Self-employment - WTC terminated due to lack of turnover

Hammyman

melly1980 wrote: »

Hammyman doesnt need to look at the links. He/she knows better. Either that or doesnt want to look at them because it would blow their ill thought out pre-conceived opinions out of the water. Its far easier for him / her to keep regurgetating them, it keeps the mind in balance. Far to difficult to have a major thought overhaul.

I'm not the one trying to justify conning the state out of WTC by deliberately charging 60-75% of the going rate and not charging for chargeable items like meals in order to minimise my profits so I can continue to screw the taxpayer.

melly1980

Hammyman wrote: »

I'm not the one trying to justify conning the state out of WTC by deliberately charging 60-75% of the going rate and not charging for chargeable items like meals in order to minimise my profits so I can continue to screw the taxpayer.

Can I take it from your change of direction that you realise that your talking a load of c**k then. What happened to educating all of us thick childminders on taxation law? You dont seem so sure of yourself now.

FWIW, my missus doesnt charge 75% of the going rate either. Childminders rates are less than the minimum wage around here. That is the market rate. She can only earn more than that by looking after more than one child, which she cant do. Therefore her wage is 3.50 per hour and from that needs to be taken away her legitimate costs (those that for some reason you think are not legitimate)

alfiesmum

If it's okay, can I ask why she can only care for one child? The rate for childminders is low, yes, but as they mostly have more than one child per hour, it does work out at slightly more for most of them (us a while ago.)

melly1980

alfiesmum wrote: »

If it's okay, can I ask why she can only care for one child? The rate for childminders is low, yes, but as they mostly have more than one child per hour, it does work out at slightly more for most of them (us a while ago.)

Not a problem at all

We have 4 children anyway and there are (quite rightly) restrictions on how many you can mind. So if the rate is 3.50 per hour and you can only mind 1 then you cant possibly earn the NMW.

Thats why I object to this one size fits all attack on low earning self employed people. It is attacking everyone just to get at the frauds, it would be as idiotic as banning disability payments because some people falsly claim etc etc.

Jomo

melly1980 wrote: »

So presumably you dont think minding children costs electricity, food, gas or water?

If it does, then whats your point.

Read your post I quoted, all this 'legitimate' speak sounds very familiar don't you think?

Doesn't make it right and the sooner it is stopped, the better!

You may claim back money for all the things mentioned above but I do have to wonder if your business is viable if you have to rely on tax credits and believe me, there are people who have been doing so for years...they are certainly not newly set up businesses.

Jomo

melly1980 wrote: »

Can I take it from your change of direction that you realise that your talking a load of c**k then. What happened to educating all of us thick childminders on taxation law? You dont seem so sure of yourself now.

FWIW, my missus doesnt charge 75% of the going rate either. Childminders rates are less than the minimum wage around here. That is the market rate. She can only earn more than that by looking after more than one child, which she cant do. Therefore her wage is 3.50 per hour and from that needs to be taken away her legitimate costs (those that for some reason you think are not legitimate)

That's funny, I hear all the time that childcare is too expensive and therefore not worth working!!

alfiesmum

melly1980 wrote: »

Not a problem at all

We have 4 children anyway and there are (quite rightly) restrictions on how many you can mind. So if the rate is 3.50 per hour and you can only mind 1 then you cant possibly earn the NMW.

Thats why I object to this one size fits all attack on low earning self employed people. It is attacking everyone just to get at the frauds, it would be as idiotic as banning disability payments because some people falsly claim etc etc.

Ah! I see! Perhaps when your lot are older she could look at adding more to the paying variety then eh. I do remember there being rules about number of under 1 year olds, and under 8(?) year olds that were permitted.

Something that has not been mentioned so far regarding Childminding wages, is that when you do not have the minded kids, and it's on your own time, there is a heck of a lot of paperwork to fill out these days. In my time childminding, it was all just being introduced, but these days every time they fart you need to fill it out in the fart book. In triplicate. You have local authority records, developmental records and so it goes on. In an employed situation, you're being paid all the while you work. Not so with childminding though.

melly1980

Jomo wrote: »

Read your post I quoted, all this 'legitimate' speak sounds very familiar don't you think?

Doesn't make it right and the sooner it is stopped, the better!.

So you think it isnt right that a childminder who feeds the kids shouldnt deduct the cost of that food from her profit. Really, are you THAT stupid? Its like saying, hey BP. All that petrol you sell....yeah, thats your profit. You cant take off those silly things like wages that you pay out. I really cant believe the sheer and utter level of stupidity demonstrated in various parts of this thread.

Its really simple. Minding children costs us some money and this money is taken from our income to result in a profit.

Jomo wrote: »

You may claim back money for all the things mentioned above but I do have to wonder if your business is viable if you have to rely on tax credits and believe me, there are people who have been doing so for years...they are certainly not newly set up businesses.

Not viable according to who? Its viable for us, we are perfectly happy with it. It doesnt lose money it makes money. Using your attitude anyone who works and claims tax credits are in none viable jobs and therefore shouldnt be given tax credits.

Back in the real world, if my missus didnt childmind because her business (according to you) isnt viable then all that would happen is that our tax credits award would be based on a lower total houshold income and therefore we would get more money and be a bigger tax burden. Obviously though, youve thought that through.

Jomo

melly1980 wrote: »

So you think it isnt right that a childminder who feeds the kids shouldnt deduct the cost of that food from her profit. Really, are you THAT stupid? Its like saying, hey BP. All that petrol you sell....yeah, thats your profit. You cant take off those silly things like wages that you pay out. I really cant believe the sheer and utter level of stupidity demonstrated in various parts of this thread.

Its really simple. Minding children costs us some money and this money is taken from our income to result in a profit.

It should cost your customers, they should be paying for food etc. It should be included in the fee! Now who is the stupid one?!



Not viable according to who? Its viable for us, we are perfectly happy with it. It doesnt lose money it makes money. Using your attitude anyone who works and claims tax credits are in none viable jobs and therefore shouldnt be given tax credits.

Back in the real world, if my missus didnt childmind because her business (according to you) isnt viable then all that would happen is that our tax credits award would be based on a lower total houshold income and therefore we would get more money and be a bigger tax burden. Obviously though, youve thought that through.

Just cos you are happy with it doesn't make it viable. A business should grow, it isn't viable if you continuously have to depend on tax credits.

Good for the changes, too many taking the pish, not all but many do!

melly1980

Jomo wrote: »

Thought about it and I stick by what I said. Nothing preconceived or idiotic, I get my views from many (and I mean many) statements made by others and people who I know. Childcare is so so expensive!!

So you cant see any way that childcare can be expensive AND a childminder only earn 3.50 per hour. Its pretty straight forward if you put your mind to it. You chose not to because it will then conflict with your preconcieved, stubborn and ignorant views.

Since you choose not to see it I will point it out to you.

If my wife can only mind 1 child then she can only earn about 3.50 per hour. This is the market rate in our area.

However the cost to the parent is about 140 per week that has to come out of their money, plus then the money they spend getting to work just to make a bit of money for themselves. So that cost to them is large. They themselves have to earn more than 3.50 per hour just to break even, so without tax credits payments for their childcare working does become unaffordable for many people. Anbd this is just for someone with only 1 kid.

It really isnt rocket science.

Jomo wrote: »

Obviously there are exceptions to the rule who manage to reclaim all their expenses and maximising on benefits. Very legitimately!

My wifes benefits would be higher if she didnt work because we get next to nothing anyway in the way of benefits. If we wanted to maxamise them she simply would not work.