Universal Credits - Self Employed

MissMoneypenny

Xign wrote: »

What if you got a fit or sick note saying you can only work a certain amount of hours?

I don't think it is just a case of getting the doctor to give you a fit/sick note. You would have to deal with ATOS to get on one of the benefits that give you a 'let out' of the required hours/amount you are expected to do.

John_Pierpoint

Can I just add a thought or three:

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Most farmers cannot distinguish in their minds, between their role as a farmer (a hands on self employed business man who spends a significant part of his/her time doing a physical job) An agri business well versed in all the tax subsidies (IHT exemption, rates exemption, full refund of the 20% VAT charged on all inputs etc.) Landowner the additional ability to capitalise the EU and other subsidies into the land value by upping the rent to extract them from the tenant farmer.
As well as the benefit of all these subsidies there is also the chance of being richer than Croesus, by obtaining change of use and increasing the value of the farm from say £10,000 per acre to as much as £1,000,000 an acre. Hands up any farm owner within 10 miles of the M25 who is not an agri businessman, If the farmhouse is large and attractive the operation might well have been bought with a banking bonus.

Except farmers don't just get handouts from the UK welfare state; they get handouts from the *EU too. 51% of the entire EU budget is spent on farming. Even with the new EU budget cuts due, farmers are still getting the biggest slice of the EU budget; 38% of the EU budget! It's obscene.

Ironically it is VAT (that "farmers" don't pay), which is remitted to Brussels and becomes the major source of the subsidies paid to "farmers" - classic having your cake and eating it.

Many UK farmers claim tax credits too, as they use accountants to massage their figures so that they qualify for these welfare payments; while sending their children to private schools/driving around in new cars. Their wives don't need to do much on the farm (or get a job).

Some "farmers" as well as acquiring a trophy homestead have been acquired by a trophy wife - but heaven (or an expensive lawyer) help him if she seeks a divorce. A tenant farmer is well advised to choose a mate who can hurl bales about.

Someone posted on these boards about the moaning (even more moaning that usual:D) at a farmers union meeting, as they realised UC will mean they can no longer use their accountants figures to claim Tax Credits. Most can easily afford to lose their tax credits, but they have got use to getting this extra money. For those that do rely on their tax credits as they don't have a productive business; their wives don't want to get a job to make us this loss, as they have been use to having the welfare state support their lifestyle.


* EU.
I know a few farmers and thay are all happily amazed at how much they are given from the EU budget. One farmer I knew only had 100 acres, yet just one on the many cheques he got from the EU that year, was 26k. Another was getting £500 each acre, not to grow sugar beet, but he could grow other crops on that same land: imported sugar cane is cheaper; and sugarcane is better than the sugarbeet the EU was growing.

Unlike horse meat, how many traces of DNA can be identified in the chemical C 1 2 H 2 2 O 1 1 - white sucrose and less complex than the indigestible expensive dieting chemicals ? Growing something that looks like a cross between giant couch grass and bamboo in the tropical sunshine 12 months of the year, is self evidently a more productive use per acre than growing root vegetables in northerly Britain. Of course we also have an agreement not to make the corn syrup that makes American food very sweet and fattening - which is also subsidised to keep out tropical sugar, grown by evil people like Cubans.

I recall the first scandals 25 years ago, about EU farming handouts, was the butter scandal; where huge barns of butter were stored. Rather than flood the market and reduce the price of butter for the EU citizens (who had after all, paid the farming handouts) they gave it away to other non-EU countries. And then there was the wine lake scandal. So many scandals like this now with farming, that we have got use to these rip-offs.
Worse than this, dumping the surplus produce in the third world simply bankrupted the local farmers, who then migrated to shanty towns, so we could feed them more subsidised food and create the subsidised "aid industry" and kid ourselves how charitable we all are.
The peasant farms then got bought up and consolidated by agribusiness so that we can enjoy tropical foods flown in for us to eat 365 days a year, regardless of season.
Meanwhile all this global movement of food is spreading a whole host of nasty pests and diseases. You have been warned. Potentially far more dangerous than £10 Irish nags, pumped full of
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenylbutazone
too keep them on their feet long enough to become £500 of hamburgers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Croesus

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/financialservices/money-transfer-and-expat/foreign-ex-for-business/9848277/Maximise-the-farming-Single-Payment-Scheme-for-2013-while-you-can.html

Unfortunately this attempt to identify where payments are going, has been stifled by a "privacy" ruling:
http://farmsubsidy.org/

MissMoneypenny

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Unfortunately this attempt to identify where payments are going, has been stifled by a "privacy" ruling:
http://farmsubsidy.org/

But we all know which lazy countries have their noses well and truely in the EU farming handouts trough and we don't have to look far over the channel to see one of them. Then down and over to the warmer countries to see the other ones who have already; collectively, by using the first letter of their names; been named after farm animal, by other EU countries.

Yamor

Icequeen99 wrote: »

The question is now irrelevant because now the final draft regulations have been published there is no choice given in them.

If you earn less than the MIF, you are subject to it. You can't opt out of it by accepting conditionality. So very few peoplem if any, who are 'gainfully' self-employed (i.e. it is their main employment) will be subject to conditionality because they will be deemed to earn at least the conditionality threshold due to MIF.

Only those who are no gainfully self-employed will be subject to conditionality, but those are people who don't spend all of their time on self-employment anyway.

IQ

Actually, I'm not sure you are correct. Even the original draft regulations published in June didn't say anything about opting out. I think it would be possible to opt out without it being stated clearly in regulations, since if you accept the claiment commitment, and agreeing to look for work, then the self-employment isn't your main employment.

Icequeen99

Yamor wrote: »

Actually, I'm not sure you are correct. Even the original draft regulations published in June didn't say anything about opting out. I think it would be possible to opt out without it being stated clearly in regulations, since if you accept the claiment commitment, and agreeing to look for work, then the self-employment isn't your main employment.

Yes, which is what I was saying at the end. But that would only work if you are not 'gainfully self-employed' which means it isn't your main employment. In that case the MIF wouldn't apply, and as you say you would be subject to conditionality.

What I was saying is there is no choice. Originally, during the parliamentary debates, the Government said that claimants who were subject to the MIF could choose to not have it apply and accept conditionality. That is what we were talking about on this thread, so those who are gainfully self-employed where it is the main activity.

We were talking about people working 35 hours and earning a low amount and that they were to be given the choice of looking for other work and getting full UC or having the MIF applied.

However, that choice is no longer there. Whether you have the MIF applied is dictated by the regulations which base it on the number of hours you work in self-employment. If you work more than half of your expected number, then you are gainfully self-employed.

As far as I can see, that probably means that for the self-employed rather than declaring lots of hours like in tax credits to get extra elements, you would be better off declaring fewer from self-employment in order to keep out of the MIF and accept some form of conditionality (which might include support to grow your business).

IQ

Yamor

I don't think the "over half your expected hours" rule is actually in the regulations.

My thinking was that, perhaps main employment does not include someone, even working 35 hours a week, who, by accepting the claiment commitment, agrees to look for other work.

I think that may be the case, because I can't find anywhere that the government have changed their plans for this, and the fact that already from the original draft of the regulations, no mention was made of the ability to opt-out of the MIF.

Icequeen99

Yamor wrote: »

I don't think the "over half your expected hours" rule is actually in the regulations.

My thinking was that, perhaps main employment does not include someone, even working 35 hours a week, who, by accepting the claiment commitment, agrees to look for other work.

I think that may be the case, because I can't find anywhere that the government have changed their plans for this, and the fact that already from the original draft of the regulations, no mention was made of the ability to opt-out of the MIF.

I think off the top of my head the explanatory notes were where the main employment definition included at least half of your hours and it was in the original draft regs but taken out in the latest version. I think we will see it in guidance, and if that is the case then you wouldn't be able to do as you suggest.

And by its ordinary meaning I think it would be hard to say someone who was working 35 hours a week would not have self-employment as their main employment.

It will be interesting to see how it pans out.

IQ

dktreesea

Icequeen99 wrote: »

Yes, which is what I was saying at the end. But that would only work if you are not 'gainfully self-employed' which means it isn't your main employment. In that case the MIF wouldn't apply, and as you say you would be subject to conditionality.

What I was saying is there is no choice. Originally, during the parliamentary debates, the Government said that claimants who were subject to the MIF could choose to not have it apply and accept conditionality. That is what we were talking about on this thread, so those who are gainfully self-employed where it is the main activity.

We were talking about people working 35 hours and earning a low amount and that they were to be given the choice of looking for other work and getting full UC or having the MIF applied.

However, that choice is no longer there. Whether you have the MIF applied is dictated by the regulations which base it on the number of hours you work in self-employment. If you work more than half of your expected number, then you are gainfully self-employed.

As far as I can see, that probably means that for the self-employed rather than declaring lots of hours like in tax credits to get extra elements, you would be better off declaring fewer from self-employment in order to keep out of the MIF and accept some form of conditionality (which might include support to grow your business).

IQ

From what I can see, that choice is still there.

The regulations at this stage are still draft. For gainful self-employment, the draft states:

Meaning of “gainful self-employment”

64. A claimant is in gainful self-employment for the purposes of regulations 62 and 63 where the Secretary of State has determined that—
(a)the claimant is carrying on a trade, profession or vocation as their main employment;
(b)their earnings from that trade, profession or vocation are self-employed earnings; and
(c)the trade, profession or vocation is organised, developed, regular and carried on in expectation of profit.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2013/9780111531938/part/6/chapter/2/crossheading/gainful-selfemployment

You could meet those requires just by working a couple of days a week at a market or car boot sale. It doesn't mention time spent on the work at all, just that it should be your main employment.

People who meet these requirements, so would normally be subject to the minimum income floor, can still accept conditionality, just by closing down their business and signing on.

Icequeen99

dktreesea wrote: »

From what I can see, that choice is still there.

The regulations at this stage are still draft. For gainful self-employment, the draft states:

Meaning of “gainful self-employment”

64. A claimant is in gainful self-employment for the purposes of regulations 62 and 63 where the Secretary of State has determined that—
(a)the claimant is carrying on a trade, profession or vocation as their main employment;
(b)their earnings from that trade, profession or vocation are self-employed earnings; and
(c)the trade, profession or vocation is organised, developed, regular and carried on in expectation of profit.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2013/9780111531938/part/6/chapter/2/crossheading/gainful-selfemployment

You could meet those requires just by working a couple of days a week at a market or car boot sale. It doesn't mention time spent on the work at all, just that it should be your main employment.

People who meet these requirements, so would normally be subject to the minimum income floor, can still accept conditionality, just by closing down their business and signing on.

Just to clarify the choice we/I was talking about earlier and have talked about in previous threads was for those people actually working 35 hours on self-employment but making a loss/small profit. During the Parliamentary debates the Government said those people would be able to accept some conditionality rather than have the MIF imposed.

I believe that is not the case now. Those people do not have a choice if the self-employment is classed as their main employment. You seem to be suggesting they close down the business, but of course they won't be subject to the MIF in that scenario as they are no longer self-employed.

We will see what happens when guidance etc is published, but I still believe that the position will be someone in that position, working 35 hours with a low profit or loss will be subject to MIF and cannot get out of it by choosing to take some conditionality.

The only way I think you will be able to get out of it will be to try and ensure your self-employment is not classed as your 'main' employment.

IQ

dktreesea

Icequeen99 wrote: »

Just to clarify the choice we/I was talking about earlier and have talked about in previous threads was for those people actually working 35 hours on self-employment but making a loss/small profit. During the Parliamentary debates the Government said those people would be able to accept some conditionality rather than have the MIF imposed.

I believe that is not the case now. Those people do not have a choice if the self-employment is classed as their main employment. You seem to be suggesting they close down the business, but of course they won't be subject to the MIF in that scenario as they are no longer self-employed.

We will see what happens when guidance etc is published, but I still believe that the position will be someone in that position, working 35 hours with a low profit or loss will be subject to MIF and cannot get out of it by choosing to take some conditionality.

The only way I think you will be able to get out of it will be to try and ensure your self-employment is not classed as your 'main' employment.

IQ

There would be people currently who work part time in the PAYE world, but also have a business they run part time. There don't seem to be any sections in the draft legislation that deal with this scenario.

I had had the impression that, if you were working 24 hours a week in your business, under UC the government could require you to be available to work in the PAYE world for the other two days as a condition of getting UC. So even if the minimum allowable working hours were 24 for the household, the government would still require the person to be actively engaged in increasing their working hours. Which isn't what happens now.

Is this addressed anywhere in the draft legislation? An all or nothing scenario for self employment is impractical surely, given that, of the 4.2 million self employed people in the UK, 1.2 million of them are part time (2012 figures). The vast majority of those people probably won't benefit from UC. But even so, there probably would be a significant number of part time self employed people.