We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide

One role/position - two workers? Tax?

A family member of mine has recently found employment, but I find something very dodgy about the business who has recruited her.

There is no written contract, just a verbal one. Basically a part time cleaner. 4 hours/day Tues-Sat at minimum wage (she is over 21+).

She is paid in cash £120/week. I know this means already she is off by £1.60 as NHW is £6.08/hour not £6/hour. Anything is better than nothing for her but I feel she is being taken advantage of.

She has now been told that she will only received £110 per week, as the role she has taken is a full time role and the job is split/shared with another person. This £10 deduction is to make up the other person's tax liabilties. She has no wage slip or anything.

What I don't get is that, she would have never exceeded an individual's tax free allowance of £7475, especially since she has only started this January. Taking this £10, means she is being paid £5.50 an hour because really she is exempt from tax in her own name this tax year 2010/11.

Job sharing - how does one define this in terms of an individual's tax liabilities. One full time position split between 2 workers? Or literally 2 x part time positions?

Comments

  • Mrs_Arcanum
    Mrs_Arcanum Posts: 23,976 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    deutsch wrote: »
    A family member of mine has recently found employment, but I find something very dodgy about the business who has recruited her.

    There is no written contract, just a verbal one. Basically a part time cleaner. 4 hours/day Tues-Sat at minimum wage (she is over 21+).

    She is paid in cash £120/week. I know this means already she is off by £1.60 as NHW is £6.08/hour not £6/hour. Anything is better than nothing for her but I feel she is being taken advantage of.

    She has now been told that she will only received £110 per week, as the role she has taken is a full time role and the job is split/shared with another person. This £10 deduction is to make up the other person's tax liabilties. She has no wage slip or anything.

    What I don't get is that, she would have never exceeded an individual's tax free allowance of £7475, especially since she has only started this January. Taking this £10, means she is being paid £5.50 an hour because really she is exempt from tax in her own name this tax year 2010/11.

    Job sharing - how does one define this in terms of an individual's tax liabilities. One full time position split between 2 workers? Or literally 2 x part time positions?
    Definitely some twaddle going on. You are not responsible for another persons tax, only your own. If the job share means fewer hours then the loss of £10 would perhaps make sense. This would be the ONLY reason.

    I job share & my tax is MY business based on MY pay. This has nothing whatsoever to do with my colleague.
    Truth always poses doubts & questions. Only lies are 100% believable, because they don't need to justify reality. - Carlos Ruiz Zafon, The Labyrinth of the Spirits
  • deutsch
    deutsch Posts: 398 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    what should i really do about this? my family member wants the job and is accepting this £10 loss which wasn't stated from the start.

    is this employer gaining any advantage by declaring they employ one person for one full time job rather than two people for two part time jobs?
    jobs are scarce and he could easily just fire both my family member and the other person and employ someone 16-21 as their NHW is much lower?
  • chrismac1
    chrismac1 Posts: 2,585 Forumite
    One thing worth noting is that above £102 in any given week you are obilged to operate a payroll system. If this is not happening this employer is dodgy solely on those grounds alone. The potential harm the employer is doing employees is that it's quite possible some are earning enough to qualify for a year's credit on the NI system, hence a year's credit towards state pension. But this can only happen when the employer files the end of year returns in May. No PAYE system, no payslips means no state pension record for staff.

    So on at least two counts - NMW and failure to operate PAYE system - this guy has good reason to fear a visit from HMRC. My very first client had a NMW visit and it was not much fun for her even though she had done everything correctly, her employee did not realise that under 18s have a lower NMW. I happen to know that that NMW visit arose solely because the employee's aunt had tipped off HMRC...........
    Hideous Muddles from Right Charlies
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 353.6K Banking & Borrowing
  • 254.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 455.1K Spending & Discounts
  • 246.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 603K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 178.1K Life & Family
  • 260.7K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.