HSE Paid Career Breaks

maryishere

kippy wrote: »

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

link please. There is no mention of that on http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/irish_social_welfare_system/social_insurance_prsi/social_insurance_classes.html
If you ask any self employed people, they will tell you they are charged and pay class S PRSI, and they cannot pay class A PRSI, which as the citizensinformation.ie website explains is for employees. Ask an accountant yourself or look at the citizensinformation.ie website which goes in to a lot of detail, kippy/kceire.

Gumbo

maryishere wrote: »

link please. There is no mention of that on http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/irish_social_welfare_system/social_insurance_prsi/social_insurance_classes.html
If you ask any self employed people, they will tell you they are charged and pay class S PRSI, and they cannot pay class A PRSI, which as the citizensinformation.ie website explains is for employees. Ask an accountant yourself or look at the citizensinformation.ie website which goes in to a lot of detail, kippy/kceire.

Don't need to. I know what my dad gets and I know that he has been self employed since 1999. Thanks for the advice.

maryishere

kceire wrote: »

Don't need to. I know what my dad gets and I know that he has been self employed since 1999.

If what you say is true, your father is getting "dole" money from social welfare (having been self employed ) then its jobseekers allowance, which is means tested. 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. If you read the rules on j.a. ( I provided you with the link) the applicant must also be
Capable of work, available for work and genuinely seeking work
Habitually resident

If someone in the public service wanted to take a paid career break for 3 years in order to look after kids, care for relatives, travel the world or whatever they would not have to ( just as well, as they would not be able to ) satisfy the criteria for jobseekers allowance.

I hope your dad gets work again. It must be tough at that age of life having to pass a means test and get social welfare in order to put bread on the table. God bless.

sarumite

creedp wrote: »

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.

Tax is not an à la carte menu. You don't get to choose which services you pay for and which you don't depending on whether you avail of it or not. As a member of society you are obliged to fund all goverrnment services.

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.

All taxes collected are supposed to go to funding the governments primary and secondary accounts. The cost to the government to hire a PS employee is the same for any employer, it is the gross wage. The government, in its separate capacity as a service provider, takes back some of that wage in return for providing government services as it does for any employee (public or private). The argument that the government only needs cash to fund the net cost of the PS really shows a lack of understanding of government finances as it completely ignore the cost employees accessing government services or their obligation to fund them.

As such the actual cost of the PS = the net wage + contributions towards government services = gross wage.

creedp

sarumite wrote: »

Tax is not an à la carte menu. You don't get to choose which services you pay for and which you don't depending on whether you avail of it or not. As a member of society you are obliged to fund all goverrnment services.

Thanks for the morality lesson but I presume you simply forgot to add "unless you can avoid it by underdeclaring your income, operating in the black market, stashing your bobs in an off shore account and the likes" As I said earlier all PS income is subject to tax. While an interesting point in itself, in any case it is not the issue being discussed here.

All taxes collected are supposed to go to funding the governments primary and secondary accounts. The cost to the government to hire a PS employee is the same for any employer, it is the gross wage. The government, in its separate capacity as a service provider, takes back some of that wage in return for providing government services as it does for any employee (public or private). The argument that the government only needs cash to fund the net cost of the PS really shows a lack of understanding of government finances as it completely ignore the cost employees accessing government services or their obligation to fund them.

As such the actual cost of the PS = the net wage + contributions towards government services = gross wage.

I've made my argument here and I'm sticking to it .. you're welcome to yours of course. In any case we have a reasonably progressive tax system in this country which means taxes are redistributed to contribute to the provision of public services for other. However, for the purposes of simplifying the argument here I suppose its OK to assume that tax paid = services received for the PS. Presumably you wouldn't apply the same argument for the private sector. That would be unfair and factually questionable.

By the way I would have thought that the cost of an employee is the gross wage plus employers PRSI net of income tax/CT of the employer but maybe I don't understand the complexity of the issue.

sarumite

creedp wrote: »

Thanks for the morality lesson

I wasn't making a moral agrument. When I said obligated, I was meaning in a legal sense. The morals of it can be discussed another time.

but I presume you simply forgot to add "unless you can avoid it by underdeclaring your income, operating in the black market, stashing your bobs in an off shore account and the likes"

You presumed wrong. I deliberately chose not to include illegal measures into a discussion about ones legal obligation with respect tot taxes.

As I said earlier all PS income is subject to tax. While an interesting point in itself, in any case it is not the issue being discussed here.

This is a very pertinent point. The only way PS income can be subject to full tax is if you accept that they are paid a gross wage and not a net wage.

I've made my argument here and I'm sticking to it .. you're welcome to yours of course.

You are entitled to stick to your argument and I am entitled to point out that your argument is wrong as it is here.

However, for the purposes of simplifying the argument here I suppose its OK to assume that tax paid = services received for the PS. Presumably you wouldn't apply the same argument for the private sector. That would be unfair and factually questionable.

For tax purposes, private sector and public sector workers should be treated equally. This is in line with my previous statement that the cost to the government as an employer is the same as for any employer (public or private) and that the government deducts taxes in return for services the same it does from any employee (public or private).

By the way I would have thought that the cost of an employee is the gross wage plus employers PRSI net of income tax/CT of the employer but maybe I don't understand the complexity of the issue.

I chose to err on the side of simplicity as I felt getting the general point across does not require detailed description that was superfluous to the argument.

Riskymove

sarumite wrote: »

This is a very pertinent point. The only way PS income can be subject to full tax is if you accept that they are paid a gross wage and not a net wage.

this is one of many circular arguments currently going around for the last 5 years on these threads

of course individual PS workers are paid a gross wage subject to taxation

The point often made is that the actual cost to the public purse is not the gross wage but the net wage as the tax deducted from PS wages is then returned to the exchequer pot

creedp

sarumite wrote: »

This is a very pertinent point. The only way PS income can be subject to full tax is if you accept that they are paid a gross wage and not a net wage.

I'm nor clear why it is a pertinent point here as I haven't heard the argument that the PS don't receive a gross wage. I've heard a few go on about the fact that the PS don't pay any tax and get everything for free from the wealth creators but this is a new one on me.

For tax purposes, private sector and public sector workers should be treated equally. This is in line with my previous statement that the cost to the government as an employer is the same as for any employer (public or private) and that the government deducts taxes in return for services the same it does from any employee (public or private).

All fine in theory but as I said the tax system is progressive so you can't equate tax paid with services received. Otherwise why would people be complaining about their tax burden .. sure aren't they getting it all back in public services.

I chose to err on the side of simplicity as I felt getting the general point across does not require detailed description that was superfluous to the argument.

Thanks for that .. much obliged

sarumite

Riskymove wrote: »

this is one of many circular arguments currently going around for the last 5 years on these threads

of course individual PS workers are paid a gross wage subject to taxation

The point often made is that the actual cost to the public purse is not the gross wage but the net wage as the tax deducted from PS wages is then returned to the exchequer pot

Its not circular at all. The money is returned to the government in exchange for government services. The emboldened point is absolutely essential to the discussion. The only way in which your argument holds is if you omit the emboldened section, however that then wouldn't paint an accurate picture of the reality of the situation.

Riskymove

sarumite wrote: »

The only way in which your argument holds is if you omit the emboldened section, however that then wouldn't paint an accurate picture of the reality of the situation.

I don't agree

to count the cost of PS as the gross wage and then count the cost of the taxes deducted from PS on government services is to count that money twice

sarumite

Riskymove wrote: »

I don't agree

to count the cost of PS as the gross wage and then count the cost of the taxes deducted from PS on government services is to count that money twice

I am not counting it twice. I am saying that the taxes deducted from the PS is used to pay for government services thus it cannot be deducted from the cost of the PS as it has effectively already been accounted for. The government don't get the money back for free (which would then make the net cost the actual cost of the PS), they get the money back and are expected to provide services. These services cost money.....which the employees (PS or private) pay for through taxation.

Riskymove

sarumite wrote: »

I am not counting it twice.

so if

a the gross cost of PS is 20

b cost of government services is 20

c tax from PS is 5

In your view is total expenditure 40 or 35?

sarumite

Riskymove wrote: »

so if

a the gross cost of PS is 20

b cost of government services is 20

c tax from PS is 5

In your view is total expenditure 40 or 35?

Again, gross cost of PS and cost of other government services (I am assuming you meant non-PS related government services?) will include the cost of PS accessing those services and being legally obliged to fund them.

So in your example above, as a service provider the government spend 40. That 40 is funded through taxes, part of which will include the 5 from the PS.

altrarosie

Odysseus wrote: »

Yes, but you cannot work for the State or any of its various agencies during the 3 years.

The following is taken from the FAQ section of the HSE circular. I read it as saying I could set up a business (if I had any skill) but may not take up any employment here. It may well suit some people to take the opportunity to travel abroad for work.

Btw, today is the appointed day for hearing if an application has been successful and surprise, surprise, nothing in the post or my inbox.

"An ICB is not available for taking up paid employment in the State either in the public or the private sector."

"A career break may be allowed for family reasons, other domestic purposes, travel abroad, volunteering overseas, self-employment or educational purposes. An ICB is not available for taking up paid employment in the State, with any agency or company providing services to a publicly funded body in the State, or for educational purposes where the student/trainee is in an employment relationship with the training body and is in receipt of a normal salary/wage."

sunshine78

anyone else get a rejected career break application?

altrarosie

sunshine78 wrote: »

anyone else get a rejected career break application?

Yes, finally got an email yesterday evening. Not sure how I feel, was a bit nervous anyway about not working at all for three years. I only found out accidentally about the scheme after being turned down when I requested shorter hours.

mydiscworld

FYI

HSE to introduce targeted voluntary redundancy scheme in Jan 2014

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057077143

sunshine78

For anyone who applied-An email is to be sent tomorrow(20thdec) to anyone who applied and got rejected back in May/June (90% rejected)-its to see if those who applied are still interested in availing of it now!!

So, if I was a pharmacist in the HSE. I could take a career break and then locum for three years. That would be a sweet deal. Is the 12k tax-free?

mydiscworld

Deleted User wrote: »

So, if I was a pharmacist in the HSE. I could take a career break and then locum for three years. That would be a sweet deal. Is the 12k tax-free?

No it won’t be tax free but you would pay very little. You’dget hit with small amount of USC (mostly at 2%) but should be below the PRSI and Income Tax thresholds.

The old rule was when on career break you cannot work forelsewhere in Ireland. This rule changed lately so you’d have to read the rules

Obviously if you did do locum work you would be earning twoincomes, increasing your chances of paying full tax (PRSI, UCS and Income taxat higher rate)

You’d also be losing 3 years service towards your pension. Wouldn’t be worth the extra net cash.

nice_guy80

mydiscworld wrote: »

No it won’t be tax free but you would pay very little. You’dget hit with small amount of USC (mostly at 2%) but should be below the PRSI and Income Tax thresholds.

The old rule was when on career break you cannot work forelsewhere in Ireland. This rule changed lately so you’d have to read the rules

Obviously if you did do locum work you would be earning twoincomes, increasing your chances of paying full tax (PRSI, UCS and Income taxat higher rate)

You’d also be losing 3 years service towards your pension. Wouldn’t be worth the extra net cash.

really?
Locum pharmacists can earn big money

mydiscworld

nice_guy80 wrote: »

really?
Locum pharmacists can earn big money

But assuming you are already a HSE pharmacist, would you not be on the same money?

With the difference only being the extra 12K career break cash?

nice_guy80

mydiscworld wrote: »

But assuming you are already a HSE pharmacist, would you not be on the same money?

With the difference only being the extra 12K career break cash?

if you worked in a private pharmacy, you would earn more. for definite.


As a substitute worker, you are often paid more than the regular employees. As holiday pay and weekend pay is lumped into the hourly rate.

Soma2

Hi Everyone,

I got an e-mail on Dec 19th to see if I would still be interested in the same scheme starting Apr 1st 2014. Did everybody else get the same e-mail? Also, regarding not being able to work while on career break, is there any way around this, are paid internships also covered in this clause? I don't see how I could live on €12000 alone without being able to top it up a little.

Best of luck to everybody second time round, although I don't think any of us should get our hopes up.