CITB Construction skills

Sambucus_Nigra

DCodd wrote: »

I wasn't giving info, I was asking.

There are exemptions and someone should inform lifeisbut what they are. So as you seem to be saying you know, tell us what they are.

There are no exemptions - you are either in-scope or not. Scope is the complicated issue; and the calcs from that are basic and simple.

Lifeisbutadream

Loanranger wrote: »

But you're not simply a worker, you are an employer.
Not being aware of something is not a reason for non compliance.

People are offering you information, advice and practical help yet you seem fixated on the great wrongness of it all rather than accept the info given and help offered.

Thank you for the information.

I am sorry that I am not reacting to the news that I have to find £1234 better. Must try harder.:)

Lifeisbutadream

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Sigh. It's been going on for over 40 years, and believe me - people have asked questions!

Thatcher got rid of all the other ITBs - the CITB and ECITB were left as otherwise, the industry would do no training at all.

It's not based on sales, or profit - it's based on your PAYE and LOSC payments - and most companies will take the 1.5% out of payments to LOSC accordingly to compensate.

I've offered to help you on your calcs [I've been doing this 10 years], however if you don't want assistance, then you don't! Very odd.

I am not sure why you are so cross with me *sigh*

The calculations have been worked out. It is 0.5% for my Employee and 1.5% for the subbies.

My problem is with the CITB who have not made it clear to me at all what I should expect to pay - had they done so I would not be in this position.

It doesnt matter how many times you tell me it is on their website, or that I can pay monthly etc. etc., it does not take away that this is a stealth tax, sneakily done and I am not going to pay it.

DCodd

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

There are no exemptions - you are either in-scope or not. Scope is the complicated issue; and the calcs from that are basic and simple.

Not all construction industry trades have to pay the CITB levy, as I said earlier I am a little out of touch with the exemptions but there are some.

I know that Plumbers are not covered by CITB and I believe that Electricians are exempt too but the question I was asking you was to be specific about who should be included within a calculation and who should not.

Edit.... I believe SOME electricians are exempt depending on the work they do.

Lifeisbutadream

DCodd wrote: »

Not all construction industry trades have to pay the CITB levy, as I said earlier I am a little out of touch with the exemptions but there are some.

I know that Plumbers are not covered by CITB and I believe that Electricians are exempt too but the question I was asking you was to be specific about who should be included within a calculation and who should not.

Edit.... I believe SOME electricians are exempt depending on the work they do.

If Plumbers are not included then do I not have to include them?

Also some of our subbies have invoiced 'materials and labour' and not broken it down.

Some of our subbies are cleaners!

Its a joke. I am going to have to spend hours and hours sorting this out.

adr0ck

the bit that annoys me about the CITB is this

the wages of electricians and plumbers who are employed by a construction company get taken into account by the citb yet they also have to pay other monies to be members of associations etc (therefore they are paying for training twice)

the wages of surveyors who are employed by construction companies also get taken into account yet again they also have to pay other monies to be members of associations (RICS) - again therefore they are paying towards training twice

also the wages of secretaries etc get taken into account by the citb - can someone please explain to me why secretaries have to pay for training tradesmen

i would love to hear a response from the citb for this part which i think is unfair

i agree that if you pay tradesmen then some form of training levy to help train the younger generation of tradesmen should be imposed however i fail to see why qualified electricians,plumbers, surveyors who already pay towards training through their associations should pay twice

and why a secretaries wages should be taken into account is beyond me

if it was just imposed on tradesmens wages then it would be fair - however since it is not then it is unfair

Lifeisbutadream

adr0ck wrote: »

the bit that annoys me about the CITB is this

the wages of electricians and plumbers who are employed by a construction company get taken into account by the citb yet they also have to pay other monies to be members of associations etc (therefore they are paying for training twice)

the wages of surveyors who are employed by construction companies also get taken into account yet again they also have to pay other monies to be members of associations (RICS) - again therefore they are paying towards training twice

also the wages of secretaries etc get taken into account by the citb - can someone please explain to me why secretaries have to pay for training tradesmen

i would love to hear a response from the citb for this part which i think is unfair

i agree that if you pay tradesmen then some form of training levy to help train the younger generation of tradesmen should be imposed however i fail to see why qualified electricians,plumbers, surveyors who already pay towards training through their associations should pay twice

and why a secretaries wages should be taken into account is beyond me

if it was just imposed on tradesmens wages then it would be fair - however since it is not then it is unfair

I dont see how it is fair being worked out on how much someone is paid? some jobs are run at a loss or minimal profit - surely it should be based on profit??? or at the very least the workers themselves pay it rather than the main contractor!

To me its like some dim-wit made something up (40 years ago?) without actually thinking it through (oh and then decided that putting information on their own website was enough to inform everyone of what they do)

DCodd

adr0ck wrote: »

i agree that if you pay tradesmen then some form of training levy to help train the younger generation of tradesmen should be imposed however i fail to see why qualified electricians,plumbers, surveyors who already pay towards training through their associations should pay twice

and why a secretaries wages should be taken into account is beyond me

if it was just imposed on tradesmens wages then it would be fair - however since it is not then it is unfair

This is where I would take issue as plumbers are meant to be expempt:

from Northern Ireland assembly
The removal of air conditioning, plumbing and other trades from the scope of the CITB will bring us into line with the rest of the UK, where that has already occurred. Training in those sectors will be provided in the same way as training in every other sector. Construction is the only sector left where there is a specific levy option. As the Member will know, there used to be four or five boards with a levy power covering retailing and other sectors, but it was felt that, in the current circumstances, the unique nature of the construction sector meant that it was still important to have a board with a levy power.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ni/?id=2009-10-13.1.1

Lifeisbutadream

DCodd wrote: »

This is where I would take issue as plumbers are meant to be expempt:



http://www.theyworkforyou.com/ni/?id=2009-10-13.1.1

So are plumbers except (as in plumbers subbying to other co's) or just plumbing co's??

Because if that is the case then I can wipe at least £30K off my subbies list.

Lifeisbutadream

I might put on our website 'all customers will be charged twice on Tuesdays' and then when they complain tell them it was easily visible for all to see on my website!