The grants (at least the 10k) are for anyone in receipt of small business rates relief - so that is the clip level the govt has set. What is a bit silly is they are issuing it to small enough premises that they pay no business rates anyway (zero rated) so it is a "windfall" however for many businesses a rates "holiday" will be very helpful or mean don't have to make decisions about staff cutbacks etc.Originally Posted by deanlad
We have applied and are slow but have resisted furloughing anyone as I wouldn't be making them redundant. The grant form has several warnings on it and no idea when/if will receive it as yet.
I agree there have been some very unfair comments in this thread, and this is one of them!
There do seem to be some arbitrary lines drawn for the self employed, that along with people who started new PAYE jobs on 1st March who won’t get furlough payments, that are very unfair.
Not everybody is trying to kick the self employed, two of my self employed elder brothers are getting zero help, and I feel for them and everybody else in that position.
So I am going to respond to you because you are the OP and have replied to me.
No one has back stabbed anyone. Everything I have said has been open and I have been upfront about it.
I do like how you are mad at self employed being generalized and then thrown in a generalistion of PAYE staff. First of all final salary pensions? Can't imagine there are too many of them knocking around these days. As for risk of PAYE, wasn't the main reason for Furlough to businesses laying people off.
My brother is a self employed Barber and he is getting squat at the moment but will likely get something based on his declared earnings. My step brother worked in IT for a company as PAYE and has been made redundant.
I have seen a number of small businesses getting these £10k grants too. Are you not entitled to this?
No one is kicking you in. People are sharing experiences.
I guess it would be hard has a business director to stand down for 3 months and do nothing which is essentially what furlough is asking you to do.
🤔
Text from Money Saving Expert 'tips' email below.
Seems to demonstrate the unfairness in the system quite clearly.
While coronavirus has united the nation in support of the NHS, it has led to stark division over the financial impact. This high contrast inequity was shown by the 77,000 who voted in my Twitter poll last week; 39% said they'd be worse off, 36% no change, while 25% thought lockdown would improve their finances.
With the economy predicted to shrink by a third this quarter, the number who have hit dire straits sadly needs little explaining. Yet the fact one in four people will see improvement probably does.
Last edited by Maysie; 16th April 2020 at 08:46. Reason: Clarified for the hard of thinking
With the massive risks there is always the potential for the pendulum to swing both ways. Otherwise it wouldn’t be a risk.
I feel sorry for anyone struggling because of this current crisis by the way. There are many in the world who probably can’t afford to eat because of it.
And many businesses rely on people “in their comfy paye jobs” actually working for them.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
Why does people still in full employment, but working from home & therefore having their expenditure reduced (& being able to save?) "need explaining" & why is it unfair? Let's not lose sight of the fact that those still in full employment whether WFH or not, are those still paying full tax & national insurance and NOT seeking financial aid.
Furthermore, staying at home generally has meant most households expenditure has been reduced in terms of travel & socialising, not just those still in full employment.
Last edited by andy tims; 15th April 2020 at 09:41.
Andy
Wanted - Damasko DC57
Deleted.
Last edited by sier; 15th April 2020 at 19:37.
If one person is furloughed, sitting at home and getting 80% of their salary paid by the Government allowing them to start saving for a rainy day, while another person has no income whatsoever and no financial support, I personally think that demonstrates unfairness in the system.
Now you're moving the goal posts.
The text you referenced says "still working" If you're furloughed, you're not working.
I'm not suggesting there isn't a degree of unfairness around but that text & your post is both over simplistic & sensationalist.
I'll repeat - why should the fact that people in full employment, with reduced outgoings being better off than previously, either need explaining or be unfair?
Last edited by andy tims; 15th April 2020 at 10:38.
Andy
Wanted - Damasko DC57
There is no need to repeat yourself, or to put it in bold either.
The pasted text from MSE is from a summary email, so will never be a full and complete statement of fact and never could be given the clipped nature of the text and unfolding situation/confusion within the Governments own advice.
The unfairness I am referring to is the furloughed staff vs those with no financial support whatsoever. There is nothing sensationalist of simplistic about that IMO.
The fact that you have taken part of the text and focused on that solely rather than the overall statement is not me moving goalposts.
Whether you are still employed and working at home (with reduced outgoings), or furloughed (also with reduced outgoings), your income is still taxed in the same way.
Last edited by Maysie; 15th April 2020 at 11:57.
@ Maysie - You still haven't answered my question despite me putting it in bold.
Last edited by andy tims; 15th April 2020 at 13:18.
Andy
Wanted - Damasko DC57
So can we use my son as an example of the unfairness in the system?
He's in full time employment and been furloughed, his only monthly outgoing is his car loan, tax and insurance, fuel he uses to visit his GF in Kidderminster and going out. He also chucks us £100 for keep.
As he’s a trainee he’s not on huge wage but he’ll be furloughed on around c£1200 per month. He will without doubt save money as he’s sat at home with us not going out. I’m assuming this is the unfairness in the system you’re talking about?
Yes, your son is in a very similar situation to my niece.
Paid to stay at home with very low outgoings, yet others with much higher outgoings receive no support whatsoever.
Could you ask him to lend me some money.
Thanks,
Rob.
You will have to ask Martin Lewis that question, as that is the the question that HE posed.
I have clarified (and repeated) the unfairness that I believe to be evident, but you keep repeating your same misunderstanding of what you thought I meant.
Putting your question in bold just makes you look rather unnecessarily angry.
I take your point but why should he/they be penalised for living within their means?
Likewise I could take you to a family now where the whole family whilst capable of working haven’t turned their hands to anything all their lives. Paid zero in to the system yet won’t be affected through out all of this. Also not fair but where is the line drawn.
I am not saying that they should not be supported. I am saying that there are very large discrepancies within the support system which are very unfair and will be causing massive hardship to families who have also done absolutely nothing wrong, have paid their taxes, have a mortgage, bills to pay and receive nothing at all.
Understand and I agree with you👍
Although I can't see them admitting it explicitly, I'm getting the impression that how the money being doled out is prioritised according to how how much damage to the economy each persons destitution would cause. Or perhaps even, how beneficial to the immediate recovery their survival would be.
One extreme: a company producing an essential product that will sell solidly no matter what the economic situation, but whose production has be halted during the lockdown. If the government takes over looking after the workforce until production can resume, then in a few months time the company can just pick up where it left off. If the whole company goes down, then there are hundreds of people out of work, etc etc, and the essential product is missing from the market.
Other extreme: a freelance stage actor. The last things to get reopened will be theatres. There's not much utility in keeping this guy afloat - his job is up the spout anyway, it's just chucking good money after bad and the sooner he finds a different way of earning a living for the time being, the better.
The electorate recently picked a government that would be, in general, more likely to choose looking after the health of the economy over protecting each and every member of the population as its main priority, and here it is, doing that.
Ah, the sweet taste of democracy
My own freelance world has been swept off the table, and won't be able to reestablish itself for a while, even for those at the top, so I'll be scraping around for something to do in the medium term. The other dish being doled out by fate atm is rather more alarming, so I'm not inclined to complain.
Edit: is this too political for G+D? If so, tell me and I'll delete it.
Yup. So I earn (say) £80k a year self employed and that drops to £0. Support given is £0. It’s way too polarized. They should have made it means tested so who actually has suffered loss benefits or even a slightly lower amount but unrestricted in terms of a cliff edge cut off. An example would be a household with one earner at £51k gets nothing but a household with two earners at £49k each would get two lots of free support. I’d be fascinated in hearing that justified?
cant see how it can be tbh.
I agree.
The cut-off points for support are far too blunt and have created a financial cliff edge at which many will at least wobble, but some may unfortunately fall.
But you used it (so I assume you support it?) to illustrate a point you wanted to make, which was why I asked you.
No arguments that there is some unfairness, I said so myself. Franky Four Fingers has mentioned other aspects of unfairness - life is unfair.
I put in in bold the second time, because you either missed it, or just chose to ignore it. You've still not answered so I don't suppose you will.
Let's move on.
Andy
Wanted - Damasko DC57
Surely the easiest way would be either allow all those that need to, to sign on for Universal Credit. It has gone up £1,000 per year, so it can be lived on. Or start Universal Basic Income. There is no better time for the latter.
I am really surprised that there hasn’t been a universal loan system for those that want it.
It is you who made that assumption. I already clarified the point I was making, but you continue to ignore it.
My post was intended for general interest for those who had an interest in the subject. I agree that things in life are often unfair. It is also good to discuss these things. I wonder if you may have a more empathetic attitude towards the subject if your income had fallen off a cliff and you had no support available, while watching others enjoying their BBQ's in the garden whilst on full pay underwritten by the government.
I chose to ignore it. As I have already said, I have no intention of providing an answer to a question that I did not pose. Maybe it would help if I put that in bold for you?
I really wish you would, as repeating myself for your benefit is becoming rather tiresome.
The thing is these points are not set in stone, just like the date you could furlough staff from moved, all these other factors are being set up on the fly and are all subject to Change. But there has to be a cut off, be it 10,50, 100K where ever it is its going to piss off someone, it just happens to be that more are in this category on a forum where trinkets change hands for many many thousands of pounds.
Plenty of people have cooked the books and are going to regret it, plenty of people will NOT have cooked the books and regret it also.
I do feel for any and everyone effected buy this, I myself am at a point were 20 out of 30 staff where I work are on it and lord knows what happens if the industry doesn't pick up after 3 months. I can imagine I will out of a job like many others.
The point is not that the cut off exists. Of course it has to.....but the point is the manner in which it’s done creates ludicrously unfair situations where a 51k earner gets £0 but a couple of 48k earners get TWO lots of support. A much fairer system would have been a slightly lower support amount but payable to all, this avoiding this cliff edge. To assume that £50k per annum is such a vast income that you must be rolling in it, flush with savings and able to ride out any storm with ease....well its frankly laughable.
I think the amounts ARE set in stone sadly. All the government has done by setting up this cliff edge is to ensure the higher earning self employed will under declare their income in future (which I’m sure many of the successful sub 50k claimants are already doing). You are being penalized for declaring and paying all your tax and income - which is just stupid.
There is no system except for UBI that I can think of that does not have cliff-edges or fringe cases or administrative complexity.
All roads and not a couple of threads seem to lead to UBI.
The income tax bands. If you are over the higher rate band you don’t pay higher rate tax on everything. Only on the amount over. Tiered - not cliff edge. The bail out could easily have been done in similar way to the personal allowance with an amount up to a certain level then nothing above?
Agreed - it seems a ridiculous position. The bottom earning 50% of the population pay less than 3% of tax revenue, but conversely are the ones receiving the lions share of support - and I'm not arguing that they don't need or deserve that support.
At present I can still work for some of my clients, but not all - so I have seen a huge drop in income already.
I don't have huge cash reserves, and although I have some assets these have all seen a sharp drop in value (unusually this fairly unique situation has seen a drop in value of almost all assets) - so I would be forced to sell off at rock bottom prices to survive if things continued too far into the future.
Not all higher earners have huge amounts of disposable income - but I would guess the majority will have higher (and some much higher) fixed monthly expenses, some of which are possibly tied in for some time. For example where I live university support is means tested, and there is no facility for student loans - So I would still need to pay for my kids Uni fees, and their accommodation and other expenses, which ordinarily might have been a little bit of a struggle but manageable with some sacrifice of lifestyle and putting other plans on hold. Whereas now I might very well likely have to sell off quite a few possessions (in the worst market for years) in order to meet those costs.
I haven't needed or applied for any support at this time, but have a lot of colleagues who really are going to be in very difficult situations, and I and others may well find themselves a similar place some months down the line.
It's just a matter of time...
It seems that the FSB are lobbying government - at least the issue is being raised, although it remains to be seen what good will come of it.
A positive that it’s being presented at least.
I don’t recall seeing this posted already, it’s the gov.uk petition to extend the coronavirus financial support to directors of small - medium sized Ltd companies. If you’re so inclined please sign and share.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/310515
Signed. I was lucky enough to make a decision to move back to PAYE almost 6 months ago.
I was outside IR35 across multiple companies I consulted for, but it would have dried up for me.
I'd have been receiving nothing from the government in this crisis due to earnings & feel for anyone with the current uncertainty.
There has been so much rubbish spewed out in this thread by people who don't know the facts, and it hasn't added to the quality of the thread or TZ.
There are many directors who have operated correctly & fairly that will suffer at this time if nothing is changed.
I really hope it works out for you all & you are able to bring your businesses back to where they were previously, you've worked hard & paid your way to get where you are; now is the time for your taxes paid to help you all out in your times of need.
Matt
A very sensible post. We all pay taxes into a system that in times of need is meant to protect us (all).
Last edited by RustyBin5; 16th April 2020 at 23:23.
Signed
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Well I have been a sole trader and a Ltd company in a partnership within the last 10 years, I have paid all sorts of taxes through this period including big VAT every quarter.
Corporation tax and NI definitely felt more beneficial, but what a lot of PAYE people don’t realise is the hassle, stress and risk of running a company.
All that being said, I’m primarily a sole trader now and have learnt enough to know any business needs a good cash float, your personal life should be the same, it’s not being cash rich but cash safety, too many people spend it and are now crowing about needing help. I’m not what you would call rich at all, but I have savings and often turn my hand to other things to keep money trickling in.
Personally I’m not asking for nothing during this period, the only thing that will stick in my throat is the years of increased taxes we will all have to pay.
Thank you for posting this, as I was not aware it existed.
Signed and shared.
Bit off topic , our company have furloughed 17% but called a guy back in this morning to get a machine running and made sure he didn’t clock on , so the company are not paying his wage the gov are and he is effectively working at 80% rate ? Win win for the company , feels so wrong and surely illegal
No I get the point of being even across the board, main problem is too many people think once you have the term Director of a company you are loaded, what they do not see is that you are responsible for every aspect of the business including all the big decisions and employees pay, how many directors pay themselves less than their staff when times are hard - plenty, its their responsibility to keep that business running.
I went for a year without pay in my last business venture and had my own money invested as a directors loan, yes it paid off but its all risk to reward..
Until people have lived in each others shoes then its very hard to make judgements, its even more naive to base your judgement on monetary figures alone..
Yes, that is a clear breach of the furlough payment conditions. You have to be furloughed a minimum of 3 weeks for the employer to qualify for payment under the scheme. His employer has broken the continuance of his furlough period and the 3 weeks starts again from today. Seems like they intend ignoring this though, win-win as you say.
so the BBc have picked up on this but the general public still think that ’director’ and ‘dividends’ means tax dodging scum.
from the comments:
"Paid themselves dividends instead of a salary, making use of what most would see as a 'loophole' in order to reduce their tax contributions and then failed to put sufficient monies aside to protect themselves from unforeseen circumstances.
Tough!!”
"Paying yourself in dividends is tax efficient. Sadly sometimes being tax efficient comes back and bites you hard. Pay your taxes, please!"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52308823
Last edited by MrSmith; 17th April 2020 at 15:37.
I think they have got round it (rightly or wrongly) by him not clocking on, so his is effectively not at work on that day so they can still claim the 3 weeks furlough
I think it is ok, if his actions do not earn the company any money, but still skating on thin ice. Would be nice if they could relax the pettiness over little things like that. After all the whole aim is for people to have jobs to come back to!
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Nope - the government does not specify that you make any money - any *work* even if it is loss-making is not permitted - this is not permitted.
Last edited by Alansmithee; 17th April 2020 at 22:16.
Could a director really stop working in these times though?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
