Invest Bounce Back Loan For A Year?

blue_max_3

kinger101 said:

blue_max_3 said:

colsten said:

Is the reason you can't get anything that you have been paying yourself dividends, as this was more advantageous for tax purposes?

Of course my pay is partly dividends. You'll have to believe me that there is nothing in it - we could have a long discussion, but don't want to pollute this thread. I had to go Limited for a contract many years ago now and the accountant always said there was no reason to change as no advantage/disadvantage on my income. If I earned a good wage, I would be slightly better off.

If there was no advantage to being paid in dividends via a company instead of being a salaried employee, then one would be an employee.  

I’m self employed. I work for a number of companies. I don’t get holiday pay. I don’t get sick pay. I don’t get a pension contribution. I don’t get unemployment benefit. I can be dropped by a company without any notice. I have the same allowances as everyone on my earnings and pay corporation tax on my dividends. 
I’ll grant you that if I earn 30k or above, it starts to be more advantageous, but I and many don’t.
As said, some companies or contracts will only deal with limited companies. It’s a requirement. This is not some ruse. Look up Marin Lewis’s video on help for the self employed (the one for limited companies). That will tell you all you know. Understanding is better than regurgitating some predjudice born out of ignorance.
We were excluded because the chancellor couldn’t identify who earned the dividends and who secured them from shares. 

Don’t forget the point was to pay people to stay at home to protect the NHS. You’d be wrong to think we don’t need the help. https://youtu.be/BWDNg7-yB9Y

colsten

blue_max_3 said:

 the accountant always said there was no reason to change as no advantage/disadvantage on my income

The accountant clearly didn't consider where your income would come from if you were suddenly dependent on payments from the State......

blue_max_3

colsten said:

blue_max_3 said:

 the accountant always said there was no reason to change as no advantage/disadvantage on my income

The accountant clearly didn't consider where your income would come from if you were suddenly dependent on payments from the State......

He couldn’t read Richi Sunak’s mind, no. In normal circumstances, the self employed wouldn’t have any help either.
I’ve made my case, but it seems you want us burned at the stake for some reason you can’t quite articulate. To further explain, we effectively get paid once a year after we know how much we’ve earned. It varies every year. Our dividend is a reflection of how we did. You can’t take out more than you earned.
Because I have to take responsibility for my own financial position, I am not vulnerable. In fact I am sure I am in a better position than many furloughed people facing an uncertain future. I do believe we should try to unite and not divide during this crisis.

kinger101

blue_max_3 said:

kinger101 said:

blue_max_3 said:

colsten said:

Is the reason you can't get anything that you have been paying yourself dividends, as this was more advantageous for tax purposes?

Of course my pay is partly dividends. You'll have to believe me that there is nothing in it - we could have a long discussion, but don't want to pollute this thread. I had to go Limited for a contract many years ago now and the accountant always said there was no reason to change as no advantage/disadvantage on my income. If I earned a good wage, I would be slightly better off.

If there was no advantage to being paid in dividends via a company instead of being a salaried employee, then one would be an employee.  

I’m self employed. I work for a number of companies. I don’t get holiday pay. I don’t get sick pay. I don’t get a pension contribution. I don’t get unemployment benefit. I can be dropped by a company without any notice. I have the same allowances as everyone on my earnings and pay corporation tax on my dividends. 
I’ll grant you that if I earn 30k or above, it starts to be more advantageous, but I and many don’t.
As said, some companies or contracts will only deal with limited companies. It’s a requirement. This is not some ruse. Look up Marin Lewis’s video on help for the self employed (the one for limited companies). That will tell you all you know. Understanding is better than regurgitating some predjudice born out of ignorance.
We were excluded because the chancellor couldn’t identify who earned the dividends and who secured them from shares. 

Don’t forget the point was to pay people to stay at home to protect the NHS. You’d be wrong to think we don’t need the help. https://youtu.be/BWDNg7-yB9Y

You're drip feeding information.  I was just pointing out it's never really a 50/50 position.  If your accountant told you otherwise, I'd find another one. 

In response to your reply from Colsten, as director of your own company, you can pay yourself a wage.    

colsten

blue_max_3 said

I’ve made my case, but it seems you want us burned at the stake for some reason..........

............
.............


Because I have to take responsibility for my own financial position, I am not vulnerable. In fact I am sure I am in a better position than many furloughed people facing an uncertain future. 

So what is it - are you “burning at the stake”, or are you “not vulnerable” and “in a better position than many furloughed people”?

BTW, I am also not entitled to any corona-money but I am not whining about it. 

blue_max_3

kinger101 said:

You're drip feeding information.  I was just pointing out it's never really a 50/50 position.  If your accountant told you otherwise, I'd find another one. 

In response to your reply from Colsten, as director of your own company, you can pay yourself a wage.    

Well, the thread wasn't about my situation. I was just pointing out that the shouts of immorality being levied against the idea of accepting what the government was offering, was a bit hypocritical. And there was no judgement that furloughed people had to prove they actually needed the help. They just got it. Why is this any different?
And to colsten, I'm not whining about anything. I'm making the point that we haven't started in a position of fair. Tempted to get the loan myself now.

kinger101

blue_max_3 said:

kinger101 said:

You're drip feeding information.  I was just pointing out it's never really a 50/50 position.  If your accountant told you otherwise, I'd find another one. 

In response to your reply from Colsten, as director of your own company, you can pay yourself a wage.    

Well, the thread wasn't about my situation. I was just pointing out that the shouts of immorality being levied against the idea of accepting what the government was offering, was a bit hypocritical. And there was no judgement that furloughed people had to prove they actually needed the help. They just got it. Why is this any different?
And to colsten, I'm not whining about anything. I'm making the point that we haven't started in a position of fair. Tempted to get the loan myself now.

The loan is offered base on certain criteria.  They OP's intended use didn't meet these criteria so there's nothing to accept without making a fraudulent declaration.  As for furloughed people, government policy has effectively cost them their regular income by implementing social distancing measures it believes necessary to mitigate the spread of the virus.  You might argue the same, but parliament never intended people to take earned income from their trade as dividends.  Why should the government compensate you as a shareholder in your own personal service company any more than they should compensate shareholders of IAG for example.       

blue_max_3

kinger101 said:

The loan is offered base on certain criteria.  They OP's intended use didn't meet these criteria so there's nothing to accept without making a fraudulent declaration.  As for furloughed people, government policy has effectively cost them their regular income by implementing social distancing measures it believes necessary to mitigate the spread of the virus.  You might argue the same, but parliament never intended people to take earned income from their trade as dividends.  Why should the government compensate you as a shareholder in your own personal service company any more than they should compensate shareholders of IAG for example.       

I don't understand why you think the government don't understand the rules they make. They have actively reduced the amount you can earn from dividends, tax free from 5k to 2k. That sounds like they are aware to me. If they abolish it, maybe we will have to find another way to run our companies. We're not exactly tax exiles! Not sure what you mean by shareholders of IAG, but if they can't differentiate, then that's for them to work out. I listed the benefits employees are entitled to. That is why you pay a little more tax. Oh, and try and get a mortgage when you're self employed. You'd soon see it isn't a bed of roses.
But remember the point - to compensate people to stay at home. We have no choice than to work if we can. And that is surely not what is required.
And I'd argue that being denied an income is fraudulent too.

kinger101

blue_max_3 said:

kinger101 said:

The loan is offered base on certain criteria.  They OP's intended use didn't meet these criteria so there's nothing to accept without making a fraudulent declaration.  As for furloughed people, government policy has effectively cost them their regular income by implementing social distancing measures it believes necessary to mitigate the spread of the virus.  You might argue the same, but parliament never intended people to take earned income from their trade as dividends.  Why should the government compensate you as a shareholder in your own personal service company any more than they should compensate shareholders of IAG for example.       

I don't understand why you think the government don't understand the rules they make. 

What parliament intends and what's written in statute are sometimes not the same.  Your accountant knew this when he suggested you extract money from your company in the form of dividends, thereby reducing your tax liability.  Government understands the loopholes, and has little sympathy for those engaged in tax avoidance.   

You can't have had any inkling that this Covid situation would happen, but it's a bit rich to expect the same treatment as the self employed and employees when you've decided you didn't want the same rules of taxation to apply to yourself.

blue_max_3

kinger101 said:

blue_max_3 said:

kinger101 said:

The loan is offered base on certain criteria.  They OP's intended use didn't meet these criteria so there's nothing to accept without making a fraudulent declaration.  As for furloughed people, government policy has effectively cost them their regular income by implementing social distancing measures it believes necessary to mitigate the spread of the virus.  You might argue the same, but parliament never intended people to take earned income from their trade as dividends.  Why should the government compensate you as a shareholder in your own personal service company any more than they should compensate shareholders of IAG for example.       

I don't understand why you think the government don't understand the rules they make. 

What parliament intends and what's written in statute are sometimes not the same.  Your accountant knew this when he suggested you extract money from your company in the form of dividends, thereby reducing your tax liability.  Government understands the loopholes, and has little sympathy for those engaged in tax avoidance.   

You can't have had any inkling that this Covid situation would happen, but it's a bit rich to expect the same treatment as the self employed and employees when you've decided you didn't want the same rules of taxation to apply to yourself.

I take it you are an accountant and actually know what you are talking about? Maybe you can illustrate how much less tax is paid via this route v self-employment v employment on a salary of 20k. I'd hate to think you were truly clueless.