Lolek Ltd, Trading as 'The Iona Institute'

RainyDay wrote: »

Sorry, but do you understand even the very basics of financial controls and governance. Organisations like TCD and major insurers don't handle each others' money to 'avoid hassle'. This is an absolutely ludicrous suggestion, and would expose either party to charges of money laundering and tax fraud.

Yes, organisations can make payroll deductions by agreement with employees, usually when there are tax implications of the deduction (union subs or pension payments) and pass on those deductions collectively, but it is a huge leap to suggest that organisations would pay out someone else's money.

You don't understand how payroll systems in the public sector work, especialy for pre-1995 employees who paid (and continue to pay for the rest of their careers) modified PRSI. They have no entitlement to social welfare benefits, so once sick pay is exhausted they have no entitlement to DSP illness benefit, this is why voluntary income continuance plans paid by the employee from their income are common. Once sick pay from the employer is exhausted, all they're entitled to otherwise is 'pension rate of pay' which is based on accumulated years of service. Unless reasonably close to retirement age this will be well below the actual pension payable as it is acturarily reduced by each year before retirement age as well as being based on an incomplete record of pension contributions. This may be well below the social assistance rate so those forced to retire on illness grounds who have not paid into a private plan can be forced to apply to the community welfare officer for assistance. So much for public sector perks, eh?

To add insult to injury, the employee contribution of the 'modified PRSI' rate is now the same as full class A PRSI, but has no entitlement to benefits at all, and no DSP old age pension.

Doesn't require you to stand up for long periods? Is that really your best shot?

Not my decision, take it up with the private sector insurance company involved. The fact remains that being a senator is decidedly a part-time job and less demanding than being a full-time lecturer.

My only agenda is that I don't like to see people abusing disability pensions.

That terminology makes it sound like a social welfare benefit and is misleading.

Tell you what, you prove ME wrong and I will be happy to stand corrected.

You first, you made an unsubstantiated claim and have not substantiated it, all other posts are in response to yours so the ball very much remains in your court.

No, I didn't miss anything, but thanks for proving my point nicely. If this was private policy, the college would have no role in 'retiring him' or moving him onto a pension or anything else. It would an entirely private matter for him to decide what to do, when to do it and to collect his income from the insurance company. But you clearly understand and confirmed that the college had a substantial role in this issue, which confirms their responsibility for the insurance policy.

Yes, he could decide not to claim, so if he fails to be elected he can live on a pittance from TCD - or he could claim the benefits he'd voluntarily paid for. WTF?

I reckon it is greedy to claim on a publicly funded disability policy while working 16 hours days (see link above) in another publicly funded body.

Not publicly funded :rolleyes:

Everyone knows that if Sabina Higgins had said she was pro-life David Quinn would be nothing but praise for the brave, moral Sabina Higgins who is rightfully using her position to advocate a pro-life message.

He was hit by a monster ping pong ball from outer space?

100cent wrote: »

As a regular contributor of a humble financial donation, I am delighted with Iona's service to our nation.

They actually serve a foreign power, the Vatican.