Did the Tax and Social Welfare Commission make any recommendations on Social Welfare payments?

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
54,766
I haven't studied it in detail but they don't seem to have made any recommendations?

I would have expected them to say something about actually linking Social Welfare payments to the pay or to the contribution record of the employee. After all, the name is "Pay Related Social Insurance"

Even if they said "We support the current system where someone who has worked for 30 years gets, more or less the same benefits, as someone who has worked for 5 years" Or "we support the fact that people on non-contributory pensions get more or less the same pensions as those on contributory pensions"
 
That's why the whole commission was a joke, all about more taxation on everything and little evidence of any welfare reform.
The whole commission has now been rightly rubbished by the government
I'd love to know who and how was this "commission " appointed
 
Chapter 12
Inclusive and Integrated Social Protection

12.1 The Commission recommends that Government undertakes a regular benchmarking exercise in respect of all working-age income supports (including supports for people who are unemployed, people with disabilities and people parenting alone), following which multi-annual targets should be set for social welfare rates which provide for regular incremental progress. Annual increases in social welfare rates should be based on a transparent and evidence-led process.

12.2 The Commission recommends that working-age payments should be reformed to move towards an income related working-age assistance payment available to all households. The payment should be designed so as to avoid subsidising low-paid employment.

12.3 The Commission notes the intention of the Government to introduce a greater element of pay-related benefits within the Social Insurance system. The Commission recommends that the design of such benefits should take account of incentives to work and the sustainability of the Social Insurance Fund. If introduced, any such benefit should be short in duration, subject to a cap, and progressively extended to include maternity, paternity, parents’ and illness benefit.

12.4 The Commission does not recommend that Child Benefit should be subject to tax.

12.5 The Commission recommends that the existing system of child income supports should be reformed to facilitate the introduction of an income related second tier of child income support in addition to Child Benefit that combines existing supports and that would be provided to all low-income households, whether in receipt of a social welfare payment or not.

12.6 The Commission recommends that the individualisation of payments made to qualified adults be progressed. This should be guided by the set of principles outlined by the Commission.
 
Hi Sop

Thanks for that.

I probably read it and didn't really understand it.

I still don't really understand most of it.

This looks interesting:



Why should benefits be short in duration? If you have worked for 30 years and lose your job, I think it's only fair that your benefits last longer than those paid to someone who has worked for only 5 years.

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Why should benefits be short in duration? If you have worked for 30 years and lose your job, I think it's only fair that your benefits last longer than those paid to someone who has worked for only 5 years.
Click to expand...
Because it's insurance, not a personal account


If your house burns down the insurance company pays out if you've been paying for five years or 30.
 
Hi Coyote

Yes, but my premium and the payout depends on the risk and the size of the house.

If I pay more insurance premium because my salary is higher, the payout if I claim should be higher.

I also think that the payout should be longer.

As it's insurance, the payout should be linked to the premium paid.

Brendan
 
Sophrosyne said:
12.2 The Commission recommends that working-age payments should be reformed to move towards an income related working-age assistance payment available to all households. The payment should be designed so as to avoid subsidising low-paid employment.
Click to expand...

Is this a somewhat oblique recommendation to eliminate the WFP?
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Why should benefits be short in duration? If you have worked for 30 years and lose your job, I think it's only fair that your benefits last longer than those paid to someone who has worked for only 5 years.

Brendan
Click to expand...
In many countries it is linked to your income before you lose your job.
It's a variation of; you get a percentage of your previous income in year one, a smaller percentage in year two, smaller again in year 3 and then bottoms out in year 4. If you have never worked you should get the year 4 amount.
 
Sophrosyne said:
12.2 The Commission recommends that working-age payments should be reformed to move towards an income related working-age assistance payment available to all households. The payment should be designed so as to avoid subsidising low-paid employment.
Click to expand...
@Groucho, I found that strange as well. People should be paid based on their economic value to the employer or the market rate their labour can command.

The social responsibility of ensuring a particular employee can pay their bills, if such a responsibility exists, falls on the State.

The employer fulfils their part of that obligation when they pay their taxes.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Why should benefits be short in duration? If you have worked for 30 years and lose your job, I think it's only fair that your benefits last longer than those paid to someone who has worked for only 5 years.
Click to expand...
Don't shoot the messenger!

The Commission reasons that:

“Pay-related benefits are of advantage in maintaining the short-term expenditure commitments of people with higher previous earnings, but it is arguable that, in the first instance, an individual’s own resources should be drawn on to maintain expenditure patterns. At present, individuals with greater means (including savings) can qualify for and receive Jobseeker’s Benefit, even if they have the means to support themselves without recourse to State support.

This element of deadweight is a design feature of social insurance where an entitlement to a benefit comes as of right once the contingency has been established.

Pay-related benefit is premised on the notion that previous earnings are used to determine a rate of payment. By paying different levels of benefit based on previous earnings, pay-related benefits may not confer the same level of benefit on people whose contributions are of lower monetary value but who have an identical contribution record.

People with similar needs (i.e. they have recently lost their employment and need income support) are currently treated similarly but will be treated differently if payment rates are based on past earnings. There are a variety of models, across Europe and elsewhere, of pay-related benefits – each with distinctive features and, as a result, different costs associated with their delivery. If a pay-related jobseekers payment is to be introduced, the Commission recommends that the following points should be borne in mind during the policy design phase:

  • The design of pay-related benefit should have regard to the incentive to work and such benefits should only be payable for a limited period of time. This period should be shorter than the current duration of Jobseekers Benefit, which is currently six or nine months depending on the recipient’s contribution record.

  • A pay-related benefit should be designed having regard to the existing funding challenges facing the social insurance fund.

  • In the interests of equity, a pay-related benefit should be subject to an earnings cap.

  • Existing and new linkages between DSP and Revenue could be progressed to design a process to deliver a pay-related benefit.

In addition to Jobseekers Benefit there is a case for linking other benefits to previous earnings. For example, linking Maternity Benefit to new mothers’ previous earnings could reduce the gender wage gap, while a similar reform to Illness Benefit could have public health benefits.

Furthermore, if a system of pay-related benefits is introduced, and if such payments are taxable, consideration should be given to exploring the application of PAYE by DSP as the payments are being made."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register