Furlough extended until March and self-employed support boosted again - MSE News

Former_MSE_Callum

Read the full MSE News Story: 

Furlough extended until March and self-employed support boosted again

solwayman

I am one of six who are currently serving our 3 months notice period due to complete on the 8th of December, could my employer take us back on furlough until the end of March but still keep us on notice

Jeremy535897

Not if you were made redundant before 23 September, it seems, but further guidance is due on 10 November.

"2.4 Employees re-employed by their employer

Employees that were employed and on the payroll on 23 September 2020 who were made redundant or stopped working for their employer afterwards can be re-employed and claimed for. The employer must have made a PAYE Real Time Information (RTI) submission to HMRC from 20 March 2020 to 23 September 2020, notifying a payment of earnings for those employees.

Similarly, an employee who was on a fixed term contract, on payroll on 23 September, and that contract expired after 23 September can be re-employed and claimed for, provided that the other eligibility criteria are met."

From https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/extension-to-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme/extension-of-the-coronavirus-job-retention-scheme

Grumpy_chap

Currently serving notice may mean still on payroll.

The new furlough rules also appear to now include annually paid 31st March.

Jeremy535897

It is most likely to be the case. However, what makes me cautious is the wording "on the payroll on 23 September 2020 who were made redundant or stopped working for their employer afterwards"

whats_retirement

As a newly self employed person August 2019 I get nothing from the state, and if it wasn't for the bounce back loan, I would probably have lost my business by now.  Up until March I was making a nice profit, since then income dropped 80% due to lockdown.
I am pleased the long term self employed will now get 80% rather than 40% to be on a par with the employed.
As I have now been trading for over a year, why cannot the chancellor help us rather than ignore us.  If this pandemic goes on, and I'm not allowed to work and not receive help  I'll end up closing the business and living off benefits for years.
Also I cannot find an answer to this question:
Why does a self employed person who makes a £50k profit get no support, but an employee earning £50k or £250k gets £2,500 per month.  Where did that logic come from?
The cynic in me wonders if they are helping big company Tory donors.

Jeremy535897

whats_retirement said:

As a newly self employed person August 2019 I get nothing from the state, and if it wasn't for the bounce back loan, I would probably have lost my business by now.  Up until March I was making a nice profit, since then income dropped 80% due to lockdown.
I am pleased the long term self employed will now get 80% rather than 40% to be on a par with the employed.
As I have now been trading for over a year, why cannot the chancellor help us rather than ignore us.  If this pandemic goes on, and I'm not allowed to work and not receive help  I'll end up closing the business and living off benefits for years.
Also I cannot find an answer to this question:
Why does a self employed person who makes a £50k profit get no support, but an employee earning £50k or £250k gets £2,500 per month.  Where did that logic come from?
The cynic in me wonders if they are helping big company Tory donors.

The question is misconceived. Employers had a choice in March as to whether to make people redundant or keep paying them to do nothing. The CJRS was put in place so they could delay that decision. It refunded them the costs of paying employees to do nothing, up to a maximum of 80% of reference salary or, if lower, £2,500 wage and associated costs a month. It did not remove their obligations to pay their employees their full pay under their contracts, although many employers "persuaded" employees to take a pay cut while on furlough so that employers had no cost of keeping them on (in the earlier months). A footballer earning £100,000 a week kept their wage, and the club did not even use CJRS (it would make no significant contribution, and was very bad for public relations when used for lower paid staff).

Unlike CJRS (at least in its early intentions), SEISS was a benefit to the self employed, pure and simple. It went completely against the basic rule of benefits, which is that you pay most to those with least, but of course CJRS had that effect for most employees. People with bigger incomes have bigger fixed costs, like large mortgages. A view was taken that those earning £50,000 a year profit on average did not need help. Personally I think this was misconceived, as there was already a cap of £7,500 for SEISS 1, but it was politically motivated, not in favour of those likely to make donations to the Conservative party, but against them.

Grumpy_chap

whats_retirement said:

As a newly self employed person August 2019 I get nothing from the state, and if it wasn't for the bounce back loan, I would probably have lost my business by now.  Up until March I was making a nice profit, since then income dropped 80% due to lockdown.
I am pleased the long term self employed will now get 80% rather than 40% to be on a par with the employed.
As I have now been trading for over a year, why cannot the chancellor help us rather than ignore us.  If this pandemic goes on, and I'm not allowed to work and not receive help  I'll end up closing the business and living off benefits for years.
Also I cannot find an answer to this question:
Why does a self employed person who makes a £50k profit get no support, but an employee earning £50k or £250k gets £2,500 per month.  Where did that logic come from?
The cynic in me wonders if they are helping big company Tory donors.

Would probably be better as a new thread.

SEISS being based on 2018-19 tax year was to mitigate against fraud.  As we go forward, the hope has to be that the need for extensions to SEISS or furlough will cease to exist.  If that is not the case, then referring back to 2018-19 becomes ever more historic and problematic as the world has kept turning and the number of people with changed employment or changed self-employment is ever increasing.  If that eventually reached the point that future support is based on a period including 2020-21 tax year then it creates the issue that either future support is based on diminished turnover not representative of a "typical" year, or the assessment includes SEISS paid, which is another route to reference back to 2018-19 and before.

If you were employed until August 2019, then nJSA may be available.
I assume you already took the maximum BBLS available.  If not, consider a top-up as the rules changed recently.
The only other option will be UC, subject to eligibility criteria and any capital.