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

dunstonh

Don't understand your logic that you've saved money by doing it yearly so your better off

Accountants usually charge for supplying a payroll and its usually priced on the frequency it is used.  A single payment under payroll will be a very small cost.   Possibly £30 or even absorbed into the total bill.   A monthly payroll will be more expensive.   So, 12 x £30 compared to just £30.

Everyone has a different way of doing business and the saving made i imagine would have gone elsewhere for business reasons 
I doubt anyone had a pandemic pot 

They may not have a pandemic pot but they should have a rainy day pot. 

How many times has anything like this ever happened in the last 40yrs or so ?

Several times.  And previously, there was virtually no support.   Three day week.  Shut downs to reduce power demand during the minor strikes.

I'm personally in the annual pay category 
I should just make it through as long as i go back to work as planned but i could really do with the furlough 
My business like many needs me to be on site so not viable to move online 

If you need a monthly salary to get by then why are you not taking a monthly salary?   

And you only took it in March as a lump sum. Just three months ago.  That was to last you until next March when the next one is due.   

Grumpy_chap

banthetrolls said:

I doubt anyone had a pandemic pot 

Yet the likes of big supermarkets doing better than ever have received grants 

A well run business would have a level of resilience to support through extreme events.


 I understood the premises related grants were only if the company qualified for SBRR, so will not include the big supermarkets.
I doubt the big supermarkets have made much use of CJRS as, essentially, they have been busier than ever.  It is possible that the supermarkets used CJRS to pass support onto staff that were shielding or similar.  If they had not, then the supermarkets would have come in for some right bad press.
What are the grants that you think the big supermarkets received?  Why should they not have those grants?

Jonesy1977

Senna_1st said:

@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😇

A business does not "generate" VAT.  A business generates profits, from which the owners are entitled to dividend as a return on their investment.  A business that generates profits solely (often as an individual contractor/freelancer) through the accounting treatment of minimal PAYE does not create wealth or increased income for the economy, it does however serve the purposes of the owner/director by reducing tax liability and offsetting certain business expenses.  You argument is that you are are essentially asking the taxpayer to assist you in the loss of return on your investment, by the same logic every investor, shareholder and business owner (big and small) should have their dividends (profits) protected.  It seems to me that you are trying to conflate your circumstances with others that have more legitimate arguments.  I really do sympathise here and I am sorry you are hurting but you surely understand what you are demanding?

Grumpy_chap

It is odd that some one can be in business for 27 years and not know whether they are self-employed sole trader or have their own Ltd Co. and not know about tax and confuse VAT with taxes on profits and personal tax.
OR, they do know and cannot be honest to the forum (or even themselves) that the tax reduction in 27 years through Ltd Co. corporation tax, NICs and income tax is far in excess of the SEISS value through being sole trader against the higher tax contribution they would have made in 27 years, but despite the massive savings in tax now feel hard done by that they cannot "have cake and eat it".
There is still hiding behind the NO support mantra, which is not correct:

• CJRS is available but they chose not to claim it
• BBLS or CBILS is available
• tax deferrals available

3 types of support readily available for the asking.  There may be more depending on the detailed circumstances of the business.

jimkelly

All of the above is noted, however you appear (by mentioning dividends of large companies) to be comparing one man band companies like "Joe Bloggs Ltd" with the largest companies in the land.  They are not the same as "Harrods Ltd", "Poundland Ltd" or "BT PLC".

Joe Bloggs Ltd is a self employed person in all but name and must be treated as such when it comes to extraordinary times such as now.

Even more so when previous Governments of the day specifically promoted and encouraged self employed and potential self employed people down the incorporation route.  Remember the 0% starting rate for the smallest companies introduced by the then Chancellor (Gordon Brown)?

I will quote directly from this report - https://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/gb2008/08chap11.pdf
"The starting rate was, according to Budget 1999, introduced to ‘give new incentives for men and women to start their own business’; it was intended to ‘encourage investment and enterprise’ and to promote job growth."

It doesn't mention anything in that report that if someone incorporates versus remaining as self employed, they automatically become a tax dodger.  In fact, it states the opposite because the Labour government later removed the starting 0% rate, and then increased the small companies’ rate in 2008–09 and 2009–10, suggesting that "the government has now acknowledged that creating tax incentives that favour one legal form over another may not be the most sensible way to encourage entrepreneurship."

So, for almost a decade in one way or another, the Labour Government was actively encouraging entrepreneurs to incorporate.

Many of those companies will still be around today, many still operating as one man band or husband/wife partnerships.  

They have been excluded from support not, as the naysayers in this thread would have us believe because they are tax dodgers, but instead because they were actively encouraged to incorporate by the Government of the day.

SpiderLegs

jimkelly said:

Joe Bloggs Ltd is a self employed person in all but name and must be treated as such when it comes to extraordinary times such as now.

Complete and utter drivel.

Jonesy1977

jimkelly said:

I will quote directly from this report - https://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/gb2008/08chap11.pdf
"The starting rate was, according to Budget 1999, introduced to ‘give new incentives for men and women to start their own business’; it was intended to ‘encourage investment and enterprise’ and to promote job growth

I understand your point, your quote however outlines the reason why your argument is floored.  If Joe Bloggs Ltd had been operating for many years and never created jobs (If it has then CJRS helps you) or indeed enterprise (if it is viable then BBLS or CBILS) or investment such as offices (SBRR grant)  but merely created a limited liability umbrella for lower tax contracting/freelancing then yes you are essentially self employed (but not legally) you are getting all the benefits of incorporation but this comes with all the responsibility which includes risk.......

If Joe Bloggs Ltd was unable (or unwilling)  to avail yourself of any of the above support then the company will have to fall back on retained profits (investment funds) which as a legitimate, responsible enterprise will be available

Grumpy_chap

This whole thing about dividends is really a nonsense reason to change the generous support that has been put in place.
A listed company might, if it is doing pretty well, pay a dividend of 4 or 5%.  A 5% yield giving 10k/year would mean an investment value of 200k.
There is no way to differentiate between investment yield from listed companies and private Ltd Co. 
If someone put a thread along the lines of "I only have 200k and got no support" they would be a laughing stock.

Becles

I joined because I've been denied furlough. I have a shielding letter but my employer said I was "choosing not to work" and refused furlough.

I do get some benefits but as a single parent with a mortgage, going from a full time salary to benefits only was a huge drop in household income. 

I don't have much left in savings. In the last couple of years, I've had two major abdominal surgeries that required an extended stay off work on benefits only so I had to live on savings then. This is my third "rainy day" in a short space of time.

I asked both Citizens Advice and ACAS for help to make sure there was nothing else I could claim, and both said I was entitled to furlough but if the employer won't claim it, there's nothing I can do.

I still think it's wrong that the Government never put anything in place to protect the wages of clinically vulnerable employees and allow them to have 80% coming in as others were given.

gary83

Becles said:

I joined because I've been denied furlough. I have a shielding letter but my employer said I was "choosing not to work" and refused furlough.

I do get some benefits but as a single parent with a mortgage, going from a full time salary to benefits only was a huge drop in household income. 

I don't have much left in savings. In the last couple of years, I've had two major abdominal surgeries that required an extended stay off work on benefits only so I had to live on savings then. This is my third "rainy day" in a short space of time.

I asked both Citizens Advice and ACAS for help to make sure there was nothing else I could claim, and both said I was entitled to furlough but if the employer won't claim it, there's nothing I can do.

I still think it's wrong that the Government never put anything in place to protect the wages of clinically vulnerable employees and allow them to have 80% coming in as others were given.

Unfortunately that’s just about right, except perhaps on semantics in that you could be eligible to be furloughed, nobody was entitled to it.

i think this excluded campaign is doing more harm than good for people like the new starters etc. as they’d have more of a chance to campaign by themselves (& to be fair seemed well orchestrated on social media, even if they haven’t seen the result they wanted)

you only have to look at the farcical info graphic produced by excluded U.K. a few pages back to see that by trying to be all things to all people as well as an ability to bend the truth/make outright false statements along with ridiculous claims like people are excluded if they have no staff, as they can’t access the CJRS. bearing in mind the money is claimed on behalf of the employee and handed directly to them. Using that logic, surely I’m one of the excluded? if I had a gardener or a butler I could have claimed taxpayers money and given it directly to them? I think it’s a poorly thought out campaign with toomany glaring errors in their publicity & is doomed to fail.