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

dunstonh

That list of from Excluded is getting ridiculous now.    It includes things totally unaffected by CV19 and things scenarios where no money was paid in the first place so no reason to claim it back or get it deferred.

The campaign will not succeed if it starts making things up and expanding it to areas that are just daft.   It just ends up looking like a greedy money grab attempt (a bit like WASPI).

If you don't have premises - no £10k grant - Of course these people cannot get a grant.  It doesnt make them excluded.  It makes the campaign look stupid.
If you are not in leisure....no £25k grant - common sense as leisure is the most affected by this.  That one comes across as jealousy.
If you dont employ staff - no 80% wages to claim - again this one makes it look stupid.  CJRS is to help cover wages. If you dont have wages to pay there is nothing to offset it against.
If you are a limited company, furloughing yourself means risking your business - no it doesn't.  Directors of limited companies could furlough themselves and continue administration and officer duties. 
if you are a limited company paid annually you cant even furlough yourself - annual pay is a means to reduce costs and take your salary in one go (typically in March).   As March is 9 months away, there is no support needed as things will hopefully be closer to normal by then.   
If you have taken a pension payment - you receive nothing - pensions are unaffected by coronavirus.   So, no support needed.  Taking the 25% part of the pension does not impact on means tested benefits.  Taking the 75% does but it always does.  Nothing wrong with that.  

The tag line is a lie.
"3 million UK taxpayers are losing their livelihoods, careers and homes."    -  That is a lie based on figures that are estimates and fail to take into account people that fall within those groups are not in hardship or do not need support.     If you were to run a Venn diagram on that 3 million, you would find significant overlaps. So, the numbers are being double or even triple counted.  It also includes those that do not need or want support.  Up to 3 million would not be a lie.  Although the figure is likely to be much lower than that.   You would get away with it though if it said "up to".

Campaigns need to be focused and clear and be able to bring public support and stand up to scrutiny.    Over dilute the focus and those with genuine hardship will be the ones that lose out.     Moaning about people pointing out failures or issues in the campaign suggests you don't have answers to holes in the campaign. Lets say it goes to a judicial review.  A judge will ask those sorts of questions.   You need to have answers.  

Jonesy1977

ExcludedUK_NoSupport said:

Grumpy_chap said:

To get NO support, you have to fall into ALL of those groups.  I do not believe that is 3 million people.

The coronavirus support schemes are unbelievably generous.  I have yet to meet any individual anywhere who is getting NO support, except for if they don't chose to claim the support that is available.

You’re basically saying that a group of over 10k are being untruthful then? Sadly you’re wrong and not mixing in circles of people that are affected in this way. Yes I could furlough myself and get £210 pm but then under the restrictions of Directors furlough can only carry out statutory duties. Only ltd on advice of accountant to protect my home when I Invested in my biz & expanded 8 years ago I’ve now downsized but can’t disincorporate due to high vale of equipment I use. I’ve only ever thought of myself as self employed for 27 years the Ltd was a technicality as far as I was aware & concerned like majority of SME’s. Caught between a rock & hard place no other grants that I qualify for all savings used to keep Biz afloat. Thank goodness for my state pension! I’m more fortunate than many as I can start earning at a reduced level in 2 weeks after 16 weeks closed. Many can’t or their sector is closed for many months more. I don’t think you have any understanding of the freelance workforce very few of them have or can be furloughed. I really feel for these short term contractors. Believe me I’ve been shocked at the scams of this! Supply teachers get no furlough or support of any kind the list is endless. If you’re single in rented accommodation with no income for 4-8 months ( events, trade shows, gigs, film, tv have so many behind the scenes crews it’s astonishing. Please have some compassion. Especially when people like my son was furloughed 2 months and saved a shed load not paying for childcare or going out days out Meals out fuel etc 80% was way too much 50 or 60% for higher earners but more for those on minimum wages. Then we wouldn’t have ppl not wanting to go back to work! I potentially wouldn’t either. Madness 
the system is not fit for purpose End of. 

I really do empathise with your post and I understand the strain that this is putting you and many others under but the numbers quoted on this board are just not correct (for the myriad of reasons pointed out by members).   If you are set up a limited company you post (and draw dividend) from profits to reduce your tax liability then you have benefited (often for many years) from effective lower taxation (this is why you set up as a limited co).  As a LTD co contractor/"business",  you may have no employees (you don't need CJRS) , you may have no premises (you don't need the Grant) you do not pay yourself a salary above the minimum (CJRS is of limited value) Your business may not be viable or you may not wish the debt of (BBLS) and you may not be able to access or want the debt of (CBIL).   It may sound harsh and I do not with to sound callous, but the risk was always there that your work would slow down at some point and as you are likely to not have the level of liabilities, fixed costs, or responsibility of employees wages, offices, heating, lighting, software, professional fees, bank fees, technology, insurance etc etc of a genuine business then you cant genuinely expect the Govt to replenish your "profits" as they would then have to look at addressing the profits of all genuine business's in the same way surely?   I am not trying to minimise what you are experiencing but I am genuinely not sure what you think would be "fair" here?

jimkelly

dunstonh said:

if you are a limited company paid annually you cant even furlough yourself - annual pay is a means to reduce costs and take your salary in one go (typically in March).   As March is 9 months away, there is no support needed as things will hopefully be closer to normal by then.   

This particular point was raised in another thread.

Anyone paid annually is obviously ok financially at the current moment in time, as they are able to live off profits from the (previous) 2019/20 tax year.

Support for them is actually needed this time next year, especially if they are in industries like hospitality, when there won't be any 2020/21 income to live off.

As you say, things hopefully should be closer to normal by then, but that money would ordinarily be for use in 2021/22 so there is still a large hole in their finances.

In addition to this, hospitality is spring/summer/autumn focussed so they make all their income for the year in the summer months to then get them through the winter.  This year, they have 3 "winters" in a row - the one just gone, the one we are in at the moment usually called summer and then the winter approaching.  There's no guarantee that 2021 summer season won't be another "winter", so that could be 5 winter periods in a row before summer 2022.

jimkelly

Grumpy_chap said:

banthetrolls said:

Grumpy_chap said:

OK -  so everyone is everyone, including the multi-millionaires.
How much do you suggest we give to everyone as a one-off grant?

Why do you think you have the right to say that I should not be contributing to this discussion?

Your not contributing are you 
Your being pedantic and arguing any point anyone makes 
So again this area of the forum isn’t for you 
You add nothing constructive to what should be a support forum 

I also think such an approach would result in payments going to people that have not been adversely affected by corona virus to the detriment of the people that have been adversely affected. 

Do you mean like CJRS and SEISS were?

Grumpy, perhaps you could comment on my previous post just above yours.  You asked for examples of large numbers affected, I have given you a very good example of a large group of people, notably those in hospitality, but it could actually be anybody who pays themselves yearly.

Grumpy_chap

ExcludedUK_NoSupport said:

Grumpy_chap said:

To get NO support, you have to fall into ALL of those groups.  I do not believe that is 3 million people.

The coronavirus support schemes are unbelievably generous.  I have yet to meet any individual anywhere who is getting NO support, except for if they don't chose to claim the support that is available.

You’re basically saying that a group of over 10k are being untruthful then? Sadly you’re wrong and not mixing in circles of people that are affected in this way. Yes I could furlough myself and get £210 pm but then under the restrictions of Directors furlough can only carry out statutory duties. Only ltd on advice of accountant to protect my home when I Invested in my biz & expanded 8 years ago I’ve now downsized but can’t disincorporate due to high vale of equipment I use. I’ve only ever thought of myself as self employed for 27 years the Ltd was a technicality as far as I was aware & concerned like majority of SME’s. Caught between a rock & hard place no other grants that I qualify for all savings used to keep Biz afloat. Thank goodness for my state pension! I’m more fortunate than many as I can start earning at a reduced level in 2 weeks after 16 weeks closed. Many can’t or their sector is closed for many months more. I don’t think you have any understanding of the freelance workforce very few of them have or can be furloughed. I really feel for these short term contractors. Believe me I’ve been shocked at the scams of this! Supply teachers get no furlough or support of any kind the list is endless. If you’re single in rented accommodation with no income for 4-8 months ( events, trade shows, gigs, film, tv have so many behind the scenes crews it’s astonishing. Please have some compassion. Especially when people like my son was furloughed 2 months and saved a shed load not paying for childcare or going out days out Meals out fuel etc 80% was way too much 50 or 60% for higher earners but more for those on minimum wages. Then we wouldn’t have ppl not wanting to go back to work! I potentially wouldn’t either. Madness 
the system is not fit for purpose End of. 

Apart from your graphic where you confirm that all you want to hear is your opinion from my mouth, there is little else correct in your post.  You have an Accountant and they should be able to explain the support to you.  The fact you have chosen not to avail of some of that support does not mean it was not available.

You say you "think" of yourself as self employed for 27 years, but you were not.  Being self-employed is a fact, you are either sole-trader and complete the self employment pages on your tax return, or you set yourself up as a Ltd Co. and complete the employed pages plus dividend on the tax return.  Self-employment is not simply a case of "thinking" you are or are not.

You now seem to want to "think" yourself self-employed.  That means you could get the SEISS grants, which I understand are a maximum of £14k for both grants announced to date.  It would be sensible to do a calculation of the total income tax + NIC + corporation tax you have paid over 27-years "thinking" self-employed but actually Ltd Co and compare that to the total tax + NIC that would have been paid if you had actually been self-employed through those 27 years.  Please let us know who is the winner on that basis.

Grumpy_chap

jimkelly said:

Grumpy_chap said:

I also think such an approach would result in payments going to people that have not been adversely affected by corona virus to the detriment of the people that have been adversely affected. 

Do you mean like CJRS and SEISS were?

Grumpy, perhaps you could comment on my previous post just above yours.  You asked for examples of large numbers affected, I have given you a very good example of a large group of people, notably those in hospitality, but it could actually be anybody who pays themselves yearly.

Jim, I agree, a number of SEISS & CJRS payments may have gone to people not particularly adversely affected by coronavirus but part of the claims in these cases required a declaration of being impacted (by either the individual or the employer), so they must all have been adversely affected to some degree, or committed fraud. 

What I actually had in mind with the comment about people not being adversely affected was in the context of a payment just being made to everyone at whatever level banthetrolls thinks it should be at (but won't share).  A universal payment to everyone would include:

• employees in sectors that are booming and offering extra shifts because of coronavirus (food retail, face mask manufacturers, domestic delivery drivers, health workers)
• Premier League footballers
• Directors of big business at the same time as they make staff redundant
• Those actually negatively impacted (financially) by coronavirus

So, the "just make a payment to everyone" comment is flawed, but I have been told twice now that by not supporting the idea I should not be here at all (which is just wrong).

Those Directors of their own Ltd Co. who chose to pay themselves yearly do so as (ordinarily) it reduces their costs.  In this occasion it means they may have made themselves ineligible for CJRS (it depends on pay dates) but they are still not left with NO support.  There is BBLS, tax deferrals still available to them right now.  Also, as you acknowledge, if they take a pay date end of March, then the support they might need is not now but in 12 months time.  I do not disagree with you.  It may not need to be universal as some of those businesses will recover and 'boom' when restrictions are lifted so the 12-month figure may not necessarily be impacted - we just do not know at this point in time.

Hospitality is a sector that I have said on other threads may need some 'special case' consideration.  This really does depend on when and how the restrictions are lifted as the sector currently benefits from similar support to the rest of the businesses that are shut down and all sharing a "winter" right now.  Again, this needs future review, not just hurl resources at them today.

The trouble is there are many flaws in the #excluded campaign that those in the campaign are unwilling to hear anything against.  That actually weakens their chance of gaining any success.  The claimed 3 million seems to include a large amount of overlap and there is complete dismissiveness of some of the support that is available, so that the claim can be made that these people are getting NO support.  This also leaves the campaign looking weak and poorly thought out:
If you need help to hold your trousers up and are offered a pair of braces, but refuse and are then offered a length of string and refuse, but are not offered the designer label belt that you really wanted, is it then fair to say offered NO support?

Senna_1st

@Grumpy_chap
I’ll admit it’s an emotive subject when affected personally so perspectives are going to be different. 

I have roughly worked out that over my 27 years in business it’s generated around 1 million in VAT and goodness knows how much in personal & corporation tax. 

None of us ever imagined this crisis occurring so not only has my perception of my employment status been not precise or indeed correct according to criteria under the support schemes. 
But the powers that be who created the support schemes also have no perception of how so small businesses, self employed, freelance that are obliged to be Ltd by main contractors (BBC for instance) and many others actually structurally operate entirely legally within the system that is in place, therefore the gaps or fissures, as Martin Lewis referred to them only a week ago, hence the problems have occurred for so many. 

The aim of my post was to give others in the same boat a place to find support and understanding, I worded this incorrectly in hindsight and the admins here are adjusting it after discussion with me. They feel it’s a valid post as MSE are supportive of the cause. 

The whole crisis & the time I’ve had has been an interesting learning curve as I imagine it has been for many. I’m choosing to learn from it. 

Now if you’ll excuse me I’ll get back to organising getting back to earning a living in two weeks time by booking clients in that are eagerly waiting to have their self esteem treatments again.
No not injectables or nails! 

Good wishes to you going forward😇

Grumpy_chap

Thanks Excluded_UK_NO_Support_Senna_1st
The trouble with the campaign at the moment is relying on a journalist and some opposition politicians who are more interested in their own nests than those truly suffering and allowing that emotion to allow a poorly structured campaign to persist.  
I also think the powers that be know more about how these sectors are structured and made specific policy decisions to exclude some elements, e.g. dividends, from support.
That actually seems fair to me as the dividend thing is structured to avoid NIC payments towards social security so cannot expect to be underwritten by social security.  The overall coronavirus support packages are unbelievably generous in my opinion.

[Deleted User]

Senna_1st said:

I’ll admit it’s an emotive subject when affected personally so perspectives are going to be different. 

If you want to have any chance of success that is the thing you have to put one side, it has to be a rational logical argument, with a costing, even if approximate, detail on levels of support and to whom exactly you wish it to be paid to. It also has to be based on accurate data, the double or triple counting of people affected discredits any wider message that is being pushed. Also any notions of "fairness" need to be put to one side, it sounds like a child complaining that another kid in school got a chocolate bar in their lunchbox, whilst they got sandwiches. Fairness is also highly subjective, the wider electorate rarely have the same idea of fair, it is far better to appeal to them based on something objective, not subjective. That could be along the lines of "If a payment of £X is made to group Y, then that will keep them out of long term unemployment, generating a return, or break even for the treasury, where as if they are unemployed £X millions will be spent on Universal Credit which is a net cost", there presenting a solid cost benefit analysis and rational position, so far the entire campaign seems to be "They got something and I did not, that is not fair, give me something" which just gets people's backs up because it is childish.

The claims "They got a £10k grant towards premises costs", "You do not have premises costs", "Give me £10k, it is not fair" does not help anyone. The same with claiming that it is unfair that if you do not have any staff you can not claim CRJS, if you do not have any staff then you do not have any staff costs, so there is no need for that payment. The "If you were between jobs but your past employer won't furlough you", translates as "You were unemployed, but want full pay comparable to previous employment", etc. The claim that if you started a business within the last three years you will receive nothing is also false, it depends on sole-trader or limited company, how you pay yourself if a limited company, what profit was made if a sole-trader etc. The claims on UC are demonstrably false, as are those relating to CBILS, parental leave, pension payments. To make a cogent argument and try and win support it is best not to allow someone to be able prove your statements false in the first few seconds of their reply which is what "Excluded" has done in much of it's media campaigns, posts, press releases etc. 

Senna_1st said:

I have roughly worked out that over my 27 years in business it’s generated around 1 million in VAT and goodness knows how much in personal & corporation tax. 

This unfortunately is not an argument for help now, using one person's personal position is never useful, I could counter with the fact that I estimate that in 20 years employment I have paid around £400k in personal taxation, my company and previous employers er's NI have paid hundreds of thousands in corporation tax and er's NI because of me and the VAT, who knows, probably over a million, but that VAT is paid by my customers, not me. I do not need help, because I made provision to protect myself in bad times. Personal anecdote will not help in this situation, it has no place, especially if seeking a judicial review. 

Senna_1st said:

None of us ever imagined this crisis occurring so not only has my perception of my employment status been not precise or indeed correct according to criteria under the support schemes. 

I am sure that they did not, shown by the global lock-down and unprecedented financial interventions by governments the world over. However many have been predicting recession, the advice has been to be prepared for a recession, this is very obviously a recession, many of the self-employed and SME owners have made provision to weather a recession. 
Your perception of your employment status, despite being a PAYE and dividend remunerated company director, thinking that you were self-employed is an oddity, again as a personal anecdote it is irrelevant to any wider debate or campaign. 

Senna_1st said:

But the powers that be who created the support schemes also have no perception of how so small businesses, self employed, freelance that are obliged to be Ltd by main contractors (BBC for instance) and many others actually structurally operate entirely legally within the system that is in place, therefore the gaps or fissures, as Martin Lewis referred to them only a week ago, hence the problems have occurred for so many. 

The powers that be created a system that could be launched quickly and implemented efficiently, based on currently held data to mitigate fraud and provide a level of verification. Those individuals may have been required to operate through a limited company, however they chose to pay themselves to via dividend for tax efficiency, that was not forced upon them, and by doing so gained a 20-40% saving on their tax bill.

My view is that if you really want to push this, then you need to pick 1-3 very specific instances, drop the obvious fallacy that "no help" is available for these people, but that the currently available help is not working. The government has changed direction when specific instances have been brought up rationally, reservists returning from deployment can now be furloughed, there are changes to maternity and CJRS and SEISS. The "Excluded" campaign makes a wide variety of claims, many of which can be proven false and others which rely entirely on a subjective emotional assessment of fairness. 

The issue of the newly self employed would probably be a relatively easy win out of all the groups, at least in respect of the 19/20 tax year. It may require a higher level of auditing, but the cost of that could potentially be offset by a lower level of payout to account for that, it might have to be restricted to only those trading using a business bank account so there is a clear separation of income and expenditure. This would probably have a net revenue positive effect for the exchequer over the next three years as these businesses will have made the upfront push, the least profitable time and now would be entering revenue generation and tax payment stages. 

Short-term PAYE contacts may be another, the payout could be averaged over the last three years to take account of the ups and downs of contract work, there is a more rational case for that as it could be argued that it is comparable to self-employment and the only reason it is not genuine self-employment is because of terms imposed by the contract system used.

It would not be a perfect system, more would potentially be helped, perfection should not be the enemy of action. However so far the "Excluded" campaign has been largely based on emotion, lots of proclamations that are either stretching the truth or obviously false, appealing to emotion rather than reason, bundling up everything together in a lump so it all sinks or swims together and it seems to have sunk. Because so much of the claims of it's campaign can be proven false, because it ties what could be deserving cases to others which are not, it may well have sunk the chances of them all. 

It would be wise to disband the "Excluded" campaign, it seems incredibly tainted and whilst it has made a lot of noise it is having no influence on government policy, whilst sucking the air out of the room for potentially winnable changes. As others have said a few, very targeted campaigns may well succeed, presented clearly, in ways that the public can understand and agree with and that the government can see are reasonable, and possibly revenue positive. Would you rather an imperfect victory, or a total defeat?

Grumpy_chap

amykirk1996 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Why do you think you have the right to say that I should not be contributing to this discussion?

Of course you should be contributing, but as the saying goes at the moment "you are part of the problem, quit being part of the problem and start being part of the solution".

A good starting point would be recognising that there are a large number of people, the estimates are 1-3 million but pick a number out of the air of your own choosing if you like, currently forgotten and/or excluded from support.

While I appreciate your permission to now contribute to this discussion (not that I really thought I needed your permission, but thanks all the same), but I find your statement that I am "part of the problem" to be both offensive and ill-informed.

The claim is that there are 3 million with NO support - so I do not understand why they are so hard to find given they are so profligate.  The nearest found so far is people that chose not to take the support they could have taken - that does not equal NO support.  The coronavirus support schemes are extraordinarily generous as far as I can tell.