62 you have to complete the same Application Form in which, among other things, you are asked to confirm that you are available for work. This is one of the conditions for the Benefit. I take it that if you answered emphatetically that you are not, then the Benefit would be refused? There are no variations in the stated conditions for the Benefit, whether you are over or under 62:

Unemployed (you must be fully unemployed or unemployed for at least 4 days out of 7)
Capable of work
Available for work
Genuinely seeking work

It is the "activation" as regards these conditions that change.

That’s what the forms state. So technically correct. But in reality, you should/will not be asked to be available for work, nor are you expected to be genuinely seeking work. It’s more DESP “practice “ than written in legislation.

 

[Early Riser]

That’s what the forms state. So technically correct. But in reality, you should/will not be asked to be available for work, nor are you expected to be genuinely seeking work. It’s more DESP “practice “ than written in legislation.

I understand that the technically correct and the practical application can differ. But I am curious as to whether the 62 year old applicant is required to be creative when completing and signing their application form? What would the outcome be if they explicitly indicated that they were not interested in, or available, for work?

On a seperate matter, I am conscious that we have drifted far away from sidzer's original question on this thread. Do you know if having a rental property (and paying the associated tax and PRSI) would result in a person being categorised as self-employed? Being employed, or self-employed, in any capacity in which a PRSI contribution is payable is a disqualifyer for the Supplementary Pension. I suspect that this may apply more generally beyond sidzer.

 

[Allpartied]

That’s what the forms state. So technically correct. But in reality, you should/will not be asked to be available for work, nor are you expected to be genuinely seeking work. It’s more DESP “practice “ than written in legislation.

The claimant is engaging in fraud. A fraud which seems to be endorsed by the state.
It's incredibly bizarre.

 

[hunter1]

I understand that the technically correct and the practical application can differ. But I am curious as to whether the 62 year old applicant is required to be creative when completing and signing their application form? What would the outcome be if they explicitly indicated that they were not interested in, or available, for work?

On a seperate matter, I am conscious that we have drifted far away from sidzer's original question on this thread. Do you know if having a rental property (and paying the associated tax and PRSI) would result in a person being categorised as self-employed? Being employed, or self-employed, in any capacity in which a PRSI contribution is payable is a disqualifyer for the Supplementary Pension. I suspect that this may apply more generally beyond sidzer.

If I am taking your point correctly, this means that anyone with a rental property won't get the supplementary payment so they won't get their full pension entitlement. And so this ludicrous situation gets worse.

 

[Early Riser]

If I am taking your point correctly, this means that anyone with a rental property won't get the supplementary payment so they won't get their full pension entitlement. And so this ludicrous situation gets worse.

I am not making any point. I am just referring back to the original question - would owning a rental property result in the person being categorised as self-employed? I don't know the answer to this.

 

[Allpartied]

The gardai have a useful document relating to the supplementary pension and it's requirements.

There is a statement in the document regarding earned income on rentals ( obviously ! ). It reads as follows,

"PRSI is now payable on rental income, certain deposit income, selfemployment and farming. While these could be considered to be unearned income and to not impact on supplementary pension entitlements, there is a lack of documented clarity on this point. "

https://www.gra.ie/documents/GRA-Pensions-Booklet-Jul17-red.pdf

 

[Gordon Gekko]

The following is one of the conditions for qualifying for the supplementary pension:

'He/she does not enter other employment which involves the payment of a social insurance contribution'


I have a rental property - does the income from this 'classify as other employment which involves the payment of a social insurance contribution?

I’m sorry, but the position couldn’t be any clearer. Owning a rental property is not an employment. An employment is simply a job.

 

[hunter1]

The gardai have a useful document relating to the supplementary pension and it's requirements.

There is a statement in the document regarding earned income on rentals ( obviously ! ). It reads as follows,

"PRSI is now payable on rental income, certain deposit income, selfemployment and farming. While these could be considered to be unearned income and to not impact on supplementary pension entitlements, there is a lack of documented clarity on this point. "

https://www.gra.ie/documents/GRA-Pensions-Booklet-Jul17-red.pdf

Thanks for this.

 

[Early Riser]

I’m sorry, but the position couldn’t be any clearer. Owning a rental property is not an employment. An employment is simply a job.

Does that include self-employment ?

"Supplementary pension may be paid where the retiree:

(a )is not employed in any capacity which involves the payment of a PRSI contribution (including self employment), "

 

[Gordon Gekko]

‘Employment’ and ‘self-employment’ are two different things. Self-employment is not employment.

“Are you ‘employed’ or ‘self-employed’”

If it’s the latter, you’re not employed.

 

[hunter1]

Public servants escape new pension rules

Public servants are escaping new pension rules that delay the payment of the State pension.

www.independent.ie

This is an interesting article from Charlie Weston:

"The State contributory pension is now only paid from the age of 66, meaning that thousands of people who are compelled to leave work at the age of 65 have to claim Jobseekers’ Benefit – getting almost €50 a week less than they would from their pension. "

This is one of my queries to my employer and the union because when I calculated my pension I realised that the occupational pension together with the JSB left me with this shortfall as my pension is integrated with the State Pension which is paid at a higher rate than JSB.

"A spokesperson for the Department of Public Expenditure told the Irish Independent that

"In certain circumstances, civil servants whose pension is integrated with the State pension may qualify for a supplementary pension to make up the difference between the amount of the occupational pension to which they are entitled and the amount they would have received if their occupational pension was not integrated.""

If my pension was not integrated then I would receive the very same pension as my pre-1995 colleagues, which is what my entitlement is.

It seems extraordinary that instead of just paying us what we are entitled to and having our JSB benefit transferred to them, in the same way that all our other PRSI benefits are transferred to them, that we have to go through this farce.

 

[Allpartied]

Thanks for this.

No problem. Unfortunately, the document only seems to emphasise that there is still a lack of clarity over entitlements around the integrated pension.

The document does point out that any employment, which results in a PRSI payment will remove the Supplementary pension, in it's entirety.
This is an important factor for anyone considering doing a few hours of paid employment, for social, or well being reasons. You will lose the entire supplementary pension, even if the amount you earn is less than the amount paid to you in supplementary pension. This is a further complication for the post 95 retirees and will mean that, unless they can find employment which pays a considerable salary, there is little point in working in any capacity.

 

[hunter1]

No problem. Unfortunately, the document only seems to emphasise that there is still a lack of clarity over entitlements around the integrated pension.

The document does point out that any employment, which results in a PRSI payment will remove the Supplementary pension, in it's entirety.
This is an important factor for anyone considering doing a few hours of paid employment, for social, or well being reasons. You will lose the entire supplementary pension, even if the amount you earn is less than the amount paid to you in supplementary pension. This is a further complication for the post 95 retirees and will mean that, unless they can find employment which pays a considerable salary, there is little point in working in any capacity.

So when I "retire" at 60, in order to get my full pension entitlement, the first thing that I have to do is sign on for JSB which involves making myself available for employment, then what that is exhausted, I then have to apply for the "supplementary" payment and in order to be entitled to this, then I cannot take up any form of employment.

If anyone thinks that there's not an issue here, then I would have to profoundly disagree.

 

[Gordon Gekko]

I suggest that people write to Regina Doherty and speak with their local TD. It’s clearly ridiculous, it’s a waste of time and resources, plus for some people claiming the dole is form of humiliation at the end of their working life.

 

[hunter1]

I suggest that people write to Regina Doherty and speak with their local TD. It’s clearly ridiculous, it’s a waste of time and resources, plus for some people claiming the dole is form of humiliation at the end of their working life.

Just reading some threads and they go back some way, this problem has been flagged for a while.

I was onto my solicitor about it and his advice is to take legal action - discrimination.

He's going to look into it further and I do have 5 years before I retire, one thing I know about dealing with the state, after working for them for so many years, is that issues like this require a court case.

 

[The Ghoul]

One of the most farcical and unsatisfactory aspects of this is that AVC providers are being allowed into workplaces to give presentations and are failing to mention the supplementary pension at all or if they do mention it they are are interpreting the "through no fault" clause to suit their own interest. In effect, they are downplaying people's pensions entitlements and pushing them towards AVCs instead. Obviously, it's not in their remit to give impartial advice on pensions as they are a vested interest but people don't seem to be aware of this. I haven't come any impartial advice being offered to counterbalance this.

Most Class A (and Class D) people that I have spoken to were completely unaware of the existence of the supplementary pension - let alone being aware of the details such as not being allowed to work while claiming it.

Most senior HR and payroll people and most union officials are Class D and don't care about this issue. Anyone recruited from the private sector into a senior position in recent years is under the single scheme and will likely struggle with understanding the details of the various older pension schemes. .