Reason Self Employed Do Not Get Automatic Entitlements To Social Welfare Payments?

BigAl81

Hey,

I was in the audience of the Frontline with Pat Kenny last night. A question was raised regarding the fact that self employed people, whilst paying (albeit a slightly lower rate of) P.R.S.I. are not automatically entitled to Jobseekers Allowance/Benifit as a P.A.Y.E. worker would be, assuming they had the adequate contributions.

Does anyone know the logic of why this rule is in place. It seems to be a disincentive to people to go out and create employment for others, and seems to take a literal interpretation of the word entrepreneur.

I am aware that you can go down to your local office and state your case/get means tested, I am just wondering if anyone knows why this rule is in place as it seems counter productive to me.

Cheers,
Alan.

Barracudaincork

Do you understand what the whole PRSI system is about and that paying PRSI as an employee doesnt just mean you are entitled to jobseekers? It means you are paying towards the entitlement to an array of other benefits too.

One of the reasons self employed people pay less stamps is because they pay for a lesser range of benefits, one of those benefits is job seekers, thats it basically, like an insurance policy you cant get cover for something you dont pay for.

BigAl81

Hey, thanks for the reply.

I understand that, however self employed people do pay PRSI, and not that much less to merit such a disparity in benefits received.

Again, my question is more so around the logic of such a rule. Surely it will not encourage people to create jobs by still taxing them and giving them less benefits.

Does anyone know why the system is set up in this way, or what the logic is behind it? Although, in a county where you can drive home unassisted after failing a driving test, querying the logic of the rule makers may be a futile task!

Thanks,
Alan.

Barracudaincork

BigAl81 wrote: »

Hey, thanks for the reply.

I understand that, however self employed people do pay PRSI, and not that much less to merit such a disparity in benefits received.

Again, my question is more so around the logic of such a rule. Surely it will not encourage people to create jobs by still taxing them and giving them less benefits.

Does anyone know why the system is set up in this way, or what the logic is behind it? Although, in a county where you can drive home unassisted after failing a driving test, querying the logic of the rule makers may be a futile task!

Thanks,
Alan.

I think it came about because back in the old days it was known as unemployment benefit and if you are self employed you were never employed and it would of been seen as you own fault as to why you didnt have work.

Tax and PRSI are different so they are been taxed no more than an employee and they pay less PRSI. I know if i wanted to be an entrepeneur or self employed, the fact i wouldnt get job seekers wouldnt stop me, maybe the govt thought a lot of people would feel the same.

Re driving home after failing a driving test, how about the fact you can be caught drink driving but you licence wont be taken off you on the spot, nope you can wait around 6 months for a court hearing and then its taken of you, so IMO there isnt much logic around rules here

dearg lady

BigAl81 wrote: »

Hey, thanks for the reply.

I understand that, however self employed people do pay PRSI, and not that much less to merit such a disparity in benefits received.

Again, my question is more so around the logic of such a rule. Surely it will not encourage people to create jobs by still taxing them and giving them less benefits.

Does anyone know why the system is set up in this way, or what the logic is behind it? Although, in a county where you can drive home unassisted after failing a driving test, querying the logic of the rule makers may be a futile task!

Thanks,
Alan.

There is quite a substantial difference in what and employee v self employed person pay. I don't have the figures to hand, but don't forget a persons employer also makes a contribution on the employees behalf(10.75% last I checked)

Also, your comparison about driving tests baffles me, it's illegal for anyone on a learner permit to drive unaccompanied.

BigAl81

dearg lady wrote: »

Also, your comparison about driving tests baffles me, it's illegal for anyone on a learner permit to drive unaccompanied.

Thanks for the reply. The law has only recently changed and stood as such for a long time. Those on second provisional licences could fail and drive home and continue to drive for 2 years! Getting off topic here, it was mealy a reference to some other 'illogical' laws.

Go Team.