What on Earth is going on with farmers' wives?

Red_Marauder

Ok now some of you, particularly those without rural affiliations, will wonder what the big deal is in relation to this story. However, it is a rather serious one for those involved and has been rumbling under the radar for quite a while.

The issue is that farmers' wives were recently given permission to pay retrospective PRSI to put towards getting a contributory pension, something they were never entitled to before as a farmer's wife.

They have occupied a special position as neither 'on the book' farm employees nor as social welfare recipients, and it was agreed to acknowledge the fact that as labourers they have made a serious and valid contribution to the agricultural industry.

However, the decision to award them their pensions has now been reversed. That is one thing.

They are now being asked to re-pay any contributions they did receive, and furthermore, the retrospective PRSI they have paid to the Department has been retained.

What, can anybody tell me, is going on here?

Sarah Carey wrote on this far more eloquently recently and her article is availablehere

The story also appears in today's Irish Times following a protest by farm wives in Dublin.

Biggins

Seems a bit below the belt to ask them to pay back what the government decided was right for a time.
Talk about being petty but then its FF and the Greens in action again.

..Thats if I'm reading the above right?

Nehaxak

Not that I'm saying they don't deserve it as I think they do but what about the mothers of non farmers who work fulltime jobs at home caring for and bringing up their children, housework, etc., etc., ? Or indeed the stay at home Dads that do the same while their wifey is out working ?

Seems kind of a bit unfair that only farmers wives would get something like this and not the wives/stay at home Dads of non farmers.

Biggins

Nehaxak wrote: »

Seems kind of a bit unfair that only farmers wives would get something like this and not the wives/stay at home Dads of non farmers.

True.
Around the time of this been given to them, was there anything that was happening I wonder that might have wanted the government of the day, to garner farmers support/votes for some reason?
Its not like it would have been the first time such tricks would have been used.

Use them when needed, then chew them up and spit them out later when surplus to requirements perhaps?

nesf

It's the standard self-employed husband problem. In most businesses, the wife helps out, be it with the books or whatever. The issue is they don't get any formal recognition of this and don't pay PRSI. So they get tagged on as a dependent onto the husband's pension rather than getting a full pension themselves.

The issue is whether these women should be granted a full separate pension or whether they are only entitled to the extra payment that a wife of a PAYE worker would get. This is a very complex question since any blanket change to grand them pensions would discriminate against PAYE workers in that if that worker was self-employed the couple would have a greater pension entitlement come 66.

It's a mess, but right now it's very hard to argue that we should be increasing our pension outlay given the very serious funding problems that are ahead of us.

Guy:Incognito

Biggins wrote: »

Talk about being petty but then its FF and the Greens in action again.

More likely to be the actions of senior civil servants thatwer in their jobs before FF took power and will be there after surely, no?

Biggins

Stekelly wrote: »

More likely to be the actions of senior civil servants thatwer in their jobs before FF took power and will be there after surely, no?

You could be partly right.
Who introduced the laws to enact it in the first place though and who then reversed those changes yet again?

bmaxi

When we got married, back when God was a boy, my wife ceased to exist as a person in her own right. Twelve years of contributions were wiped out and she was compensated with the princely sum of £10. Since then everything has been based on my contributions and should I shuffle off the mortal coil she wouldn't even qualify for a contributory pension.
Michael Woods' case is just another in a litany of "one law for us" cases, the latest being the €15,000 in unvouched expenses, I wonder how many commercial travellers, who are taxed on the luxury of using the tools of their trade, would have an expense account like that.

Red_Marauder

Nehaxak wrote:

Not that I'm saying they don't deserve it as I think they do but what about the mothers of non farmers who work fulltime jobs at home caring for and bringing up their children, housework, etc., etc., ? Or indeed the stay at home Dads that do the same while their wifey is out working ?

nesf wrote: »

The issue is whether these women should be granted a full separate pension or whether they are only entitled to the extra payment that a wife of a PAYE worker would get.

I don't actually think those are the main issues at all.

Whether or not they ought to receive a contributory pension in principle is beside the point. It was initially decided that they were entitled to. They were advised to apply and they paid retrospective PRSI taxes. So the issues are that

1. These elderly women's pension literally just stopped without warning
2. They are being asked to repay previous payments
3. Their retrospective PRSI has been retained by the Dept.

So I don't think this is a question of pensions in itself - it's a question about who exactly is (it would appear) screwing up in the Department of Social Community and Family Affairs.

Compared to the billions of euro we are now accustomed to discussing, this is about small change.
But it isn't small change to these elderly farm spouses in their retirement, individuals who have worked extremely hard for the agricultural economy during a time when agriculture was often our bread and butter.

Nehaxak

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I don't actually think those are the main issues at all.

I'll hazard a guess now as to how this all came about...

* A certain gombeen independant from Kerry that's been supporting FF in government for years on end, forced through this discriminatory system in the first place that's gone on kind of un-noticed for ages. (Just a guess here now, but it's a good one).

* Government introduce cuts in public servant wages along with all the other measures that have cut into their wages, pissed off a fair few people.

* Someone in the public service then came accross this and said to themselves "wtf is this crap ? Who let this happen ? I'm not allowing this crap to continue."

* Whole thing is reversed and nobody can do anything about it as they would have to admit they were involved in pushing this through in the first place, with no longer having the backing of the public service to hide their tracks.

Whatever way you look at it, it's discriminatory against the partners of non farmers, probably also unconstitutional and at the very least bordering on corrupt practices that something like this was allowed to happen in the first place when the legislation does not exist to allow this anyway.

Tenderloins1

A very harsh decision on these ladies.
The problem though is no matter what the government say , pension wise, they have made so many rods for their own back they are unable to justify it.
Just think of how they looked after Roddy Molloys pension, their own pensions and so on yet go chasing after the little people.

Red_Marauder

Nehaxak wrote: »

I'll hazard a guess now as to how this all came about...

* A certain gombeen independant from Kerry that's been supporting FF in government for years on end, forced through this discriminatory system in the first place that's gone on kind of un-noticed for ages. (Just a guess here now, but it's a good one).

I'm afraid you have the complete wrong end of the stick.

It hasn't gone un-noticed for ages. The agreement to allow farmers' retired wives to pay backdated PRSI was only made in 2008, and the pensions started to be paid out after that. This is all very recent. The negotiations were between the IFA and DSFA

Whatever way you look at it, it's discriminatory against the partners of non farmers

Personally I disagree, but that really is beside the point. I'm not talking about discrimination and the Government is not rescinding the pensions on legal or constitutional grounds... all they're saying so far is that it was "an awful mistake".

And what I'm asking is why are they retaining the womens' PRSI contributions for this "awful mistake" after inviting the women to pay this fee?
Furthermore, how ethical is it to ask elderly retired women to suddenly re-pay weeks or months of a contributory pension which the state said they were entitled to?

probably also unconstitutional

specifically, how?

seamus

Nehaxak wrote: »

Whatever way you look at it, it's discriminatory against the partners of non farmers, probably also unconstitutional and at the very least bordering on corrupt practices that something like this was allowed to happen in the first place when the legislation does not exist to allow this anyway.

Agreed - the system should have been provided for all spouses of self-employed people, however that's not entirely the issue now.

The agreeement was that "You pay us X and we'll pay you Y". Grand. Now they're saying, "You must pay us back Y and we're going to keep X". This isn't just a reversal of the previous situation, they're actually leaving these women worse off than they were in the first place.

This is why if the Government decide to go ahead with the mandatory pension scheme, I'll be going with a private scheme. I don't trust the Government to take 5% off me for a pension and not turn around in 20 years time and decide that the 5% was actually to pay for the basic pension and I'm not entitled to anything extra.

AlekSmart

I would fully expect and support a Legal Challenge on this very specific issue.
Let us forget,for a moment,that this involves Farmers Wive`s or any specific sector.
The issue at stake is the status of the Government in negotiating ANY agreement.

If this is now the result of some momentuous miscalculation by a VERY Senior Civil Servant OR a Minister then it is those people alone who should be brought to book.

To target these Farmers Wives,benefitting from such a recently agreed plan is beyond comprehension,or at least it remains so until many of the big-names in Irish Banking and Property Speculation are served with similar notices of intent !

Laminations

seamus wrote: »

This is why if the Government decide to go ahead with the mandatory pension scheme, I'll be going with a private scheme. I don't trust the Government to take 5% off me for a pension and not turn around in 20 years time and decide that the 5% was actually to pay for the basic pension and I'm not entitled to anything extra.

Its more likely that in 20 years time they'll tell you they used your pension money to pump into the banks and shucks they are sorry but that went wrong and your money is gone..... but they'll give you BOI shares worth 12c.

anymore

Nehaxak wrote: »

Not that I'm saying they don't deserve it as I think they do but what about the mothers of non farmers who work fulltime jobs at home caring for and bringing up their children, housework, etc., etc., ? Or indeed the stay at home Dads that do the same while their wifey is out working ?

Seems kind of a bit unfair that only farmers wives would get something like this and not the wives/stay at home Dads of non farmers.

Farmers are special people who are entitled to be subsidised and supported by the working population without question.
Anything else would be heresy - didnt we give up most of our fishery rights to ensure they would have decades of EU payments and for most of the 20th century, they didnt have to pay a penny tax and all thier kiddies received grants for college.

ChurchStreet

anymore wrote: »

Farmers are special people who are entitled to be subsidised and supported by the working population without question.
Anything else would be heresy - didnt we give up most of our fishery rights to ensure they would have decades of EU payments and for most of the 20th century, they didnt have to pay a penny tax and all thier kiddies received grants for college.

With the possiblity of an election any day, this reversal is purely to buy framers votes. How long have farmers been paying PRSI and income tax on "declared" income ? I assume grant money is exempt from income tax i.e. can be stuck in the arse pocket never to see ther light of day and only to be used to buy more farms of land!