#GapsInSupport - National Audit Office "2.9 million people were not eligible" for Government Support

amykirk1996

Direct quote from newly released report - "COVID19 employment support schemes have been largely successful in protecting jobs to date.  But as many as 2.9 million people were not eligible for the schemes."
Source: https://www.nao.org.uk/report/implementing-employment-support-schemes-in-response-to-the-covid-19-pandemic/

The 3 million figure has often been scrutinised but here’s another report confirming exactly what Martin Lewis did all those months ago.  Martin has tweeted again this morning that the NAO numbers are "based on HMRC" data.

But that 100,000 makes all the difference, doesn't it @Grumpy_chap?

We now have the figures, beyond all reasonable doubt.  This is not a 'non problem', as shown by the reported "4 suicides in 72 hours" - yes you did read that correctly - twitter.com/ExcludedUK/status/1319239555816607744

So stop trying to brush this subject under the carpet and start engaging constructively in the debate as to what those who (up to now) have been described as having fallen through the gaps, but in reality have been deliberately pushed under the proverbial bus, what are they supposed to do?

amykirk1996

Section 14 being the relevant section:

A combination of policy decisions and constraints in the tax system

meant that as many as 2.9 million people were not eligible for the schemes.

People were excluded from the schemes either because of ministerial decisions

about how to target the schemes, or because HMRC did not have data needed

to properly guard against the risk of fraud. The precise number of people needing

help is uncertain because not everyone will have been sufficiently affected by the

pandemic to need financial support. Groups ineligible for support were as follows:

• CJRS: an estimated 1.1 million people were ineligible because HMRC had

limited data to verify claims. HMRC has not estimated the number affected

but third-party estimates suggest around 0.4 million short-term contractors

moving between jobs were ineligible. Additionally, 0.7 million limited company

directors could not claim for company dividends paid instead of salaries.

The tax system treats company dividends as investment income and

HMRC cannot separately identify those payments from other investments.

However, company directors could still claim for earnings registered with

the Pay-As-You-Earn scheme and apply for bounce back loans. 

• SEISS: HMRC estimated that around 1.6 million self-employed people did not

meet the scheme’s policy criteria. Of these, 1.4 million people had trading

profit that was less than their non-trading income; 0.5 million people had

a trading profit of £0 or made a loss; and 0.2 million people were ineligible

because their trading profits exceeded £50,000.2

• SEISS: third-parties estimated a further 0.2 million people who were newly

self-employed in 2019-20 were ineligible because they had not yet submitted

a Self Assessment return. Therefore, HMRC did not have verified records on

which to confirm their activity and estimate their income. This figure could

have been greater had lockdown occurred further from the January 2020

deadline for annual tax Self Assessment returns. HMRC intends to introduce

more frequent (quarterly) reporting for self-employed people under Making

Tax Digital from April 2023 (paragraphs 2.6 to 2.11 and Figure 6).

68ComebackSpecial

Why start a new thread on the same subject as your previous one? Unfortunately I can't link to it as it has been deleted in it's entirety. Are you expecting different responses than the hundreds you received there?

Even MSE pulled the plug on it's own thread on the topic a couple of days ago - not that it had garnered much reslonse.

amykirk1996

68comeback, your refusal (and others) to engage constructively beforehand meant that was inevitable.

If you’ve got nothing useful to add to the debate, may I suggest you don’t bother at all?

We now have confirmation that the 3 million figure is, and always was, correct.  On that basis, stop the diversion and deflection.  This subject will not be brushed under the carpet.

unholyangel

amykirk1996 said:

68comeback, your refusal (and others) to engage constructively beforehand meant that was inevitable.

If you’ve got nothing useful to add to the debate, may I suggest you don’t bother at all?

We now have confirmation that the 3 million figure is, and always was, correct.  On that basis, stop the diversion and deflection.  This subject will not be brushed under the carpet.

No actually, we don't. Once again, you're misunderstanding (whether by accident or design I don't know) what you're trying to rely on. 

"as many as 2.9 million" is not saying there is 2.9 million. The report talks of "estimated" figures from third parties, not from HMRC or the treasury. 

Plus, the report is only looking at CJRS & SEISS. None of the other measures like BBL or local grants. The report also says some 12.2 million benefitted. How is 12.2 million 95%, given you kept alleging 95% received support? 

bradders1983

Here we go again.

amykirk1996

Why was this thread closed earlier and now reopened?

jayzor

Who cares? Most of those would have gone out and found other jobs by now, jobs that are viable. Of course, a few would probably rather spend time on a forum moaning they aren’t getting any free hand outs, instead of being productive.

amykirk1996

Jayzor, yes you're right - who cares that 4 people (that are known of) have taken their own lives because of this.

https://twitter.com/ExcludedUK/status/1319239555816607744

Jonesy1977

Setting aside the number (which can never be agreed upon) the question of what do people do now is the key.   As there are so many individual circumstances (some need support, some continued unaffected, some took CBILS, BBLS some where in receipt of CJRS etc) there is no one size fits all answer. 
Perhaps the real question is what should the OP do now? I disagree with the premise and I have also disagreed previously whether they are infact excluded, however I empathise and understand that regardless, they are in a difficult position.
I have suggested previously that when CJRS stops (partial because of dividend payments for some I know) then BBLS is the obvious option whilst they pivot their services and look for new opportunities if confident in your business plan or if you think things will change materially in your industry.  Are you considering this now?  Alternatively it will have to be seeking alternative income (FT, PT, FTC or services contract) or if this is not possible then UC which is the same as every other Company Director in the Uk.
Setting aside the reasons, which have been covered before, the reality is that people in situations such as the OP face the job market in November which may not have been as bad if it were not for the spike we are currently facing.

gary83

Contributing to this thread is absolutely pointless, A few things are inevitable;

• Amy will misrepresent statistics either intentionally or by simply failing to comprehend, for instance the report above states “The precise number of people needing help is uncertain because not everyone will have been sufficiently affected by the pandemic to need financial support.” It is not conclusive evidence of 3 million, 2.9 or any other number merely quoting third party sources, this report focuses on CJRS & SEISS, not any other support available (BBL, local grants etc.)
• Amy will flat out refuse to answer which sector or what type of consultancy services she offers.
• This thread will be deleted

For all the above reasons, I’m out.