More money working part time than full time? Am I going mad?

dktreesea

vinster549 wrote: »

£23k was last years income but every other year has been a lot less and this years will be, probably about £15500 AFTER deductions. So not a great wage. And don't forget that's a yearly income and as I have stated before sometimes he may only bring home £180 in a week.

Being self employed is a great (imho ) way to earn a living. I couldn't stand having a boss, much less having some third party determining whether or not I kept my job. But for sure, it isn't without its risks. Customers - and therefore income - can dry up quite quickly.

Tax credits for self employed people are based on last year's income. Since the 5th of April is fast approaching, could your partner put in his tax return asap, instead of waiting until the deadline, like most self employed who have tax to pay do? The drop in income would then flow through to increasing your benefits from April onwards.

Morglin

SnooksNJ wrote: »

I feel badly for the people who were cut to part time because their policy company plan wasn't Obamacare approved and instead of adding the extra coverage they dropped them to part time so they wouldn't have to pay at all.
As for the Medicaid. I know someone who had IVF and her meds paid for so it's not that basic.

Yes, there seems to be unexpected circumstances with Obamacare - I think some Americans thought it would be something like our NHS, but some employers seem to be exploiting it to save money on healthcare packages.

Lin

pmlindyloo

My concern for the OP would be the self employment issue and Universal Credit.

At the moment she is saying that she will work 25 hours to be eligible for tax credits and earn £160 per week.

This equates to little more than minimum wage and no account seems to have been taken for expenses when she completes her tax form. These are likely to bring her under the minimum wage 'rule' which comes in under Universal Credit.

Plus, I do not believe that the OP has factored in her costs of setting up her business and the 'extras' that she will need - liability insurance etc etc. She will also need some kind of income protection in case she is ill and cannot work for a while.
Out of work benefits would be available but she would see a drop in income and lose the working tax credit.

It sounds to me as if OP's partner is not really self employed in the true sense of the word. Rather that he contracts his services to a company. Not sure that he even supplies his own equipment/car. He may be far better off going truly self employed and earning more money this way. His salary is low for the hours he is doing.

Their idea of being better off financially may come back to 'bite them'.

Plus, (tongue in cheek) if OP works from home the two of them being there may mean she will be busier than ever as it may be difficult to detach yourself from the child care/housework even if dad is there!

dktreesea

Just because you are a sub contractor, say to a builder, doesn't make you any less self employed. Take thse guys, for instance:
http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/investigations/2013/05/self-employed-subbies-face-lon.html
That's typical of arrangements in that industry for people who possibly have more of a claim to being employed rather than self employed than the OP's partner.

Once you get to providing specialist services, e.g. window fitting, to a builder, the degree of separation from an employed or self employed perspective becomes even greater than, say, being a carpenter employed on the build from the start of the construction.

cattermole

The reality is though, most workers in that position have no choice if they want the work to continue, what can they do? My brother-in-law has been in this position for years, he does a specialist service tied to the same contractor and has no choice. The would just find someone else who was prepared to work on that basis i.e. self employed. So at the mercy of the contractor, no holiday pay, no work for certain periods, no sick pay. He can't afford to have more than a weeks time off a year.

Look at all the APPCO companies that are making everyone have to be self-employed selling door to door how the hell they get away with that is beyond me!? The HMRC don't seem in the slightest bit bothered about it either. Yet it is supposed to be them that determines whether you are self employed or not.

dktreesea

cattermole wrote: »

The reality is though, most workers in that position have no choice if they want the work to continue, what can they do? My brother-in-law has been in this position for years, he does a specialist service tied to the same contractor and has no choice. The would just find someone else who was prepared to work on that basis i.e. self employed. So at the mercy of the contractor, no holiday pay, no work for certain periods, no sick pay. He can't afford to have more than a weeks time off a year.

Look at all the APPCO companies that are making everyone have to be self-employed selling door to door how the hell they get away with that is beyond me!? The HMRC don't seem in the slightest bit bothered about it either. Yet it is supposed to be them that determines whether you are self employed or not.

But surely that's the same for any working person - be they employed or self employed? If you want your income to continue, at a minimum you have to continue whatever it is you are doing to earn a crust.

bll78

FBaby wrote: »

And ironically that is the whole point of my posts, that people SHOULD prepare themselves for the possible unforeseen events they might face in their lives instead of thinking of what is best for them now and ignoring what could be. Nor all can be protected against bur a lot can be and working more than is financially required in the present to allow for what might be required later is being sensible and another way to be there for our children.

The problem with this is you get penalised for doing so. I was fortunate enough to see my illness getting worse 15 years ago, so I ensured I had a pension that paid out well in the event that I became too ill. As I got worse, I left the house I owned (4 storey) to buy another and make it disabled friendly. I also cleared all my debts and tried to get rid of as much of my mortgage as possible.
All very sensible you'd think, except if I'd spent my wages on going on nice holidays whilst I was still able to do so, instead of planning for my future, I'd be £4,000 a year better off on benefits sat at home. I also would have been moved to social housing, and could have had a grant to make my house disabled friendly (I spent over £10,000 of my wages on renovation). So basically I missed out on doing my bucket list whilst I could, to be worse off financially now. I do however have that warm feeling of knowing that although I get DLA, and possibly WTC next year, I am still paying tax and have fought like hell to stay in work, when everyone told me I'd never manage it.
I also wrote to Iain Duncan-Smith and Ed Milliband to say, how come I'm penalised for trying to be self-sufficent as possible, and guess what- I've had no response.

dktreesea

bll78 wrote: »

The problem with this is you get penalised for doing so. I was fortunate enough to see my illness getting worse 15 years ago, so I ensured I had a pension that paid out well in the event that I became too ill. As I got worse, I left the house I owned (4 storey) to buy another and make it disabled friendly. I also cleared all my debts and tried to get rid of as much of my mortgage as possible.
All very sensible you'd think, except if I'd spent my wages on going on nice holidays whilst I was still able to do so, instead of planning for my future, I'd be £4,000 a year better off on benefits sat at home. I also would have been moved to social housing, and could have had a grant to make my house disabled friendly (I spent over £10,000 of my wages on renovation). So basically I missed out on doing my bucket list whilst I could, to be worse off financially now. I do however have that warm feeling of knowing that although I get DLA, and possibly WTC next year, I am still paying tax and have fought like hell to stay in work, when everyone told me I'd never manage it.
I also wrote to Iain Duncan-Smith and Ed Milliband to say, how come I'm penalised for trying to be self-sufficent as possible, and guess what- I've had no response.

But when you look into the future, you can't depend on the benefits regime as we know it continuing. Not even the pensioners. You were wise therefore to prepare at your own expense. At least you have been able to ensure the outcome.

Benefits are headed down a slippery slope whoever comes to power. As long as they don't increase in line with inflation (the current situation) the buying power will steadily erode over time.

cattermole

The reason you got no response is because an MP cannot reply to anyone else other than their constituent.

If you had written to your own MP you would have got a response (assuming neither are your MP). That is how are system works. Your MP will forward it on to the relevant department with their comments and/or minister involved and you will be forwarded a reply. In some instances if an MP can help on a local level they will contact on your behalf as well. If you want a response from the opposition Party on a general matter then you would need to speak to the Party themselves.