Are U1of 3million+ #ExcludedUK Getting NO Govt Support? Join us!

gary83

Look at the select Committees track record on affecting changes, whilst the government aim to respond to their reports within 2 months they don’t have to agree with them, or follow their recommendations.

 To give just just one example, On the 26 July 2018 the Treasury select committee published a report saying amongst other things  “Lifetime ISA should be abolished due to its perverse incentives and complexity” nearly two years later LISAs are still available, with no signs of disappearing. There are plenty of other recommendations made by the treasury select committee which have been similarly ignored, A previous chair of the Select Treasury Committee, Nicky Morgan MP pointed out that they’re fairly regularly ignored; “The Treasury has not moved on several of the Committee’s recommendations, or demonstrated an increased sense of urgency required in some key areas identified by the Committee. We will continue to hold the Government to account for its record on improving household finances.”

To hope that a report published on Monday from the Treasury select committee is going to be the catalyst for an immediate u turn on government policy does seem to be particularly desperately or naively clutching at straws, especially when viewing the Chancellors questions when asked about those that have missed out only 24 hours earlier by Sophie Ridge on Sky

https://twitter.com/ridgeonsunday/status/1272090162273628166?s=21

banthetrolls

Correct as they have no power , they can only recommend action 
The important part is since Sunday their has been a big uptake in media coverage 
Something that was previously lacking 
In fact it was Rishi that named dropped Martin Lewis causing him to include Excludeduk in his newsletter
Knock on effect is people joining up here and elsewhere 

As for Rishi's comments - No surprise an MP ignores issues then backtracks later on due to pressure (or footballers)
Been happening since lockdown 
A wide range of people are affected not just LTD company's and it has gained more momentum everyday 

Tammykitty

jimkelly said:

MadMattUK said:

jimkelly said:

@MadMattUK, if you're only reasoning for withholding support from someone in these strange times is because they did something that reduced their tax and NI, then on that basis no self employed person should be eligible for SEISS.

It is not about "denying" help, I have pointed out the fallacy in HartleyHare's position which was claiming that there are not quite hefty benefits to owner/directors taking remuneration as dividend. They also ignore the fact that those people will be better off long term due to doing this even accounting for SEISS.

jimkelly said:

After all, they have purposely made a decision to become self employed versus getting a "proper" job.  That decision means they are paying less tax and NI than an employed person doing the same thing.

Being self employed, or an owner director is a proper job, if you think otherwise that is an issue with your reasoning, not mine. It is not the decision to be self-employed, or an owner/director which means that they pay less tax, it is owner/directors paying themselves via dividend, doing so because it is more tax efficient. 

jimkelly said:

Unless of course, in the good times, they voluntarily overpaid tax to bring them up to the equivalent levels of an employed person?

Not at all, I pay everything due under my self assessment, as a owner/director of a limited company, paying myself largely by dividend, with it not being worth furloughing myself and with not being entitled to SEISS due to not being self-employed. I do not expect, nor petulantly demand handouts from the government. 

jimkelly said:

A somewhat sarcastic reply, but I am trying to demonstrate the ridiculousness of your position.

That shows that you are not willing to engage in rational debate, you are merely playing to the gallery. My point was in reply to HartleyHare claiming that owner/directors to not pay less tax by remunerating themselves via dividend rather than PAYE, do you support their now disproved statement, or do you support the facts? 

The problem is these forgotten people need help now, not in the longer term.

You have completely ignored my point that your rationale is illogical.

Why support any self employed person when they have, up to now, been paying less tax and NI than someone in an employed capacity?

I know the Chancellor has said he is going to address this "anomaly" in the tax system, but on the basis of your "pay lower tax/NI = no support" theory, then why have self employed people been helped?  They also made a conscious decision to do something which reduced their tax/NI.

Also the wording of "proper job" is a well known off-the-cuff comment that self employed people use to refer to those in "normal" employment.  You already knew that though and are just being pedantic.

There is very little difference in the tax paid by the self employed and the employed
Someone earning £25,000 pays £4360 tax and NI and someone self employed pays £4,054.
For the £306 savings - the self employed person is not entitled to any contributions based benefits
They probably don't take 28 days off a year
They have significant risks an employee doesn't have
And as proved at the minute, they do no get anywhere near the same level as support as employees when the rough times hit.
Also if a self employed earns less than £14,500 they actually pay more tax than employees.
A variable paid employee on furlough is entitled to 80%the HIGHER of there pay over the last 12 months, or there pay for the same month last year.
A self employed person gets the AVERAGE of 16/17, 17/18 and 18/19. Therefore most people are getting significantly less than a furloughed employee as for most people their profits will have increased since then!
HMRC are even including losses in working out average profit.

If someone started in 16/17 and incurred £10k of a loss in the first year, and £2k of profits in 17/18 and £8k of profits in 18/19, and £14k of profit in 19/20 - they get zero support!
It should be the HIGHER of the 18/19 or the 3 taxable years at an absolute minimum.

Personally the average means we get £2000 instead of £5400 if it was based on 18/19 as we incurred a lot of bad debt in 16/17 and reported zero profit!

Also self employed people have expenses - insurance still needs paid, professional memberships, loan repayments for tools etc.
The £2000 we have received has completely been used to cover the business expenses and we have got nothing to live on!

Thrugelmir

HartleyHare said:

It really is outdated. The tax advantages of payment by dividends are minimal compared to 20 years ago. For many "micro limited companies" (a relatively new term, I have to admit) and recent startups, payment using a mixture of PAYE salary and dividends is utilised primarily to cope with the peaks and troughs of a variable income stream. 

Not outdated. People are people, always will be. Will be the first to take advantage then be the first to claim foul. Hasn't be a challenging recession in a long time which is going to be a real learning curve for many. Not least proper money management. 

[Deleted User]

Tammykitty said:

There is very little difference in the tax paid by the self employed and the employed
Someone earning £25,000 pays £4360 tax and NI and someone self employed pays £4,054.
For the £306 savings - the self employed person is not entitled to any contributions based benefits

The figures that I was disproving was that owner/directors pay the same (or similar) tax using dividend rather than PAYE, they pay a lot less, nearly 40% less at middle income levels. 

Your example is not quite accurate, someone employed via PAYE on £25,000 pays £4,358 in IC and NI, but the company also has to pay £2,237 in er's NI, which is tax that is paid because of the employee, it is a tax on their earnings, just spun differently by the government by hiding it in er's NI. So the total tax paid is actually £6,595.
For someone who was self employed they would pay £4,130, so whilst only slightly less in direct contribution is two and a half thousand less paid to the treasury, someone who is self employed has to have a taxable income of nearly £32,500 to make the same net tax contribution. This is what the government mean when they say that they will be looking to fix the disparity between self-employed and employed people for the self-employed it is likely that they will pay a combination of ee's and er's.

Tammykitty said:

They have significant risks an employee doesn't have
And as proved at the minute, they do no get anywhere near the same level as support as employees when the rough times hit.

They generally do not have significantly higher risks, sure as a self-employed person they can lose all their income, just as a employee can be made redundant. At the moment self-employed people eligible for SEISS are getting just as good a deal as those on furlough, potentially better as they are allowed to continue working and so could increase their earnings overall.

Tammykitty said:

A self employed person gets the AVERAGE of 16/17, 17/18 and 18/19. Therefore most people are getting significantly less than a furloughed employee as for most people their profits will have increased since then!
HMRC are even including losses in working out average profit.

That is not really true, most people's profits are roughly consistent once they have passed start up stage and the vast majority of self-employed people have passed start up stage, the ones who lose out the most are those with incomes of over £50k pa.

Tammykitty said:

If someone started in 16/17 and incurred £10k of a loss in the first year, and £2k of profits in 17/18 and £8k of profits in 18/19, and £14k of profit in 19/20 - they get zero support!
It should be the HIGHER of the 18/19 or the 3 taxable years at an absolute minimum.

If someone started in 15/16 and since then has made a profit of £30k pa, they would the first maximum of £7,500 and then the second of £6,750, that would mean that if they made more than 20% of their normal profit from trading then they would actually be better off, the same applies for anyone who earns less than £30k pa, though on a sliding scale from £30-50k pa they would need to earn a higher percentage through trading to break even and above £50k pa they obviously get nothing. 
Also it does not make sense for it to be higher, some people's income varies wildly from year to year, nothing to do with being a start up and more to do with the nature of freelance work.

Tammykitty said:

Personally the average means we get £2000 instead of £5400 if it was based on 18/19 as we incurred a lot of bad debt in 16/17 and reported zero profit!

That is unfortunate, but a longer average more reflects the profitability of a business, a one or two year average is more likely to generate anomalies than an three or five year average. 

Tammykitty said:

Also self employed people have expenses - insurance still needs paid, professional memberships, loan repayments for tools etc.

As do limited companies, yet none of those costs are covered by the taxpayer for them either (which is the fairest route in my opinon), they have the same options as the self-employed, pay them from reserves, negotiate payment holidays or borrow to cover the cost.

banthetrolls

FairPlay to Martin Lewis fo calling out the chancellor on TV regarding the numbers 
All good exposure 

Grumpy_chap

Who are the 3 million getting NO government support?

bagyra

Sadly but we are excluded as well, the only reason for that is we have missed deadline to submit 18/19 returns. Not eligible for any help at all. 

Grumpy_chap

bagyra said:

Sadly but we are excluded as well, the only reason for that is we have missed deadline to submit 18/19 returns. Not eligible for any help at all. 

I read from your post that you are self employed sole trader but do not qualify for SEISS because your tax return was submitted late (so you would be eligible but for your own tardiness).  If that is correct, you will still be eligible for:

• deferral of tax payments
• bounce back loan
• possibly premises grants (if the business has premises)
• mortgage / loan payment holidays
• UC subject to criteria

It is entirely incorrect to say "not eligible for any help at all".

banthetrolls

A lot of people fall outside of any council grant - working from home 
Bounce back loans have been an issue for quite a few sole traders 
Universal credit if lucky can be pretty pointless once you realise it’s next to nothing and on a lot of cases nothing 

so your left with deferring tax and payment holidays 
if you have a family and next to no income you can’t defer payment at Sainsbury’s for example 

Simple fact is most are covered but lots have been left high and dry 
Everyone should have been given a lower grant that meant people weren’t left out and struggling while others thriving 
We will all be repaying it one way or another