Is the Universal credit a double edged sword for self employed with kids?

homeriscool

Dunroamin wrote: »

Running a business involves more than actually doing the work. The OP ( and anyone in his position) should be spending time advertising his services, looking for new customers and investigating new avenues.

Just settling for cutting a few people's lawns each week isn't what running a business is all about.

I totally agree with this statement. However i don't know your circumstances but were i live is the northwest with a high unemployment rate.

Its not really a matter of building an empire and having everyone working for me and i rake in thousands of pounds. Its more like SURVIVAL so my kids don't go without the basic needs and have a reasonable quality of life.

And because so many other one - man bands are all out doing the same thing "SURVIVING" its impossible to build a large business because everyone's got a slice of the pie.

This is the real world im afraid.

claire16c

Can you wife not look for a job that is term time only hours?

I.e school dinner lady/playground assistant/admin work in school etc?

Even some supermarkets let you do those type of hours.

Lilyann

claire16c wrote: »

Can you wife not look for a job that is term time only hours?

I.e school dinner lady/playground assistant/admin work in school etc?

Even some supermarkets let you do those type of hours.

How funny, if only it was that easy. No working parent would even need childcare would we?

mrcomment

I'm sure there are some claimaints for Work Tax credits who are self employed, yet
for years the income is always low enough to get maximum amounts, eg 30 hrs worked and the income 5000.00 - ish pa for years.

The Government think it is either ..fraud, ie self employed 'taxi drivers' pocketing fares without declaring or two; grand incompetence. So I think there should be a grace period where a business is allowed and given a chance to grow, but there has to be a time where a claimaint should accept they aren't going to be the next Alan Sugar and go get a proper paying job and stop sponging off the tax paying public.

princessdon

mrcomment wrote: »

I'm sure there are some claimaints for Work Tax credits who are self employed, yet
for years the income is always low enough to get maximum amounts, eg 30 hrs worked and the income 5000.00 - ish pa for years.

The Government think it is either ..fraud, ie self employed 'taxi drivers' pocketing fares without declaring or two; grand incompetence. So I think there should be a grace period where a business is allowed and given a chance to grow, but there has to be a time where a claimaint should accept they aren't going to be the next Alan Sugar and go get a proper paying job and stop sponging off the tax paying public.

They have 12 months as a grace. For current claimants - years due to time it takes and protection.

dktreesea

mrcomment wrote: »

I'm sure there are some claimaints for Work Tax credits who are self employed, yet
for years the income is always low enough to get maximum amounts, eg 30 hrs worked and the income 5000.00 - ish pa for years.

The Government think it is either ..fraud, ie self employed 'taxi drivers' pocketing fares without declaring or two; grand incompetence. So I think there should be a grace period where a business is allowed and given a chance to grow, but there has to be a time where a claimaint should accept they aren't going to be the next Alan Sugar and go get a proper paying job and stop sponging off the tax paying public.

If they were working just as a PAYE person would, selling their labour for whatever they can get for it and having few expenses incurred that were claimable to offset against the cost, then I would agree with you. Working for £3 an hour just because you get to work for yourself and enjoy a £20k after tax top up from the government each year is possibly a lifestyle choice. I say possibly, because a lot of self employment happens when people want to work but can't get a job in the "working for someone else" world.

But you could equally have a business turning over £100k and declaring £5k in profits after paying for premises, stock, broadband, even a couple of leased cars. Maybe even one or two part time staff. Yes, that's a heavily subsidised business, but by the same token it is also generating revenue for other parts of the economy. That could be a business that isn't progressing beyond this point, even though it is profitable and likely to remain so, because of lack of capital to invest.

It will be interesting to see if the government bite the bullet and implement their plans for the self-employed in the current form. If they thought it would force these kinds of businesses, particularly the ones that employ people, out of business, they might get cold feet.

dktreesea

princessdon wrote: »

They have 12 months as a grace. For current claimants - years due to time it takes and protection.

Current claimants may well have years yet, because the rate the IT systems for UC are meant to be going, I would be surprised if they are ready in time. However in the first debate below, they refer to a 6 month transition time, once UC goes live.

There was this debate in the House of Lords a couple of days ago on the UC.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2013-02-13a.664.3&s=cycling
A bit long winded, but I was struck by a comment in one of the speeches:

"Iain Duncan Smith, I think, believes that poverty is primarily a moral failing. Like the Victorians, he is insisting that the poor must always live in the light and display their income and behaviour for scrutiny by their betters; that is, young, local office staff with often little experience of difficult lives." (Baroness Hollis)

And then later, this caught my eye:

"(However, what I find most outrageous is) the requirement that in order to qualify for a hardship payment, claimants must make,
"every effort to cease to incur any expenditure which does not relate to ... their immediate and most basic needs".

Those are defined as accommodation, heating, food and hygiene." (Baroness Lister)

However the government try to claim it isn't so, this seems to me to be at the very heart of the reforms. Benefit should only be provided sufficiently to cover the very basic needs, and nothing beyond those needs. Furthermore, if you want these benefits you have to be prepared for every aspect of your life to be stripped down and scrutinised.

I am starting to wonder if a Conservative led government will be returned at the next general election. While the population may well put up with the unemployed being treated as scroungers by the government and taken to task, I doubt if those same people will take so kindly to the same scrutiny being applied to in work claimants.

claire16c

Lilyann wrote: »

How funny, if only it was that easy. No working parent would even need childcare would we?

Er you would if you worked full time.

I see jobs like that advertised near me all the time.

One school near me was advertising for a lunch time job for around 2 months before they found someone and the pay was way more than minimum wage I think it was around £9-10ph.

FBaby

Lilyann wrote: »

How funny, if only it was that easy. No working parent would even need childcare would we?

How funny to conceive a world where one should only undertake activities that are easy and expect others to support you if you have to try a bit harder....

Poppie68

Lilyann wrote: »

How funny, if only it was that easy. No working parent would even need childcare would we?

Whats so funny? 2 schools in my area are both advertising for playgound/dinner assistants. Also bar jobs and evenng waitress jobs being advertised. Evening cleaners needed, weekend care home carers...a bit of a list actually. Oh and im in the North West.