Self-employment - WTC terminated due to lack of turnover

melly1980

Jomo wrote: »

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.!

no it doesnt, it has to pay us a wage. We dont have to grow the business at all. We are not reliaint on tax credits, she was a childminder before tax credits came out, she is still a childminder now. If she quite we would get more in tax credits.

All facts that you are conveniently ignoring just to carryu on with a stubborn, ignorant and monumentally stupid point.

Jomo

melly1980 wrote: »

no it doesnt, it has to pay us a wage. We dont have to grow the business at all. We are not reliaint on tax credits, she was a childminder before tax credits came out, she is still a childminder now. If she quite we would get more in tax credits.

All facts that you are conveniently ignoring just to carryu on with a stubborn, ignorant and monumentally stupid point.

Well you obviously aren't in a position to look after more children, hence the low income and why you have no choice but to do what you are doing. Not really viable business wise.

It is what it is!

Sixer

I think it's quite clear that childminding is a slightly different case to many other types of self-employment - homemakers/SAHMs can earn some money by combining what they'd be doing anyway (looking after their own kids) with working (looking after someone else's kids). This is why there are special rules as linked to earlier in this thread. Other special cases get similar special rules. But for most self-employed people, this doesn't apply. You can't be a self-employed hairdresser and cut your own hair at exactly the same time you're cutting someone else's, for instance.

I think this misses the general point about current loopholes and potential changes - people doing an Avon round or pottering about for a couple of hours a week running a thin affiliate blog shouldn't be able to escape the conditionality of JSA and qualify for in-work benefits.

PS: Melly - I read the link about special rules for childminders and the mileage issue was not special; it was covered by general rules, unlike, for example, wear and tear to furniture, etc. For mileage, I'm pretty sure they must be wholly for business for your wife to claim the full amount. If she's taking her own kids, that might not be the right thing to do. She should get that cleared with HMRC just to be absolutely sure.

melly1980

Sixer wrote: »

PS: Melly - I read the link about special rules for childminders and the mileage issue was not special; it was covered by general rules, unlike, for example, wear and tear to furniture, etc. For mileage, I'm pretty sure they must be wholly for business for your wife to claim the full amount. If she's taking her own kids, that might not be the right thing to do. She should get that cleared with HMRC just to be absolutely sure.

Howdy.

Regarding the miles we would only knock off the value of providing a pickup / school run service. If we were taking the kid out somewhere and our own child was going too, the only cost knocked off is the cost (ie, admission fee for a playcentre) for that one child for where we are going (not the miles)

Oldernotwiser

Russe11 wrote: »

The JCP advises people to claim WTC if you go selfemployed.

Furthmore I can't see how they NMW comes into it there is no requirement to pay yourself anything if you don't want to(as a sole trader).

Fortunately things are changing, as this thread shows.

Sixer

melly1980 wrote: »

Howdy.

Regarding the miles we would only knock off the value of providing a pickup / school run service. If we were taking the kid out somewhere and our own child was going too, the only cost knocked off is the cost (ie, admission fee for a playcentre) for that one child for where we are going (not the miles)

Looking at the rules, that sounds wise. It's always better to be on the safe side with HMRC.

I would say to any self-employed person earning average money to give themselves a good margin of safety and be obviously within the HMRC guidelines. If you want to claim to the max and walk the line, there are too many grey areas to do it without employing an accountant. And that is a pointless expense that will cost more than is saved for all but very high earners.

dktreesea

The Welfare Reform bill is only at the stage of its third reading. It is highly unlikely, imho, that the proposals for self employed people, i.e. to deem their income to be the higher of their taxable profit or the NMW for however many hours they finally settle on, in their present form will go ahead.

What I would like to see is a lifetime cap to the years of suppoort the taxpayer is prepared to foot the bill for self employment start ups.Something like in years 1 - 2 deemed income is zero, so the profit for the purposes of benefits is the higher of the actual profit or zero (the current situation). Then, in years 3 to 5 this reduces to, say, 24 hours a week at NMW over, say, 46 weeks, to allow for holidays and the like (usually unpaid when you're self employed), and thereafter the deemed profit is equivalent to a full time NMW. If it's a family business, once the youngest child reaches 5 (or whatever the age is going to be for when mothers go back to work and lose income support) then, depending on when that occurs, the deemed income will either be 2 * 24 hours at NMW or 2 * full time wage at NMW.

I'm mystified by the antagonism towards the child minder who is posting on this thread. If they have pre schoolers they are not required to work anyway and would be entitled to the full amount of the benefits they are entitled to. Any income they earn is surely a bonus. In case all of you didn't notice, there is a massive shortage of childcare places in the community. We should be applauding someone who is prepared to take that challenge on instead of rubbishing them for not earning enough.

vix2000

dktreesea wrote: »

I'm mystified by the antagonism towards the child minder who is posting on this thread. If they have pre schoolers they are not required to work anyway and would be entitled to the full amount of the benefits they are entitled to. Any income they earn is surely a bonus. In case all of you didn't notice, there is a massive shortage of childcare places in the community. We should be applauding someone who is prepared to take that challenge on instead of rubbishing them for not earning enough.

Hear Hear. Some people are so stupid. They would prefer people to sit on their backsides and get more benefits for doing nothing than them trying to do something constructive. Don't know if its still so but you used to be able to earn £80 a week childminding and still be entitled to your full Income Support benefit as it was deemed a special occupation and they were in short supply. I was with my daughter when she was told this by our local dss office at her review interview, so I heard it from the horses mouth.

melly1980

dktreesea wrote: »

I'm mystified by the antagonism towards the child minder who is posting on this thread. If they have pre schoolers they are not required to work anyway and would be entitled to the full amount of the benefits they are entitled to. Any income they earn is surely a bonus. In case all of you didn't notice, there is a massive shortage of childcare places in the community. We should be applauding someone who is prepared to take that challenge on instead of rubbishing them for not earning enough.

cheers

that was precisely the point. My wife would cost the tax payer more money by not childminding. The small amount of WTC that we get is not based on her low earnings but on the number of children we have. We are not relying on a low wage to get something therefore it can not possibly be some kind of self employed scam.