Government Benefits Megathread

Silent Running · 28-03-2020 01:25PM

Heres Johnny wrote: »

It's 410 anyway, not 430

The 410 has replaced the 350,there is no 350 anymore

Where did the 410 figure come from? Gov.ie are still saying it's 350.

https://www.gov.ie/en/service/be74d3-covid-19-pandemic-unemployment-payment/

Edit: found it on Revenue.ie

JCX BXC · 28-03-2020 01:48PM

Tomrota wrote: »

“If you are applying for COVID19 Pandemic Unemployment Payment, you also need to apply for Jobseekers”.

Wait why? Why is this? I thought they were separate??

For after the pandemic payment ends.

easypazz · 28-03-2020 01:50PM

Tomrota wrote: »

“If you are applying for COVID19 Pandemic Unemployment Payment, you also need to apply for Jobseekers”.

Wait why? Why is this? I thought they were separate??

Would some people be better off on jobseekers?

Somebody with an adult dependent and 2 kids would get around €400.

28-03-2020 01:51PM

On revenue it says my job is active even though we closed on 16th and I got laid off. Will this affect my claim, Do I need to change the status to ceased?

jrosen · 28-03-2020 01:54PM

easypazz wrote: »

Would some people be better off on jobseekers?

Somebody with an adult dependent and 2 kids would get around €400.

The covid payment is to ensure people get help and quickly. Anyone who looses their job due to covid can apply and hopefully have a payment within 2 weeks.

The usual criteria for JSB and JSA still stand.

Tomrota · 28-03-2020 02:06PM

easypazz wrote: »

Would some people be better off on jobseekers?

Somebody with an adult dependent and 2 kids would get around €400.

I’m just a college student who lost their job temporarily due to COVID, but I will have it back after. I’m just looking to get COVID payment for the period that we’re in this emergency. I don’t think college students are entitled to jobseekers anyway?

Dodge · 28-03-2020 02:29PM

1882 wrote: »

On revenue it says my job is active even though we closed on 16th and I got laid off. Will this affect my claim, Do I need to change the status to ceased?

There’s lots of time to sort out ‘paperwork’ later. You apply for the payment now and let your employer look after revenue

You won’t be penalised.

GreenGrass2019 · 28-03-2020 03:39PM

Hi

Does anyone have any clarity on whether back to work enterprise allowance (BTWEA) recipients are going to receive the increased payment of €350 p/w?

Wanderer19 · 28-03-2020 03:48PM

Tomrota wrote: »

I’m just a college student who lost their job temporarily due to COVID, but I will have it back after. I’m just looking to get COVID payment for the period that we’re in this emergency. I don’t think college students are entitled to jobseekers anyway?

Normally you're not, because you're not able to seek work. But they are allowing the Covid 19 payment as you can't work or go to college. Apply on line if you have your PSC card, it seems the claims are being processed faster.

Beasty · 28-03-2020 04:01PM

Threads merged

FloatingVoter · 28-03-2020 04:03PM

https://www.gov.ie/en/service/be74d3-covid-19-pandemic-unemployment-payment/

Applying for jobseekers enables people to include partners and/or dependant children on the claim - thereby additional money. The pandemic payment will come through first, but the jb/ja application will be processed and backdated if applicable.

NewRed2 · 28-03-2020 05:53PM

recyclebin wrote: »

If I was in this scenario, I would only work for the proportion that I'm getting paid for e.g if normal net pay was 820 and now I only get 410 then the max i would fork would be half my normal hours. The employer should not be profiting from this.

I'm an employer and I can tell ya for a fact that employers wont be profiting from anything. We're still paying out bills without any help and if it goes on for a while then the employer wont have a job for the employees to return to so then your hypothetical 810 is zero.
Keep that in mind.

Plus just to correct you, its not 410 if your income is above a certain amount, it's 350. Let's stick with your imaginery 810 net figure, then the employee wont get 410, it's 350. So why - under the current scheme should an employer open themselves up to a scheme where we have to sign a form involving insolvency, get our names published and then get audited by Revenue afterwards just to keep operating on a reduced scale to keep an employee who has an attitude like yours?

It's a flawed scheme and I'd advise all employers to avoid it unless they change some of the elements, but by jaysus I wouldn't like your attitude at all, the entire point of all this is that we all work together to find a way out and keep everyone in jobs after it passes.
Its killing me to put my few on welfare and I'll be applying the same as them.
But this crap about do the minimum and screw the employer coz they'll profit is a horrible attitude - We're in this together and remember without an employer you aren't an employee.

Just Saying · 28-03-2020 06:17PM

NewRed2 wrote: »

I'm an employer and I can tell ya for a fact that employers wont be profiting from anything. We're still paying out bills without any help and if it goes on for a while then the employer wont have a job for the employees to return to so then your hypothetical 810 is zero.
Keep that in mind.

Plus just to correct you, its not 410 if your income is above a certain amount, it's 350. Let's stick with your imaginery 810 net figure, then the employee wont get 410, it's 350. So why - under the current scheme should an employer open themselves up to a scheme where we have to sign a form involving insolvency, get our names published and then get audited by Revenue afterwards just to keep operating on a reduced scale to keep an employee who has an attitude like yours?

It's a flawed scheme and I'd advise all employers to avoid it unless they change some of the elements, but by jaysus I wouldn't like your attitude at all, the entire point of all this is that we all work together to find a way out and keep everyone in jobs after it passes.
Its killing me to put my few on welfare and I'll be applying the same as them.
But this crap about do the minimum and screw the employer coz they'll profit is a horrible attitude - We're in this together and remember without an employer you aren't an employee.

You do not have to sign a form regarding insolvency to avail of the scheme.It is quite specific in the Revenue guidelines that those employers who are not insolvent but who have suffered a 25% drop on turnover (and there are a couple of ways of measuring this) are entitled to apply.

I'm an Employer who is not insolvent who is availing of it and will be topping up the remaining 30% in the short term anyway.

I am not looking to get into an argument but unless you fully understand the workings of the scheme you really should not be giving advice.

NewRed2 · 28-03-2020 06:50PM

Just Saying wrote: »

You do not have to sign a form regarding insolvency to avail of the scheme.It is quite specific in the Revenue guidelines that those employers who are not insolvent but who have suffered a 25% drop on turnover (and there are a couple of ways of measuring this) are entitled to apply.

I'm an Employer who is not insolvent who is availing of it and will be topping up the remaining 30% in the short term anyway.

I am not looking to get into an argument but unless you fully understand the workings of the scheme you really should not be giving advice.

No Im not looking for an argument either. Far from it, we should be helping each other.

I'll say whatever I say based on the advice I was given from my accountant and what I heard from RTE and Newstalk's "experts" and if you correct me then others can read it and gain from it so that's a good thing for us all, yeah?

So to start from scratch, you have to fill out a declaration to revenue to avail of this scheme.
In that declaration you sign it and lets be clear, once you do that, Revenue will examine things quite closely, is that fair enough?
Once you submit to the scheme they will look into your loss of turnover and it has to be down 25% - agree so far?
Next you have to prove you didnt have the cash flow to pay the wages by yourself? Am I still right here? If so, how much reserves are allowed?

Next you get published by name of availing for the scheme, which is normally reserved for businesses who have failed to pay tax etc.
Now we'll get to that insolvency issue you raised when you told me not to be giving advice. I'd suggest you listen to RTE or Newstalk shows from the last few days and find the relevant segment. It was they who said if you cant pay full wages and avail of this scheme then you're declaring yourself insolvent.
It makes sense, why cant you pay full wages if you're solvent?
Lastly, and this was an unofficial warning from accontant, but if you avail of the scheme and top up then expect a tax bill at the end of the year.

So I would suggest you look into the finer details of this scheme and come back and tell me where I'm wrong and I'll hold my hands up gladly.
But until told otherwise I dont think I was wrong to advise other employers to protect themselves.

Just Saying · 28-03-2020 07:10PM

NewRed2 wrote: »

No Im not looking for an argument either. Far from it, we should be helping each other.

I'll say whatever I say based on the advice I was given from my accountant and what I heard from RTE and Newstalk's "experts" and if you correct me then others can read it and gain from it so that's a good thing for us all, yeah?

So to start from scratch, you have to fill out a declaration to revenue to avail of this scheme.
In that declaration you sign it and lets be clear, once you do that, Revenue will examine things quite closely, is that fair enough?
Once you submit to the scheme they will look into your loss of turnover and it has to be down 25% - agree so far?
Next you have to prove you didnt have the cash flow to pay the wages by yourself? Am I still right here? If so, how much reserves are allowed?

Next you get published by name of availing for the scheme, which is normally reserved for businesses who have failed to pay tax etc.
Now we'll get to that insolvency issue you raised when you told me not to be giving advice. I'd suggest you listen to RTE or Newstalk shows from the last few days and find the relevant segment. It was they who said if you cant pay full wages and avail of this scheme then you're declaring yourself insolvent.
It makes sense, why cant you pay full wages if you're solvent?
Lastly, and this was an unofficial warning from accontant, but if you avail of the scheme and top up then expect a tax bill at the end of the year.

So I would suggest you look into the finer details of this scheme and come back and tell me where I'm wrong and I'll hold my hands up gladly.
But until told otherwise I dont think I was wrong to advise other employers to protect themselves.

There was lots of talk about insolvency but that was before Revenue issued guidance.

Download the guidance for eligibility for employers from Revenue.ie...it is as clear as day about insolvency not being a requirement at the top of Page 3.This guidance was issued late Friday evening.

I had the same concerns about the operation of the scheme until the guidelines came out.I think this supersedes much of the advice you have received.

NewRed2 · 28-03-2020 07:13PM

Just Saying wrote: »

There was lots of talk about insolvency but that was before Revenue issued guidance.

Download the guidance for eligibility for employers from Revenue.ie...it is as clear as day about insolvency not being a requirement at the top of Page 3.This guidance was issued late Friday evening.

I had the same concerns about the operation of the scheme until the guidelines came out.I think this supersedes much of the advice you have received.

I will. thanks!

NewRed2 · 28-03-2020 07:33PM

@Just_saying, I think you're right about the insolvency part. They have updated it and for anyone else reading you should ignore my point about the insolvency declaration.
As said by previous poster it changed yesterday and I hadn't known of this so I'll apologise for the insolvency part of my post.

But I still wouldn't be signing up for this scheme anyway personally. Just_Saying might suggest otherwise and he clearly is more updated than me on recent devleopments but I would be very cautious of the scheme disregarding the insolvency point.
I'm again happy to be proved wrong on the other isssues I raised.

pearlyone · 28-03-2020 08:30PM

I am on a widows pension but work also . I have been laid off . Does anyone know if I will be entitled to the updated rate or not as I am not sure but think you can only claim one state benefit TiA

Just Saying · 28-03-2020 08:43PM

pearlyone wrote: »

I am on a widows pension but work also . I have been laid off . Does anyone know if I will be entitled to the updated rate or not as I am not sure but think you can only claim one state benefit TiA

If you are over 66 you can't....not sure otherwise...I'd apply and see what happens..

Just Saying · 28-03-2020 08:52PM

NewRed2 wrote: »

@Just_saying, I think you're right about the insolvency part. They have updated it and for anyone else reading you should ignore my point about the insolvency declaration.
As said by previous poster it changed yesterday and I hadn't known of this so I'll apologise for the insolvency part of my post.

But I still wouldn't be signing up for this scheme anyway personally. Just_Saying might suggest otherwise and he clearly is more updated than me on recent devleopments but I would be very cautious of the scheme disregarding the insolvency point.
I'm again happy to be proved wrong on the other isssues I raised.

It's a self declaration...if he have genuine belief about the turnover drop you are entitled to apply.

I have 2 loyal employees over 66 who wouldn't get anything under the Covid Unemployment payment so this scheme suits me...and them.

I genuinely think it's designed with the employee in mind and unless the Employer is totally out of order in abusing it I think Revenue won't bother them

That said a lot depends on the employers circumstances and how the fine print suits them the updated guidelines on Revenue.ie are quite useful.

NewRed2 · 28-03-2020 09:04PM

Just Saying wrote: »

It's a self declaration...if he have genuine belief about the turnover drop you are entitled to apply.

I have 2 loyal employees over 66 who wouldn't get anything under the Covid Unemployment payment so this scheme suits me...and them.

I genuinely think it's designed with the employee in mind and unless the Employer is totally out of order in abusing it I think Revenue won't bother them

That said a lot depends on the employers circumstances and how the fine print suits them the updated guidelines on Revenue.ie are quite useful.

Oh yeah it definitely designed with the employee in mind. No doubt there.

I wish you well with it and maybe I'm scared off it due to things I heard and that's unfortunate. But I hope people who sign up for it get on ok and dont have any consequences to face down the line.

I'd also applaud your loyalty to your employees , I just hope you aren't made to pay for it later. Good luck!

28-03-2020 09:36PM

NewRed2 wrote: »

Plus just to correct you, its not 410 if your income is above a certain amount, it's 350. Let's stick with your imaginery 810 net figure, then the employee wont get 410, it's 350.

Revenue Average Net Pay (Gross-(Tax+PRSI+USC)):

70% of Revenue Average weekly Net Pay between Jan-Feb.
Not paid in Feb = No refund.
Late payroll submissions = No refund.
> 960 = No Refund.
> 586 = Capped at 350
Rest capped at 410

Topups are allowed, but are:
Thursday: Capped at 30% of Average Weekly Net Pay, as Gross Pay.
Friday: Capped at the difference between Weekly Subsidy and Average Weekly Net Pay, as Gross Pay.

Pay over Topup and Revenue will reduce Subsidy by over payment amount.

Revenue will not be able to supply the correct Subsidy and allowed Topup values until end of April, in the meantime they expect you to calculate them yourself. See last few pages in the Guide!

Subsidy is not taxed on payout, but Revenue will collect Tax and USC on it next year.

For many they are better of on welfare, plus will not get nasty future tax bill.

Just Saying · 28-03-2020 09:38PM

NewRed2 wrote: »

Oh yeah it definitely designed with the employee in mind. No doubt there.

I wish you well with it and maybe I'm scared off it due to things I heard and that's unfortunate. But I hope people who sign up for it get on ok and dont have any consequences to face down the line.

I'd also applaud your loyalty to your employees , I just hope you aren't made to pay for it later. Good luck!

Best wishes to yourself.I have genuine doubts as to whether I will ever reopen but I'm prepared to buy some time with this scheme for both myself and my employees.I won't make any rash decisions but will use the free time to re evaluate my priorities in life.Who knows what decisions I'll make then!!!

Tinkerbell4484 · 28-03-2020 10:17PM

Is your WFP stopped when you claim the temporary laid off payment?

lord quackinton · 28-03-2020 10:25PM

Just Saying wrote: »

It's a self declaration...if he have genuine belief about the turnover drop you are entitled to apply.

I have 2 loyal employees over 66 who wouldn't get anything under the Covid Unemployment payment so this scheme suits me...and them.

I genuinely think it's designed with the employee in mind and unless the Employer is totally out of order in abusing it I think Revenue won't bother them

That said a lot depends on the employers circumstances and how the fine print suits them the updated guidelines on Revenue.ie are quite useful.

the wage subsidy is designed so that revenue can claw back as much of it as they can. revenue will review every company who signs up to this, expect plenty of audits.
the following very plausible scenario - a company signs up and a director of that company who has say a wage of 100K plus keeps his salary, he does not get assistance from the wage subsidy personally but lower paid employees do.
revenue will go to town on that company.

ImAHappyCamper · 28-03-2020 10:26PM

Hello all. Sorry if this has been asked already but I've been put down to a 2 day week (16 hours) from a 5 day (40 hours) week. Am I better off declaring myself self isolating and getting €350,do I just work the 2 days and go on xs and os?

NewRed2 · 28-03-2020 10:39PM

ImAHappyCamper wrote: »

Hello all. Sorry if this has been asked already but I've been put down to a 2 day week (16 hours) from a 5 day (40 hours) week. Am I better off declaring myself self isolating and getting €350,do I just work the 2 days and go on xs and os?

you dont need to be self isolating or anything. So you were working full time yeah?

Right so then you need to ask your employer can he\she claim the wage subsidy scheme and give you the 410 or 350, it depends on your typical net pay.
If not then you can aplly to welfare for the 350.
You would obviously need to be unemployed to avail of these things but theres a lockdown now so Im assuming you cant go to work?
Either way yeah worst you'll do is 350.
If you stil work during lockdown then you need to be talking to your employer about this and also if its a non essential service then its illegal for the company to operate

sean29 · 28-03-2020 10:48PM

I'm in self isolation since Monday, getting a test tomorrow. I received a payment of €203 euro but I just found out about this:

The personal rate of Illness Benefit will increase from €203 per week to €350 per week for a maximum of 2 weeks medically-required self-isolation of for the full duration of absence from work following a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 (Coronavirus)

Is that still valid and should I contact them about this?

ImAHappyCamper · 28-03-2020 10:51PM

NewRed2 wrote: »

you dont need to be self isolating or anything. So you were working full time yeah?

Right so then you need to ask your employer can he\she claim the wage subsidy scheme and give you the 410 or 350, it depends on your typical net pay.
If not then you can aplly to welfare for the 350.
You would obviously need to be unemployed to avail of these things but theres a lockdown now so Im assuming you cant go to work?
Either way yeah worst you'll do is 350.
If you stil work during lockdown then you need to be talking to your employer about this and also if its a non essential service then its illegal for the company to operate

Hi NewRed. Thanks for your reply. I work as a golf course greenkeeper and obviously we are not essential workers but we also need to keep up some maintenance on the course because if we leave it alone for 2 weeks and miraculously we have restrictions lifted on the 19th, we would not be able to have the course in top nick on the 20th so we're in a kind of limbo. There is a meeting between heads of departments on Monday so I'll see how that goes.

Just Saying · 28-03-2020 11:04PM

lord quackinton wrote: »

the wage subsidy is designed so that revenue can claw back as much of it as they can. revenue will review every company who signs up to this, expect plenty of audits.
the following very plausible scenario - a company signs up and a director of that company who has say a wage of 100K plus keeps his salary, he does not get assistance from the wage subsidy personally but lower paid employees do.
revenue will go to town on that company.

Why?

If they suffer the drop in turnover they are perfectly entitled to apply.

Government Benefits Megathread

Comments