Martin Lewis joins campaigners calling on Treasury to help 3m excluded from coronavirus support

jimkelly

dunstonh said:

I have paid PAYE for 30+ years.
My PAYE is paid annually every year, so I am excluded from support.

As you are paid annually (which is normally in March), you do not require monthly support. 

I have not been allowed to work for 4 months and have no income.

If you are paid annually, why do you need income for those 4 months?

The government has blood on it's hands.

As you had your salary in March and are you not due for it again until next March, you dont need support.

Where does next year's salary come from then?

Grumpy_chap

Well, I agree with @dunstonh - there is time for these businesses to take suitable remedial actions before they will need support.  The business should retained value and the individuals some resilience to carry through the periods.

Jonesy1977

jimkelly said:

Why should someone paid annually have to get a loan, whereas someone paid monthly is entitled to a grant?

And to the "comedian" who said because someone is paid annually, it doesn't matter that they haven't had 4 months of income (as they have just been paid in April using last year's money), what are you proposing they live off this time next year - when they've lost 1/3rd and probably more of their 2020/21 income - fresh air?

It is about the mechanism and how to calculate who "needs" what.  Through annual PAYE the system shows that an individual will have been paid a full year in Apr - legally this is true and as stated would be non compliant if this was not the case.  This is why it is likely that deemed that this individual would not need immediate assistance, that is not to say that there should not be some assistance in the next tax year.  If someone is losing 1/3rd income in 20/21 then it should and may well be dealt with at the end of the tax year.  

dunstonh

jimkelly said:

dunstonh said:

I have paid PAYE for 30+ years.
My PAYE is paid annually every year, so I am excluded from support.

As you are paid annually (which is normally in March), you do not require monthly support. 

I have not been allowed to work for 4 months and have no income.

If you are paid annually, why do you need income for those 4 months?

The government has blood on it's hands.

As you had your salary in March and are you not due for it again until next March, you dont need support.

Where does next year's salary come from then?

Next years salary will come from the shareholders taking lower dividends or playing catch up after trading resumed.

It could also come from business reserves built up from the cost savings of running annual payroll instead of monthly.

jimkelly

dunstonh said:

jimkelly said:

dunstonh said:

I have paid PAYE for 30+ years.
My PAYE is paid annually every year, so I am excluded from support.

As you are paid annually (which is normally in March), you do not require monthly support. 

I have not been allowed to work for 4 months and have no income.

If you are paid annually, why do you need income for those 4 months?

The government has blood on it's hands.

As you had your salary in March and are you not due for it again until next March, you dont need support.

Where does next year's salary come from then?

Next years salary will come from the shareholders taking lower dividends or playing catch up after trading resumed.

It could also come from business reserves built up from the cost savings of running annual payroll instead of monthly.

Are you being serious?  I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee.

They've already told you that they've had zero income for the last 4 months, with presumably ongoing issues affecting their work moving forward.  Where the hell are these dividends you speak about going to miraculously appear from by year end?

On that basis, I ask again - where does next year's salary come from?

LilElvis

jimkelly said:

dunstonh said:

jimkelly said:

dunstonh said:

I have paid PAYE for 30+ years.
My PAYE is paid annually every year, so I am excluded from support.

As you are paid annually (which is normally in March), you do not require monthly support. 

I have not been allowed to work for 4 months and have no income.

If you are paid annually, why do you need income for those 4 months?

The government has blood on it's hands.

As you had your salary in March and are you not due for it again until next March, you dont need support.

Where does next year's salary come from then?

Next years salary will come from the shareholders taking lower dividends or playing catch up after trading resumed.

It could also come from business reserves built up from the cost savings of running annual payroll instead of monthly.

Are you being serious?  I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee.

They've already told you that they've had zero income for the last 4 months, with presumably ongoing issues affecting their work moving forward.  Where the hell are these dividends you speak about going to miraculously appear from by year end?

On that basis, I ask again - where does next year's salary come from?

Nothing stopping him switching to a monthly salary.

dunstonh

Are you being serious?  I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee.

Absolutely serious.

Those on annual payroll have declared to HMRC that they receive their salary as a single payment annually.  So, why do they need monthly support for 4 months after they have just taken their annual salary?

Dividend payments are a return of invesmtent to shareholders.    If the business has performed poorly in that year, the dividends should be reduced.

If the business has taken a cost saving measure for 30 odd years then there should be money in the business available unless the business is living on the edge.

They've already told you that they've had zero income for the last 4 months, with presumably ongoing issues affecting their work moving forward.

That is fine as they are not on monthly income.   So, not support needed from the Government to cover payroll in that period.

Where the hell are these dividends you speak about going to miraculously appear from by year end?

I didnt say they were going to appear.  I said they would be reduced to cover the salary.  Remember that dividends are investment income as a share of profits on the business to the shareholders.  If profit is down, then dividends should be reduced.

On that basis, I ask again - where does next year's salary come from?

Next years salary payment would be £9500 due in March 2021.    Yes the business will take a hit for the months down this year but they take reduced dividends and use the business reserves and Bounce Back Loan to cover the shortfall.   If a limited company cannot find £9500 by March 2021 then the business does not sound financially viable and should be allowed to fail or be shut down before it gets that way.

jimkelly

Why do you keep referring back to limited companies?  We're talking about self employed here as well.

I will try to find the tweet of this from earlier, but there was a chap on who is part of a group of 60 taxi drivers - all self employed, so not sure why they're in the same office and classed as self employed and not employed, but that is by the by.  59 of those drivers have received SEISS support, the other chap was excluded from support because he had taken a chunk of cash (I think it was £10k and presumably he had spent it) out of his pension.  No support.

"Those on annual payroll have declared to HMRC that they receive their salary as a single payment annually.  So, why do they need monthly support for 4 months after they have just taken their annual salary?"

As explained previously, the support is still required because come the point of the next annual salary, in April 2021, there will be no (or very little) funds available for them to pay themselves their 2021/22 income.

These are people who have not had to tighten their belts to live off 80% of their salary.  They are having to live off 0% of their normal salary.

There can be no annual PAYE payments, there can be no dividends, there can be no monthly PAYE payments when they have no income and are excluded from support.

jimkelly

Here is the tweet mentioned in last post:

https://twitter.com/taylor1612/status/1285857024442597376

Jonesy1977

jimkelly said:

Why do you keep referring back to limited companies?  We're talking about self employed here as well.

I will try to find the tweet of this from earlier, but there was a chap on who is part of a group of 60 taxi drivers - all self employed, so not sure why they're in the same office and classed as self employed and not employed, but that is by the by.  59 of those drivers have received SEISS support, the other chap was excluded from support because he had taken a chunk of cash (I think it was £10k and presumably he had spent it) out of his pension.  No support.

"Those on annual payroll have declared to HMRC that they receive their salary as a single payment annually.  So, why do they need monthly support for 4 months after they have just taken their annual salary?"

As explained previously, the support is still required because come the point of the next annual salary, in April 2021, there will be no (or very little) funds available for them to pay themselves their 2021/22 income.

These are people who have not had to tighten their belts to live off 80% of their salary.  They are having to live off 0% of their normal salary.

There can be no annual PAYE payments, there can be no dividends, there can be no monthly PAYE payments when they have no income and are excluded from support.

This is probably because of the fact that the £10k is taxable income and was probably taken in the period and therefore affects the eligibility criteria of being adversely affected, something which may be able to be sorted out on appeal.  It does however speak to my point of very small numbers (anomalies such as this) or those that have for example not been furloughed (but required to shield etc)  The reason (I don't want to speak for anyone else) that the focus is on Company Directors is that the most vocal #Excluded seem to be in that category and (710,000) to quote the campaign have simply not been "excluded" so therefore its not 3 million its 2.29 million, however this is also not accurate it can be broken down line by line and debunked until you get to a real number which is very small (anomalies) the number that should be focused on IMO and addressed directly.   There have to be rules, there have to be systems and controls but it can never be perfect,  The imperfect system however has not excluded 3 million people and that is the problem with this campaign it is fundamentally flawed and using legitimate anomalies to further the objectives of those who do not have a legitimate complaint.