HSE Paid Career Breaks

maryishere

Godge wrote: »

did you read the link?

yes I did, and I posted it to answer another poster question , as he / she said inaccurately said I do not provide links. The link revealed that "At least €7.8m was paid to civil servants who did no work over the past three years under a career break scheme" and surprise surprise, the public service defends this perk to itself.

maryishere

Lumbo wrote: »

A quick google search tells me you're wrong.

http://euforus.blogspot.ie/2009/05/how-to-take-career-break-and-get-paid.html

Is that the best you can come up with in the world?
Read the link. Its not the same as paying someone 36k for not working.
Still, no wonder Europe is in crises.

Lumbo

maryishere wrote: »

Is that the best you can come up with in the world?
Read the link. Its not the same as paying someone 36k for not working.
Still, no wonder Europe is in crises.

You made a statement. Not for the first time you were wrong. Do a small bit of research before you make untrue claims. It might make the forum a more enjoyable/education read.

kippy

maryishere wrote: »

According to the Irish examiner it cost the taxpayer €7.8 million up until the end of 2012 to pay the scheme to civil servants alone :
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/78m-paid-to-civil-servants-on-career-breaks-218064.html

Thats a long way from a few hundred million......is it not? I dont know how you expect to be taken seriously.

kippy

maryishere wrote: »

According to the Irish examiner it cost the taxpayer €7.8 million up until the end of 2012 to pay the scheme to civil servants alone :
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/78m-paid-to-civil-servants-on-career-breaks-218064.html

You also failed to post any supporting information for your other points made in the same post.

geeksauce

maryishere wrote: »

yes I did, and I posted it to answer another poster question , as he / she said inaccurately said I do not provide links. The link revealed that "At least €7.8m was paid to civil servants who did no work over the past three years under a career break scheme" and surprise surprise, the public service defends this perk to itself.

I assume you mean me, but there was nothing inaccurate about it, you dont provide links you make claims and never back them up, you were asked by another user to provide a link backing up your claim that those availing of this scheme were thinking of retiring to look after kids anyway. You still have not provided a link for this, so no there is no inaccuracies whatsoever.

Can you also tell me how much would have been paid to those same civil servants that received the 7.8m had they not been on a career break?

sarumite

Godge wrote: »

Let us go back and read post 89.





You are now trying to argue that the word "no" means "yes". Funny.

How long did it take you to find the wikipedia definition?

About 5 seconds. (I have fast broadband, wikipedia is bookmarked and job is a three letter word so it doesn't take so long to type )

here is another one from the business dictionary:

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/job.html

"When performed by an employee in an exchange for pay, a job consists of duties, responsibilities, and tasks (performance elements) that are (1) defined and specific, and (2) can be accomplished, quantified, measured, and rated"

Your definition sets a caveat of "when performed by an employee" without making it explicit that it can only be performed by an employee. Since we are arguing whether a self employed person has a job, the above is a little redundant.

Lets try it again since you seem not to like my wiki version.

Oxford English dictionary

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/job

"noun
1 a paid position of regular employment:"

What the Q&A means is that you are not allowed take-up employment in the State during the career break. End of story.

I never specified where a person could get a job.

If it is so easy to start up a business, wouldn't there be 300,000 new businesses tomorrow and no unemployment?

Now your just grasping at straws. There are lot of things that are not easy, getting a PhD, sitting next to your annoying uncle at christmas dinner, completing Dark Souls....and starting a business. however unless your arguing that it is impossible, the above has absolutely no relevance whatsoever.

Godge

maryishere wrote: »

Is that the best you can come up with in the world?
Read the link. Its not the same as paying someone 36k for not working.
Still, no wonder Europe is in crises.

Look, let me put this another way for you.

If I say to you, pay me €200 a week to sit on my arse for three years and you will save €600 a week in mortgage payments as a result, will you

(1) moan and complain about paying me €200 a week to do nothing, or
(2) rejoice in saving €600 a week on your mortgage.

It doesn't matter what I was planning to do otherwise, you are still saving €600 a week, which is only costing you €200 a week.

Riskymove

Riskymove wrote: »

It was reported in the media.

The Govt did the same in the Civil Service as one of their first measures and it is about temporarily reducing the wage bill and in that sense it works

The people who went on the 3 year breaks have recently begun to return.

If they can get by without those people for 3 years then the positions should be made redundant and they should quit wasting tax payers money.

Employ people to work, it isn`t charity!

Riskymove

Deleted User wrote: »

If they can get by without those people for 3 years then the positions should be made redundant and they should quit wasting tax payers money.

They are not identifying specific posts that they deem surplus

who says they get by without them...might be a serious impact

the scheme is a sort-sighted temporary measure. They are trying to encourage some workers to temporarily leave to make costs look better

kippy

Deleted User wrote: »

If they can get by without those people for 3 years then the positions should be made redundant and they should quit wasting tax payers money.

Employ people to work, it isn`t charity!

Which part of "they cannot make them redundant" do people not get?

creedp

Deleted User wrote: »

If they can get by without those people for 3 years then the positions should be made redundant and they should quit wasting tax payers money.

Employ people to work, it isn`t charity!

Valid point obviously. However, it is being done in an environment where compulsory redundancies are not available (rightly or wrongly) and if they were or if voluntary redundancies were being offerred some form of cessation payment would also ensue, thereby costing more up front. Bottom line is that this is an imperfect measure to try and reduce cost without any regard to the impact it will have on the PS. This won't be known until we know how many (and from what locations) will take up this offer. A possible upside is that after the 3 year period is up these people will be redeployed to areas in need of resources (to compensate for natural wastage and the recruitment ban) and who knows some people might not ever return .. surely some of you would consider that even at double the cost that's would be good value!!

maryishere

Deleted User wrote: »

If they can get by without those people for 3 years then the positions should be made redundant and they should quit wasting tax payers money.

+1. If you were employed in the public service though, you would think its your God given right to take three years off and get €12,000 a year. Ah shure everyone should get paid while they look after kids or go on a 3 year tour of Australia or whatever. The government has lots of money. For those who want to leave the public service for at least a few years / are bored or whatever, better to get 12k a year than to get nothing at all.

fasttalkerchat

Would it not make sense to offer a 6 month break and hope some find other jobs in that time?

barneystinson

maryishere wrote: »

If the government wishes to shed staff then the public service in general must be overpaid and underworked.

:rolleyes:
In general, the private sector has roughly one testicle and half a vagina each. (They're all Gaga )

Godge

barneystinson wrote: »

:rolleyes:
In general, the private sector has roughly one testicle and half a vagina each. (They're all Gaga )

There is no point making a statement without turning it into a private versus public sector argument:D:D

The private sector has slightly more than one testicle and slightly less than half a vagina on average.

The reverse is true of the public sector.

Cue someone asking me to back this up with a link.

Maybe I will get a public servant to take three years off at 12k a year to research it for me in between holidays in Australia (on 12k a year!!) and minding their kids who are at school.

CommanderC

Mr. teddywinkles wrote: »

So let me get this right were paying someone to do nothing for 3 years.
Please correct me if im wrong?

We're paying them a third of their wages to do nothing for 3 years. As opposed to paying them their full wage for doing nothing for 3 years.

skafish

maryishere wrote: »

+1. If you were employed in the public service though, you would think its your God given right to take three years off and get €12,000 a year. Ah shure everyone should get paid while they look after kids or go on a 3 year tour of Australia or whatever. The government has lots of money. For those who want to leave the public service for at least a few years / are bored or whatever, better to get 12k a year than to get nothing at all.

I really don't understand your reluctance, or inability to grasp the essence of the scheme. At its most basic, it saves money. As has been pointed out, by you, in your link, all government departments that offered a scheme similar to this recorded a saving of several millions. It is cheaper than redundancy (if redundancy were available), and has all the advantages already pointed out.

Still, don't let simple things like logic interfere with your rant

maryishere

skafish wrote: »

At its most basic, it saves money. As has been pointed out, by you, in your link, all government departments that offered a scheme similar to this recorded a saving of several millions.

Thats assuming the people that left for 3 years would not have left anyway. As has been pointed out, we're paying them €36,000 to do nothing for 3 years. As opposed to paying them their full wage for doing nothing ( or next to nothing ) for 3 years. So government departments that offered a scheme are "saving" the difference. However, in other organisations / public services, there is always natural wastage of those who voluntarily leave. Giving these people 36k costs us, the taxpayer, money we are having to borrow.
That is why no other government offers its public service 36k to do nothing.
Its a great perk for the public servants who may get it or wish to avail of it. Its another example of our economic genuises the government thinking they are right and all other governments / public services are wrong.

Incidentally I am not surprised many of those who get that perk or who have close relatives or friends getting that perk are defending it. Its a great windfall perk , especially for those who were considering early retiring or wanting to take unpaid leave of absense or raise kids or travel the world or whatever.

skafish

maryishere wrote: »

Thats assuming the people that left for 3 years would not have left anyway. As has been pointed out, we're paying them €36,000 to do nothing for 3 years. As opposed to paying them their full wage for doing nothing ( or next to nothing ) for 3 years. So government departments that offered a scheme are "saving" the difference. However, in other organisations / public services, there is always natural wastage of those who voluntarily leave. Giving these people 36k costs us, the taxpayer, money we are having to borrow.
That is why no other government offers its public service 36k to do nothing.
Its a great perk for the public servants who may get it or wish to avail of it. Its another example of our economic genuises the government thinking they are right and all other governments / public services are wrong.

Incidentally I am not surprised many of those who get that perk or who have close relatives or friends getting that perk are defending it. Its a great windfall perk , especially for those who were considering early retiring or wanting to take unpaid leave of absense or raise kids or travel the world or whatever.

Your inability to accept what is in front of you is breathtaking. To use your example (because I have never met anyone in the PS who does nothing), why would those who "do nothing or next to nothing" take a pay cut for three years? If they are being as well paid as you and some other PS haters on this site appear to think, why give up such a soft number for a measly €12K?

Still, at least the chips on both shoulders keep you somewhat stable, rather than balanced

maryishere

skafish wrote: »

Your inability to accept what is in front of you is breathtaking.

I accept whats in front of me all right. Most people in the private sector have little choice but to accept whats in front of us. I suggest your inability to see a perk for what it is - a perk - is astounding.

skafish wrote: »

To use your example (because I have never met anyone in the PS who does nothing), why would those who "do nothing or next to nothing" take a pay cut for three years?

because the country is broke. That's why the public sector took a pay cut not just for 3 years but a lot longer.

skafish wrote: »

If they are being as well paid as you and some other PS haters on this site appear to think, why give up such a soft number for a measly €12K?

I do not hate the public service so please do not make personal attacks. I have relatives and friends in it, like most people. I would imagine there are different reasons why some people take the paid career break - in the case of the last person I know who took it, it was to look after kids...she was thinking of retiring / resigning from the public service anyway until this windfall came along. I know someone else who wanted to go abroad for a few years. Great opportunity, why not, cannot blame them.

Now, less of the personal attacks abouts chips on the shoulder etc. Do not forget giving these people 36k costs us, the taxpayer, money we are having to borrow. That is why no other government offers its public service 36k to do nothing.

ardmacha

That is why no other government offers its public service 36k to do nothing.

Really? Have you surveyed the entire UN, or just the OECD?

kippy

maryishere wrote: »

I accept whats in front of me all right. Most people in the private sector have little choice but to accept whats in front of us. I suggest your inability to see a perk for what it is - a perk - is astounding.


because the country is broke. That's why the public sector took a pay cut not just for 3 years but a lot longer.


I do not hate the public service so please do not make personal attacks. I have relatives and friends in it, like most people. I would imagine there are different reasons why some people take the paid career break - in the case of the last person I know who took it, it was to look after kids...she was thinking of retiring / resigning from the public service anyway until this windfall came along. I know someone else who wanted to go abroad for a few years. Great opportunity, why not, cannot blame them.

Now, less of the personal attacks abouts chips on the shoulder etc. Do not forget giving these people 36k costs us, the taxpayer, money we are having to borrow. That is why no other government offers its public service 36k to do nothing.

Its not really a windfall if you were planning to retire or resign though is it? The state would have to pay you in either instance...

Godge

maryishere wrote: »

I would imagine there are different reasons why some people take the paid career break - in the case of the last person I know who took it, it was to look after kids...she was thinking of retiring / resigning from the public service anyway until this windfall came along. I know someone else who wanted to go abroad for a few years. Great opportunity, why not, cannot blame them.

You know 2 people who abused the system.
I know 3 people who didn't and who genuinely took the incentivised career break as they couldn't and wouldn't have taken a normal career break.

The government Departments have reported savings of millions because of the career breaks.

There is no point in you basing your rant on two stories.

maryishere

Godge wrote: »

The government Departments have reported savings of millions because of the career breaks.

These are the same government departments which have doubled their spending in the past ten years, despite the the recession, the IMF being here etc. The same government department which thinks giving someone 36k to do nothing for 3 years is "saving" them the cost of employing that person for three years, when that person was about to leave / resign anyway for personal lifestyle reasons.
What other economic policies do you think our economic genuises the government thinking are right on, and all other governments / public services are wrong? With great schemes like this, and a very highly paid public service by international standards, surely we should be rescuing other people economies, instead of the other way around? Do you think other countries offer their piblic service employees 36k to do nothing? Or is it another case of ah shure we're Irish, we're different, we're grand?

martian1980

maryishere wrote: »

These are the same government departments which have doubled their spending in the past ten years, despite the the recession, the IMF being here etc. The same government department which thinks giving someone 36k to do nothing for 3 years is "saving" them the cost of employing that person for three years, when that person was about to leave / resign anyway for personal lifestyle reasons.
What other economic policies do you think our economic genuises the government thinking are right on, and all other governments / public services are wrong? With great schemes like this, and a very highly paid public service by international standards, surely we should be rescuing other people economies, instead of the other way around? Do you think other countries offer their piblic service employees 36k to do nothing? Or is it another case of ah shure we're Irish, we're different, we're grand?

Are we in "after hours" here?

Godge

martian1980 wrote: »

Are we in "after hours" here?

+100

geeksauce

martian1980 wrote: »

Are we in "after hours" here?

+1000

Vizzy

maryishere,
Did you apply for the scheme and were unsuccessfull ?
Is that the problem ?

maryishere

The problem is the country is spending something like 18 billion a year on public service pay and pensions, which is nearly double what it was ten years ago. The country is borrowing a ten figure sum every month just to keep things ticking over, and the IMF is here. You may not have noticed. That is the problem.

creedp

maryishere wrote: »

The problem is the country is spending something like 18 billion a year on public service pay and pensions, which is nearly double what it was ten years ago. The country is borrowing a ten figure sum every month just to keep things ticking over, and the IMF is here. You may not have noticed. That is the problem.

Indeed it seems you may not have noticed previous discussion on the difference between gross pay and pensions and net PS pay and pensions when the Govt is both the employer and the State. So the Govt is not borrowing the gross PS pay and pensions figure to fund PS pay.

While this initiative is far from a best case scenario, it will actually reduce the amount the Govt has to borrow to fund PS pay. In additon, it is a temporary measure not a lifetime commitment. So if as you say everyone who benefits from this 'perk' was going to retire anyway to go to Australia or mind their kids of take the yacht out then at least they won't be returning after 3 years and I'm sure you will say 'good riddance' to them. Can you not see that upside?

sean200

great idea wife is going to take it and it will save us a childcare bill of about 2000 a month

sarumite

creedp wrote: »

Indeed it seems you may not have noticed previous discussion on the difference between gross pay and pensions and net PS pay and pensions when the Govt is both the employer and the State. So the Govt is not borrowing the gross PS pay and pensions figure to fund PS pay.

The net pay is a total irrelevance in terms of spending though as the government must provide services that the PS employee (as well as any employee in the state) must contribute towards (and uses) which is funded through their taxation. The government is both the employer and service provider...and therefore the government must pay its employees enough money to earn an income and so that the employee pay their share to the services provider (i.e. the government).

Godge

maryishere wrote: »

The problem is the country is spending something like 18 billion a year on public service pay and pensions, which is nearly double what it was ten years ago. .

http://per.gov.ie/wp-content/uploads/Analysis-of-Exchequer-Pay-and-Pensions-Bill-2006-2011.pdf


I will accept your figure of 18 billion for 2014 as a working assumption. If that is nearly double the figure of 2004, that would mean we were spending only 10 billion in 2004 (again I am generous in my estimation)

I cannot find the bill for 2004 - maybe someone else will.

But in the link the figure for 2006 is 16.7 bn. That means that in order for your outlandish exaggeration to be true, pay should have risen by 60% between 2004 and 2006. That is simply not the case.

Your rants are getting even more pointless and inaccurate.

creedp

sarumite wrote: »

The net pay is a total irrelevance in terms of spending though as the government must provide services that the PS employee (as well as any employee in the state) must contribute towards (and uses) which is funded through their taxation. The government is both the employer and service provider...and therefore the government must pay its employees enough money to earn an income and so that the employee pay their share to the services provider (i.e. the government).

While you can argue that some of the tax paid by the PS goes back into funding public services they receive you can hardly argue that it is a total irrelevance as much of the tax collected is allocated to fund public services which the PS do not benefit from. In addition, just like for workers in the private sector, many of these services accessed by the PS are funded out post-tax income in the form of indirect taxation - CT, excise duties, car tax, VRT, VAT, DIRT, waste disposal, rates, household tax, etc, etc. A final and albeit off topic point is that you will find that all PS pay is fully liable to tax at the appropriate rate.

hardCopy

kceire wrote: »

They should of got a job with PTSB, they offered it too

So did many many multinational firms including accountancy firms and IT consultancies.

Gumbo

maryishere wrote: »

The problem is the country is spending something like 18 billion a year on public service pay and pensions.

No we are not.

woodoo

maryishere wrote: »

Thats assuming the people that left for 3 years would not have left anyway. As has been pointed out, we're paying them €36,000 to do nothing for 3 years. As opposed to paying them their full wage for doing nothing ( or next to nothing ) for 3 years. So government departments that offered a scheme are "saving" the difference. However, in other organisations / public services, there is always natural wastage of those who voluntarily leave. Giving these people 36k costs us, the taxpayer, money we are having to borrow.
That is why no other government offers its public service 36k to do nothing.
Its a great perk for the public servants who may get it or wish to avail of it. Its another example of our economic genuises the government thinking they are right and all other governments / public services are wrong.

Incidentally I am not surprised many of those who get that perk or who have close relatives or friends getting that perk are defending it. Its a great windfall perk , especially for those who were considering early retiring or wanting to take unpaid leave of absense or raise kids or travel the world or whatever.

How do you expect to be taken serious with rubbish like that bolded.

woodoo

maryishere wrote: »

Is that the best you can come up with in the world?
Read the link. Its not the same as paying someone 36k for not working.
Still, no wonder Europe is in crises.

If you sack them and they end up on the dole are they not going to be drawing 12K or more anyway.

maryishere

woodoo wrote: »

If you sack them and they end up on the dole are they not going to be drawing 12K or more anyway.

not necessarily. And people sometimes leave of their own accord, without being "sacked".

"Dole" should also be reduced to closer to that of other countries too.

kippy

maryishere wrote: »

not necessarily. And people sometimes leave of their own accord, without being "sacked".

"Dole" should also be reduced to closer to that of other countries too.

Why would people leave the best paying, keast stressfull and best jobs in the world.....doesnt make sense....and goes against all you have said about the public service cushy jobs.

What other countries levels should social welfare aspire to?
The reality is yhe state would end up paying more to these people through any other mechanism available to them.

Gumbo

maryishere wrote: »

not necessarily. And people sometimes leave of their own accord, without being "sacked".

"Dole" should also be reduced to closer to that of other countries too.

Even if you leave on your own accord, you are still entitled to SW benefits such as JSB/JSA, medical card, mortgage relief, and then you get some cash every now and again from the relief officer.

maryishere

kippy wrote: »

Why would people leave the best paying, keast stressfull and best jobs in the world......

just because you may have a well paying, secure, pensionable, non-stressful job does not mean everyone has. There are plenty of people in the public sector not in very well paid jobs, just as some people in the public sector work hard.

In an organisation of hundreds of thousands of people, there will always be people who leave. Be it to spend quality time with their kids, travel the world, seek new challenges and opportunities, care for relatives, enjoy life if their partner/spouse is very well paid / inherits money / wins the lotto / whatever. Lots of reasons why people would lave any organisation of hundreds of thousands of people. Paying 36k to those who would leave anyway is why other governments do not throw money away in this manner.

kceire wrote: »

Even if you leave on your own accord, you are still entitled to SW benefits such as JSB/JSA, medical card, mortgage relief, and then you get some cash every now and again from the relief officer.

even if you voluntarily resign your job, and your spouse has a well paid job, and you are not a job seeker? Why would the state pay the dole or other benefits to a well off person who is not a jobseeker, and who may even be travelling around Australia for 3 years?

Gumbo

maryishere wrote: »

even if you voluntarily resign your job, and your spouse has a well paid job, and you are not a job seeker? Why would the state pay the dole or other benefits to a well off person who is not a jobseeker, and who may even be travelling around Australia for 3 years?

Yes, most recently, my dad gave up work and availed of this.
And contary to popular belief and all the sh1t that is spouted on these forums, my dad was self employed with his own business.

His house insurance was paid by SW recent;y too

Aimeee

kceire wrote: »

Even if you leave on your own accord, you are still entitled to SW benefits such as JSB/JSA, medical card, mortgage relief, and then you get some cash every now and again from the relief officer.

is this correct? I thought if you left job of your own accord, you are not entitled to any of the above?

Gumbo

Aimeee wrote: »

is this correct? I thought if you left job of your own accord, you are not entitled to any of the above?

100% true.

You may have to wait a few weeks before it kicks in compared to being let go, but you are entitled to it aslong as you have the required stamps etc paid up from your working time.

maryishere

(even if you voluntarily resign your job, and your spouse has a well paid job, and you are not a job seeker? Why would the state pay the dole or other benefits to a well off person who is not a jobseeker, and who may even be travelling around Australia for 3 years?)

kceire wrote: »

Yes, most recently, my dad gave up work and availed of this.
And contary to popular belief and all the sh1t that is spouted on these forums, my dad was self employed with his own business.

His house insurance was paid by SW recent;y too

That's rubbish and you have lost all credibility now kceire.

"Self-employed people pay Class S PRSI. Class S PRSI only covers you for certain social welfare payments. It does not cover you for Jobseeker’s Benefit.
However, if you worked as an employee in the last 4 years, you may have paid Class A PRSI and should apply to your Social Welfare Local Office for Jobseeker’s Benefit. Your Social Welfare Local Office will check their records to find out whether you have enough Class A contributions to get Jobseeker’s Benefit.
If you get Jobseeker’s Benefit you may continue to do some work. However, you must have lost at least one day of employment and as a result of this loss be unemployed for at least 4 days out of 7 days. Your earnings must also have been reduced because of the loss of employment.
For example, if you are engaged under a contract for service to work (on a self-employed basis) for 3 days per week and unemployed for the remainder of the week, you may qualify for Jobseeker’s Benefit. Jobseeker’s Benefit is taxable.
If you do not qualify for Jobseeker’s Benefit you may get Jobseeker’s Allowance. When you apply for Jobseeker’s Benefit you will be asked if you want to be assessed for Jobseeker’s Allowance if your claim for Jobseeker’s Benefit is unsuccessful.
Jobseeker's Allowance

To get Jobseeker’s Allowance you must be:

• Over 18 and under 66
• Unemployed
• Capable of work, available for work and genuinely seeking work
• Habitually resident
• Pass a means test

If you are self-employed, you may be entitled to Jobseeker's Allowance depending on your earnings from your business. "

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/unemployed_people/self_employed_and_unemployment.html

kippy

maryishere wrote: »

(even if you voluntarily resign your job, and your spouse has a well paid job, and you are not a job seeker? Why would the state pay the dole or other benefits to a well off person who is not a jobseeker, and who may even be travelling around Australia for 3 years?)


That's rubbish and you have lost all credibility now kceire.

"Self-employed people pay Class S PRSI. Class S PRSI only covers you for certain social welfare payments. It does not cover you for Jobseeker’s Benefit.
However, if you worked as an employee in the last 4 years, you may have paid Class A PRSI and should apply to your Social Welfare Local Office for Jobseeker’s Benefit. Your Social Welfare Local Office will check their records to find out whether you have enough Class A contributions to get Jobseeker’s Benefit.
If you get Jobseeker’s Benefit you may continue to do some work. However, you must have lost at least one day of employment and as a result of this loss be unemployed for at least 4 days out of 7 days. Your earnings must also have been reduced because of the loss of employment.
For example, if you are engaged under a contract for service to work (on a self-employed basis) for 3 days per week and unemployed for the remainder of the week, you may qualify for Jobseeker’s Benefit. Jobseeker’s Benefit is taxable.
If you do not qualify for Jobseeker’s Benefit you may get Jobseeker’s Allowance. When you apply for Jobseeker’s Benefit you will be asked if you want to be assessed for Jobseeker’s Allowance if your claim for Jobseeker’s Benefit is unsuccessful.
Jobseeker's Allowance

To get Jobseeker’s Allowance you must be:

• Over 18 and under 66
• Unemployed
• Capable of work, available for work and genuinely seeking work
• Habitually resident
• Pass a means test

If you are self-employed, you may be entitled to Jobseeker's Allowance depending on your earnings from your business. "

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/unemployed_people/self_employed_and_unemployment.html

I believe self employed people have also the option of paying a class a stamp if they wish......
As for credibility.....

kippy

maryishere wrote: »

just because you may have a well paying, secure, pensionable, non-stressful job does not mean everyone has. There are plenty of people in the public sector not in very well paid jobs, just as some people in the public sector work hard.

In an organisation of hundreds of thousands of people, there will always be people who leave. Be it to spend quality time with their kids, travel the world, seek new challenges and opportunities, care for relatives, enjoy life if their partner/spouse is very well paid / inherits money / wins the lotto / whatever. Lots of reasons why people would lave any organisation of hundreds of thousands of people. Paying 36k to those who would leave anyway is why other governments do not throw money away in this manner.



even if you voluntarily resign your job, and your spouse has a well paid job, and you are not a job seeker? Why would the state pay the dole or other benefits to a well off person who is not a jobseeker, and who may even be travelling around Australia for 3 years?

Reading these fora one would think the opposite to be honest......
There is absolutely no way to guage whether a person would have left anyway. The only thing measurable is the cost saving as opposed to the other options available.

Gumbo

maryishere wrote: »

(even if you voluntarily resign your job, and your spouse has a well paid job, and you are not a job seeker? Why would the state pay the dole or other benefits to a well off person who is not a jobseeker, and who may even be travelling around Australia for 3 years?)


That's rubbish and you have lost all credibility now kceire.

"Self-employed people pay Class S PRSI. Class S PRSI only covers you for certain social welfare payments. It does not cover you for Jobseeker’s Benefit.
However, if you worked as an employee in the last 4 years, you may have paid Class A PRSI and should apply to your Social Welfare Local Office for Jobseeker’s Benefit. Your Social Welfare Local Office will check their records to find out whether you have enough Class A contributions to get Jobseeker’s Benefit.
If you get Jobseeker’s Benefit you may continue to do some work. However, you must have lost at least one day of employment and as a result of this loss be unemployed for at least 4 days out of 7 days. Your earnings must also have been reduced because of the loss of employment.
For example, if you are engaged under a contract for service to work (on a self-employed basis) for 3 days per week and unemployed for the remainder of the week, you may qualify for Jobseeker’s Benefit. Jobseeker’s Benefit is taxable.
If you do not qualify for Jobseeker’s Benefit you may get Jobseeker’s Allowance. When you apply for Jobseeker’s Benefit you will be asked if you want to be assessed for Jobseeker’s Allowance if your claim for Jobseeker’s Benefit is unsuccessful.
Jobseeker's Allowance

To get Jobseeker’s Allowance you must be:

• Over 18 and under 66
• Unemployed
• Capable of work, available for work and genuinely seeking work
• Habitually resident
• Pass a means test

If you are self-employed, you may be entitled to Jobseeker's Allowance depending on your earnings from your business. "

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/unemployed_people/self_employed_and_unemployment.html

Mary/gigino/jimmmy, whatever your real name is, you really need to look into the facts before your PS hatred takes you to an A&E with high blood pressure.

Credibility, seemly means nothing to you so the irony of it being highlighted by yourself is LOL laughable.