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

aitchieb

Been self employed for about thirty years, often employed and self employed. I miss out on help as self employed work just less than employed work for 2018/19. We have all sent self assesments to HMRC and paid our tax - why can’t we be given a percentage of that to help us. I work in hospitality, unlikely to work this year. I know so many self employed who are getting SEISS and still working....double bubble. Why the 50% rule...makes no sense.
just because I’m not working doesn’t mean I don’t need have bills.

Grumpy_chap

If you are self-employed for 30 years and fail the 50% test on 2018-19, then it should be re-tested on the total of three years 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19.

I think the 50% test is there to exclude those not really self-employed, for example full time job but sell a little bit on auction website.

amykirk1996

"What HMRC's ‘pay-now clawback later’ contractor dividends policy might look like"
https://www.contractoruk.com/coronavirus/covid19_what_hmrcs_pay_now_clawback_later_contractor_dividends_policy_might_look.html

Jonesy1977

amykirk1996 said:

"What HMRC's ‘pay-now clawback later’ contractor dividends policy might look like"
https://www.contractoruk.com/coronavirus/covid19_what_hmrcs_pay_now_clawback_later_contractor_dividends_policy_might_look.html

This would be an absolute nightmare to administer and fraud would be rife, the ability to claw back would be limited to those “contractors” who continue to trade under ltd companies as many would simply cease trading and under company law avail themselves of limited liability.  I do not disagree that Financial help is needed and now, perhaps one option would be to ensure that any contractor that accesses funds would have to use an umbrella moving forward Rather than ltd co and PAYE at source, the govt want this anyway (IR35) maybe there is a way to kill to birds and help contractors?

boyleminer

The people being negative towards the excluded, there are a lot of ex military people in our group. Your saying people who put their lives on the line for your country are not worthy of your support or the countries support. Remember that the next time you’re saying ‘least we forget’ 

[Deleted User]

boyleminer said:

The people being negative towards the excluded, there are a lot of ex military people in our group. Your saying people who put their lives on the line for your country are not worthy of your support or the countries support. Remember that the next time you’re saying ‘least we forget’ 

Nice bit of trolling there. Someone can agree that the "Excluded" campaign is fundamentally and critically flawed and still support current and ex-Servicemen. The problem with the "Excluded" campaign is that it is factually inaccurate in many areas, makes vast misrepresentations on issues, double counts people, includes people in it's figures who do not need or want help and is ultimately so incoherent that it does not have a solid message, cause or goal ("Give a vast, imprecise group of people" is not an goal).

Specific targeted change campaigns have worked very well, examples relating to the military could be that that reserves returning from deployment are eligible for furlough even after the scheme was open to new entrants, that many military personnel due to leave the armed forces were allowed to delay their departures, the changes to maternity and furlough, Rashford's school mean voucher extension etc. 

There are major issues with the way the armed forces fails to help ex-servicemen to adapt to and integrate into civilian life, that should be addressed, Covid-19 has no bearing on that, the military covenant needs to be strengthened. Just because people support greater help for ex-forces personnel does not mean that they have to support "Excluded", the two have no connection. 

[Deleted User]

Jonesy1977 said:

amykirk1996 said:

"What HMRC's ‘pay-now clawback later’ contractor dividends policy might look like"
https://www.contractoruk.com/coronavirus/covid19_what_hmrcs_pay_now_clawback_later_contractor_dividends_policy_might_look.html

This would be an absolute nightmare to administer and fraud would be rife, the ability to claw back would be limited to those “contractors” who continue to trade under ltd companies as many would simply cease trading and under company law avail themselves of limited liability.  

That scheme looks like it would require tens or even perhaps hundreds of thousands of man hours to administer and as you say fraud would be rife, perhaps even outstripping genuine claims. 

It is also clear that the government will not do anything involving dividend. The CJRS made sense in that it maintains the employment chain, stops mass unemployment and keeps companies viable to recover in the rebound, it was paid to benefit a group (employees), who also pay the highest tax rate and have that taxation closely regulated.

The SEISS makes slightly less sense from an economic perspective, those people will not become "unemployed", they will lose income, but they will resume their normal work when industry reopens, although it does have the benefit of not dampening economic activity, some of this this group, perhaps even the majority, may actually end up being better off as they are allowed to continue to work and earn, so if they make more than 20% of normal profit (or upwards, depending on exact income level), then they will be better off net, they also pay less tax (largely due to no er's NI), but it is fairly obvious that this will be changed in the next budget, with the self employed paying the same, or very similar income taxation to the employed.

Bailing out dividend makes very little sense, regardless of how some people have been using dividend it is classed and largely remains a return on investment. Any scheme to bail out dividend would be rife with complications (have people already received CJRS funds being just the first, the linked article make claim that PAYE and dividend should be taken as one for the purposes of a dividend grant), hugely bureaucratic to administer, open to fraud and frankly unlikely to gain much public sympathy. In terms of tax it attracts a considerably lower rate of taxation, resulting in savings from 20-40% depending on how much you receive, with people earning <£50k pa making a saving of nearly 40% (even when accounting for Corporation Tax paid before dividend can be distributed). That makes it not only politically nonviable to do as there would be complaints of people getting handed far more than they contribute (especially when they do not pay NI on dividend). It would also add a lot of pressure to increase taxation on dividend, something which this government especially would not want to do, but also which would be bad for the economy overall.

For context, I am a limited company owner/director, who is largely remunerated through dividend, it makes no sense to furlough myself as the amount would be so small as to be negligible. I do not support the "Excluded" movement because it is a convoluted mess of statements which vary from inaccurate to complete lies, one only has to look at the info-graphics it produces to be able to instantly discredit it.

There are elements of it that I agree with, support for people who started self-employment in the 19/20 tax year being one, people who operate on short term PAYE contracts being another, but I cannot support the "Excluded" campaign. If those groups were to run separate public campaigns they may well have considerable traction by now and perhaps even gained concessions from the government, but because they chose to ally themselves with a group which discredits itself by it's own proclamations then they may have already fatally doomed their cause. 

jimkelly

Three possible solutions previously mentioned.

For new starters, if they can prove they had an offer of employment from new employer and they show their P45 from previous employer, why not give them support based on 80% of their wage from last year or the last 3 years?  That could be one solution for them.

For micro limited companies who require support, so that the government can avoid the dividend issue, why not introduce some form of grant for those with a turnover of less than £100k or £300k or £500k, something like that?  It could be similar to the Discretionary grant in that you wouldn't be eligible if you've had support through the other schemes.  Easy to administer based on company returns.

For newly self employed, it's more difficult but something akin to the 0% starting rate could be reintroduced here alongside the first option above re new starters.  If they were previously employed, proof of wages from previous employer.

dunstonh

boyleminer said:

The people being negative towards the excluded, there are a lot of ex military people in our group. Your saying people who put their lives on the line for your country are not worthy of your support or the countries support. Remember that the next time you’re saying ‘least we forget’ 

Pathetic troll attempt.  You signed up to post that rubbish?

There is not blanket negativity to the excluded campaign.   Just negativity towards the way they are putting some people into it who are not suffering or groups that are just daft to be included.

boyleminer

MadMattUK said:

boyleminer said:

The people being negative towards the excluded, there are a lot of ex military people in our group. Your saying people who put their lives on the line for your country are not worthy of your support or the countries support. Remember that the next time you’re saying ‘least we forget’ 

Nice bit of trolling there. Someone can agree that the "Excluded" campaign is fundamentally and critically flawed and still support current and ex-Servicemen. The problem with the "Excluded" campaign is that it is factually inaccurate in many areas, makes vast misrepresentations on issues, double counts people, includes people in it's figures who do not need or want help and is ultimately so incoherent that it does not have a solid message, cause or goal ("Give a vast, imprecise group of people" is not an goal).

Specific targeted change campaigns have worked very well, examples relating to the military could be that that reserves returning from deployment are eligible for furlough even after the scheme was open to new entrants, that many military personnel due to leave the armed forces were allowed to delay their departures, the changes to maternity and furlough, Rashford's school mean voucher extension etc. 

There are major issues with the way the armed forces fails to help ex-servicemen to adapt to and integrate into civilian life, that should be addressed, Covid-19 has no bearing on that, the military covenant needs to be strengthened. Just because people support greater help for ex-forces personnel does not mean that they have to support "Excluded", the two have no connection. 

dunstonh said:

boyleminer said:

The people being negative towards the excluded, there are a lot of ex military people in our group. Your saying people who put their lives on the line for your country are not worthy of your support or the countries support. Remember that the next time you’re saying ‘least we forget’ 

Pathetic troll attempt.  You signed up to post that rubbish?

There is not blanket negativity to the excluded campaign.   Just negativity towards the way they are putting some people into it who are not suffering or groups that are just daft to be included.

dunstonh said:

boyleminer said:

The people being negative towards the excluded, there are a lot of ex military people in our group. Your saying people who put their lives on the line for your country are not worthy of your support or the countries support. Remember that the next time you’re saying ‘least we forget’ 

Pathetic troll attempt.  You signed up to post that rubbish?

There is not blanket negativity to the excluded campaign.   Just negativity towards the way they are putting some people into it who are not suffering or groups that are just daft to be included.

dunstonh said:

boyleminer said:

The people being negative towards the excluded, there are a lot of ex military people in our group. Your saying people who put their lives on the line for your country are not worthy of your support or the countries support. Remember that the next time you’re saying ‘least we forget’ 

Pathetic troll attempt.  You signed up to post that rubbish?

There is not blanket negativity to the excluded campaign.   Just negativity towards the way they are putting some people into it who are not suffering or groups that are just daft to be included.

dunstonh said:

boyleminer said:

The people being negative towards the excluded, there are a lot of ex military people in our group. Your saying people who put their lives on the line for your country are not worthy of your support or the countries support. Remember that the next time you’re saying ‘least we forget’ 

Pathetic troll attempt.  You signed up to post that rubbish?

There is not blanket negativity to the excluded campaign.   Just negativity towards the way they are putting some people into it who are not suffering or groups that are just daft to be included.

i am not a troll. I missed out on any financial support simply because I worked on a payee contract and when that job finished I then worked on a similar contract and was paid as a self employed sub contractor. How I am paid is not my choice it’s the main contractor or the clients choice. I mentioned the ex military personnel because I am amazed at how badly these people are being treated and even more amazed at the negativity towards people trying to help them. Excluded are simply try to get financial support for those who missed out. If you consider me a troll I will gladly give you my details and you can tell me in person