Jobseeker's Benefit after 9 months

I would advise you to claim jsb immediately upon becoming unemployed, don't wait 9 weeks. Although you are getting a severance package it is still a redundancy of your job. Worst case scenario the sw office make you wait the 9 weeks but if you apply 9 weeks late and it turns out you would have qualified for an earlier payment then you have feck all chance of it bring back paid.

That might affect your eligibility, redundancy is straight forward, you've lost your job, Voluntary severance might be treated differently and you may be subject to the 9 weeks waiting time

More details below but regardless you should apply immediately on finishing your employment

As Dempo1 said in an earlier post, after 9 months, you apply for Jobseekers Allowance. This is means tested, and will include any other income (spouse or partner), savings or property (except for family home).

If you don't qualify, but are still unemployed, you can continue to sign for PRSI credits - this will maintain your PRSI record for future years.

You may have niche skills, but what's stopping you taking employment elsewhere? Even just as a stopgap while waiting for your niche skills to become desired?

The deciding officer gives the claimant around 9 months to find something in their own skills/qualifications. If they’ve not got anything by then, the pressure to take a job outside of your comfort zone is ramped up (referred to a SW backed job finding agency etc) and that’s when they generally find something that suits them pretty quickly.

It’s not really complicated. Your benefit runs out. If you’ve not found a job then two things happen. First of all they invite you to apply for Jobseeker’s Allowance. So you submit evidence of all your income and savings and that of your spouse/co habitant. SW look at that and decide if you need any further financial assistance while you’re continuing to look for work.

If the decide you don’t need it then you won’t get any more payment but you can ask to continue to sign for credits.

If its voluntary but with a pay off its still voluntary redundancy. So you are still being made redundant & entitiled to some support.

I imagine after the 9 months if you still have the majority of your pay out in the bank, you probably wont qualify for Job Seekers since you have your own money to spend.

Not that I agree with that approach, but I expect that will be what happens.

Otherwise they wouldnt means test you.

There are plenty who never contribute anything in their life and get free JSA and a free pension.

Anyone who has ever worked deserves at least as much as those scroungers get.

And they deserve the same benefits at minimum vs those that never contributed.

Basically once your Jobseekers Benefit is up you can apply for Jobseekers Allowance (the Dole in old terms!) so have a read of the means test for JA to see if you would qualify for anything, unlikely I would think as it's hard to get anything with an income coming in however there are family payments that might be a runner at that stage.

A trip into a citizens information office might be worth it, they are pretty expert in social welfare issues.

Jobseekers benefit lasts for 9 months max.

Carers benefit lasts for 2 years.

Illness benefit lasts for 2 years.

I have no idea why you think that benefits last forever.

The rate of illness benefit or jobseekers benefit depends on the rate of pay you earned in the taxable year.

So. From what I can gather from you, you are suggesting that if someone starts work at age 18 they should be allowed to retire permanently at the age of 40. Once again, how much Retirement Pension should they get at 40?

Yes they’re finished with benefits. They move on to allowance. It’s means tested.

You've been reading this forum for years and I thought that you would know this.

Now, are you going to explain your theory about people being allowed to retire on full pension at aged 40 as long as they’ve 22 years worked.

That would mean that only people aged 22 to 40 are contributing PRSI and USC and tax into the system. ( that’s where we get most of the money to pay pensions at 66).

But you are suggesting that people get their pension 26 years earlier now. So how would that work? Where would we get the money to pay these pensions?

Oh so they DO continue to get benefits for the rest of their lives.

So, I was correct and you were wrong.

And in due time, the non contributor also receives a pension, which they never paid into and is called a non-contributory pension.

This free pension can in fact be higher than the pension earnt by someone that DID contribute for years but wasnt able to gain the full pension credits.

My point is pretty clear.

If someone never works in their life and is carred by the state on benefits forever, then someone that has worked, should, during periods of unemployment, recieve at least the same financial supports that the non contributor does.

And upon retirement age, they should also receive at least the equivalent pension value as the non-contributory pension, to answer your question.

No you’re still wrong, I’m afraid. Benefits are what you’re qualified for when you’ve paid into the system. Allowances are what you get when either your benefits are exhausted or you never had any at all.

But every day is a school day here on boards and I bet you won’t make the same mistake again.

You’re also mistaken in your allegation that someone who has never paid into the system can get more money to live on at pension age then someone who has, but just didn’t pay enough.

The person who didn’t pay enough into the system has the opportunity to apply to be means tested for the non con pension too. Anything else would be ludicrous. Amazing!

But what time are you going to get back here to tell us how this Retirement Pension at 40 is going to work?

The only real reason that anyone is refused the non con pension is if they have savings or assets in excess of about €80,000 and/or another private/occupational pension .

So are you seriously going to suggest that someone with that wealth is comparable to the pensioner who got their non con on the basis that they had less than €20000 and no other income?!? Your knowledge of our state pension seems to be very limited. Should you not go and do a bit of reading before you comment any more?

It couldn’t get any more equitable then the way it is right now. The more contributions you made the more pension you get, irregardless of how much savings assets or property you have.

If you made very few or no contributions then if you can demonstrate that you have very little income and very little savings then you’ll get the minimum amount you need to live on every week.

If you made no contributions but you’re very wealthy then you’ll not get anything.

That’s it.

How would you change that?

By ensuring everyone gets at least the value of the non con pension.

Why would we give a non con pension to millionaires? You’re suggesting that we give Michael O Leary and Michael Flatley each €254 a week.

Sorry not a non con pension. Its a contributory pension, but at the value of a non con pension, at minimum.

A contributory pension should never be worth less than a non con.

Why do you think everyone deserves a pension?

Why do you think they dont?

Everyone deserves it. Im sure there are plenty on the social that dont NEED it either.

It has been a requirement to give evidence of looking for a job for about 20 years now. You need to keep a diary of ALL your activities how you look for a job. I remember that they insisted on getting letters from me showing job refusals from employers. When I had none, they wanted name and phone number of persons I have spoken to. In the end I had a daily report for every single working day I was out of work to show all my efforts. Some of the SW folks can be pretty demanding. Others don't care much. It always depends on whom you meet.