QuoteFor free?Originally Posted by dahamsta
I don't think you'll get an official answer on that, but the general opinion seems to be that, and that we have "perks" like being able to put personal stuff through the books. Unfortunately the latter is the equivalent of any other kind of tax dodging, both types of people do it at varying levels, and both are liable if they're caught.
There's a discussion about in on AAM at the moment, the general consensus appears to be that most would prefer to pay extra for the security. Unfortunately the self-employed in Ireland suffer the same failing of the Irish in general, we bitch and moan but don't do anything about it*. Bring back Daniel O'Connell.
* I offered to host and manage a website, mailing list, etc, but no-one would take me up on it. I can't do everything.
For free?
Wouldn't be much of an offer if not.
Here's the thread if any Foot.ie business(wo)men fancy charging in.
It would have long happened by now if there was a strong enough legal basis.
DID YOU NOTICE A SIGN OUTSIDE MY HOUSE...?
As far as I'm aware, self employed PRSI was at a lower rate even before taking into account the lack of employers contribution. I think the self employed rate changed in one of Lenihans many budgets, still minus the employers contribution though.
I'm torn on the issue to be honest. There is no doubt that in the construction sector, for example, people were effectively forced to sub contract when they were defacto employees. Revenue & Social Welfare were very slow to take action on this - as it didn't suit the people the Government were working for. IBEC and SFA were 100% opposed to more control on such issues during social partnership - the delays in deals were never about the money at those times.
However, I don't remember too many complaints from the self employed about the rates paid or cover during the boom. It was only when they needed to draw on social welfare after the crash that this became a live issue. So take the lower rates in the good times, and then crib about the lack of benefits in the bad?
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
I thinks that's awful mate, but just explaining about folk like me. How the self-employed are treated when they fall on hard times.
[QUOTE]
I knda agree TBH. These guys were forced to become contractors (we all know a few) and as a result were paid nicely and above what there going employee rate was.
There was nothing to stop the same contractors registering as boni fida companies and paying themselves as employees rather than taking drwaings as sole traders.
The thing is , and I make no apologies for this, many were not business men but tradesmen and not aware of it. More were greedy.
If they were getting 2k a week for 50 hours it should have been more than enought to form a small company, call that 2 ka week turnover and pay them selves a grand, employee PRSI, employeer PRSI and still have a profit at the year end for the "personal effects". This would have meant proper books and accounting and we have all seen the jeep with a dash board full of "paperwork" in between coffee cups and breakfast roll wrappers. i.e The cost of implementing this was perceived to be more than the benifit of social welfare if things went bad.
AgreedHowever, I don't remember too many complaints from the self employed about the rates paid or cover during the boom. It was only when they needed to draw on social welfare after the crash that this became a live issue. So take the lower rates in the good times, and then crib about the lack of benefits in the bad?
You can't be an employee of your own company. You'd have to be a company director, in which case, no social security either.
Singling out construction contractors sector is incredibly specific and not fair to the rest of us. It also ignores the fact that setting up a company at the time cost a minimum or €1k, and running a company still costs a minimum of the same, year on year.
I've been an employee of my own company for about 3 years. I've always had a problem with this policy.
Well it was me using that as example of a sector I do have some sympathy - they were sold down the river by the larger contractors/ companies. My opinion is the state should've been coming down hard and fast on the scam, and rather than setting up companies they should've been the employee's they basically were. Subcontracting is still causing issues, as witnessed recently with one of the motorway projects. It suited no one but the large companies who had the ear of Government - the subbies were screwed but were convinced they were quids in. But apologies for muddying the waters.
I've no problem with self employed getting the same benefits, once they have made the same total contribution. If they were going in now looking to pay full employee plus the employer rates in PRSI, I think they'd have a very arguable case to start building up full stamps.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
It's not just the construction sector, big pharma does it too, and I'd guess a lot of other multis. It's a nasty setup, but then so is the complete abuse of part-time workers. Both legal frameworks should be reformed.
I think I said earlier that both I and most of the other people on AAM that have commented have no problem paying the full whack. It's not about the money, it's about equal protection, and principle.
dahamsta, I've been paying tax and prsi since I was 17. Out of 20 years since I've had 4 years out of the tax net and for 2 of them I faced a tax bill when I came home as they said I wasn't due any tax credits because I'd undeclared income. The last 8 years I've been mainly out of Ireland and pay my tax at home and in my country of residence - obviously it's reduced on both. Earlier this month I was home with a client and went to check about moving home and what would happen if the job I'd been offered went withthe company. I was told that I'd be means tested, that I would wait up to 6 months for the first payment, though if I was a genuine hardship case I could go to the HSE. I thought it was just because I'd been paying a low tax and normal PRSI equivalent in my country of residence and a low tax rate in Ireland, now it's the same for others who contribute to the economy and society even more. It makes it ridiculous!
So I went for this job interview and I thought I absolutely blitzed it. Really positive interaction and engagement. Assured me they'd be in touch very shortly. Then the PFO arrived. I was disappointed but what can you do -all job offers are over subscribed these days. THEN I found out the guy who got the job was a member of an organisation who offered my potential employer a financial inducment to take him on instead of me....
http://www.independent.ie/sport/gael...e-2601989.html
" I wish to God that someone would be able to block out the voices in my head for five minutes, the voices that scream, over and over again: "Why do they come to me to die?"
You should be properly Irish, and play for the GAA.
Talk about a receipe for corruption, at so many levels! Still, at least they're embracing pay for play.
If you attack me with stupidity, I'll be forced to defend myself with sarcasm.
It's a belter of a read. Once I got over my initial Marcel Marceau reaction -I've been splitting myself laughing at every re-read. It's the barefacedness (new word?) of it all. The sheer brass neck and the notion never dawning that it might just be immoral and illegal to induce discrimination on the basis of whether someone is "one of theirs" or not.
Just one of my favourite quotes: "We're deep-rooted in our communities and, at a time of crisis such as the country is going through at present, we need to figure out a way of helping people in a practical way. This scheme wouldn't solve all the ills of the country, but it would do an awful lot for the 400 unemployed players -- and their clubs -- who benefited."
Father Ted stuff. Help people in the communities they're supposedly deep rooted in by shoving all but their members to the back of the jobs queue. Nice.
" I wish to God that someone would be able to block out the voices in my head for five minutes, the voices that scream, over and over again: "Why do they come to me to die?"
I'm far from expert on this, but is that even legal?
I'd have my doubts, and I'd hope someone will challenge them on it.
There's no requirement for any job to be advertised.
Its only a requirement if the company wish to claim government subsidies or apply for work permits and thes kind of 'unusual' situations.
But if a company wants to emply someone, it can hire them directly, advertise it internally/externally or headhunt a group of people and pick from them.
No problem with the GAA spending their money this way but laughable that they say its for the 'good of the community'
54,321 sold - wws will never die - ***
---
New blog if anyone's interested - http://loihistory.wordpress.com/
LOI section on balls.ie - http://balls.ie/league-of-ireland/
I never considered the legality of advertising positions. What I wondered was whether this scheme, which is basically a members’ club scheme, breaches employment law in that it creates an uneven and unfair situation where applicants cannot be measured on their abilities and suitability for the role. Whether the position is filled by confined or open competition doesn't make much difference.
I wonder too what would happen where a member of a trade union fails to get a position because a non-union GAA player brings the grant with him (or her; I presume the GAA wouldn't be so crass as to omit camogie and ladies' football - would they?) |Say, Mandate in the retail sector? I don’t see any union taking that on the chin.
LR, you’ve taken this far more philosophically and with better grace than I think many others would have.
I would have thought it would have technically been a bribe. I'd say there would be a good chance you could get a clever lawyer to build you a case on that. It'll be interesting to see what happens if the GAA go through with it.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks