SEISS 5 Grant Confusion

TBagpuss

I agree it's not fair , nbut I never expected that it would be! 

However, I agree with Jeremy & MattMattMatt that systems are almost never entirely fair, and this one was put together in a very short space of time and in unprecedented circumstances, it's no surprise that there re gaps and elements that aren't fair

(I speak as someone who is self-employed and an employer, and who got nothing from the first 3 SEISS grants and fell through the gaps in the help relating to premises, but had a lot of extra costs. 

Pennywise

Jeremy535897 said:

No system could be entirely fair and quickly put into effect. It is not fair, for example, that many self employed people continued to work throughout the pandemic, and received more in grants (especially if they got the property based grants as well) than they lost in profit. It is not fair that an employee furloughed on 40 hours a week went part time in June 2020 and yet still receives furlough based on 40 hours a week (or indeed the opposite situation). Personally, I think the government did a very creditable job in getting so much help to so many people, and I can say this dispassionately as someone who has neither received, nor expected, a single penny of support. 

At first, yes, they did a quick job.  But they've had ample time since to deal with the clear anomalies and unfairness.

Such as the 50:50 rule applying where people have actually given up the non-self-employed income, i.e. gave up a job mid year to start self employment, thus in the relevant comparison tax year, their income from non self employment was over 50%, but that was from an employment that ceased and is replaced by a 100% self employment income.  Likewise with people who took a pension lump sum (again a one off) that the covid support assumes is ongoing.  The rule could very easily have been "tweaked" to be 50% of "current" income under current circumstances, not a crazy rule about 50% of a past period that is, effectively, irrelevant.

As for people getting more support than the money they lost, yes, another foul up from HMRC/Treasury/Rishi to not put better precautions in place over the past 18 months.

The fact that some people got too much doesn't help those who were excluded.

superbigal

JJC1956 said:

Jeremy535897 said:

justwhat said:

Jeremy535897 said:

justwhat said:

You got robbed for the extra months. In a nutshell. If they had tried that with the employment furlough there would have been an outcry.

I don't know how getting a less generous free handout can be regarded as "robbed"?

lack of parity , why not do the same to people furloughed? They did what they did because they could get away with it. The is no justification for giving a "less generous"  free handout. 

Maybe robbed is a bit strong. However its not a fair situation.

When you ask small children whether they would prefer to have one sweet if other children get two, or for every child to get no sweets at all, nearly all of them say they would rather everybody had no sweets at all.

Yes, and they all grew up to work for HMRC 😁
In all seriousness, last year people that were Furloughed were allowed to earn up to £2,500 per month, self employed people that employed these people were allowed to earn up to £2,500 per months but with 2 months missing 😳

Those self employed were also allowed to continue to earn money while claiming grants.
Been rather lucrative for many especially in the cash economy.

MattMattMattUK

Pennywise said:

Jeremy535897 said:

No system could be entirely fair and quickly put into effect. It is not fair, for example, that many self employed people continued to work throughout the pandemic, and received more in grants (especially if they got the property based grants as well) than they lost in profit. It is not fair that an employee furloughed on 40 hours a week went part time in June 2020 and yet still receives furlough based on 40 hours a week (or indeed the opposite situation). Personally, I think the government did a very creditable job in getting so much help to so many people, and I can say this dispassionately as someone who has neither received, nor expected, a single penny of support. 

At first, yes, they did a quick job.  But they've had ample time since to deal with the clear anomalies and unfairness.

Such as the 50:50 rule applying where people have actually given up the non-self-employed income, i.e. gave up a job mid year to start self employment, thus in the relevant comparison tax year, their income from non self employment was over 50%, but that was from an employment that ceased and is replaced by a 100% self employment income.  Likewise with people who took a pension lump sum (again a one off) that the covid support assumes is ongoing.  The rule could very easily have been "tweaked" to be 50% of "current" income under current circumstances, not a crazy rule about 50% of a past period that is, effectively, irrelevant.

As for people getting more support than the money they lost, yes, another foul up from HMRC/Treasury/Rishi to not put better precautions in place over the past 18 months.

The fact that some people got too much doesn't help those who were excluded.

They system was not designed to give everyone equal handouts, it was designed to stop economic collapse in the face of the government closing down huge parts of the economy. On that basis it worked, the economy is smaller, but it did not collapse, unemployment did not surge, society did not break down.

Some people got more than others, I disagree with the way a lot of the money I pay in tax is spent, I disagree that most of the time I pay both a higher percentage of my income in tax and pay more tax overall (for reference I do not think I should pay less, but that most other people should pay more than they currently do). Life is not equal, we do not all get the same, despite my income plummeting and getting pretty much nothing from the government I do not begrudge those who received funds via CJRS or SEISS (apart from those who committed fraud), I accept that there are anomalies in the way payments are handed out, that some people missed out and that some others have done very well out if it, but that is the nature of life. 

maxmycardagain

Pennywise said:

Jeremy535897 said:

justwhat said:

You got robbed for the extra months. In a nutshell. If they had tried that with the employment furlough there would have been an outcry.

I don't know how getting a less generous free handout can be regarded as "robbed"?

It's the lack of fairness that's been the main problem with all the covid support schemes.  (Not to mention lack of logic and common sense!).

Bloody site better than nothing

Ive heard people whinge over only getting 80% of their average takings without going out the door, incurring zero running costs and staying in bed...

maxmycardagain

Jeremy535897 said:

justwhat said:

You got robbed for the extra months. In a nutshell. If they had tried that with the employment furlough there would have been an outcry.

I don't know how getting a less generous free handout can be regarded as "robbed"?

ah, youve not seen "Oliver" I take it?

Please sir, can I have more?

justwhat

There is a difference in a rushed policy or ill thought policy . And a deliberate act to short change the self employed. 

Previous grants were not handed out in the same way/period.

JJC1956

superbigal said:

JJC1956 said:

Jeremy535897 said:

justwhat said:

Jeremy535897 said:

justwhat said:

You got robbed for the extra months. In a nutshell. If they had tried that with the employment furlough there would have been an outcry.

I don't know how getting a less generous free handout can be regarded as "robbed"?

lack of parity , why not do the same to people furloughed? They did what they did because they could get away with it. The is no justification for giving a "less generous"  free handout. 

Maybe robbed is a bit strong. However its not a fair situation.

When you ask small children whether they would prefer to have one sweet if other children get two, or for every child to get no sweets at all, nearly all of them say they would rather everybody had no sweets at all.

Yes, and they all grew up to work for HMRC 😁
In all seriousness, last year people that were Furloughed were allowed to earn up to £2,500 per month, self employed people that employed these people were allowed to earn up to £2,500 per months but with 2 months missing 😳

Those self employed were also allowed to continue to earn money while claiming grants.
Been rather lucrative for many especially in the cash economy.

I think I read somewhere that Self Employed people, employed on average 6 staff, (I personally employed 4, 1 left before the Furlough scheme was announced, 1 officially retired and 2 are still on Furlough).
If Self Employed people never received any help from the Government, it wouldn’t just be them losing their businesses it would also mean all of the staff losing their jobs, do the Maths, it would have been mayhem, 300,000 small businesses closing = 1.8 million staff plus the self employed now out of work. I am sure that there are probably a lot of people that have made money out of SEISS and Furlough but the alternative would have been a disaster for this government and this country. PS My business has been closed since March last year. (Caterer). 

MattMattMattUK

JJC1956 said:

superbigal said:

JJC1956 said:

Jeremy535897 said:

justwhat said:

Jeremy535897 said:

justwhat said:

You got robbed for the extra months. In a nutshell. If they had tried that with the employment furlough there would have been an outcry.

I don't know how getting a less generous free handout can be regarded as "robbed"?

lack of parity , why not do the same to people furloughed? They did what they did because they could get away with it. The is no justification for giving a "less generous"  free handout. 

Maybe robbed is a bit strong. However its not a fair situation.

When you ask small children whether they would prefer to have one sweet if other children get two, or for every child to get no sweets at all, nearly all of them say they would rather everybody had no sweets at all.

Yes, and they all grew up to work for HMRC 😁
In all seriousness, last year people that were Furloughed were allowed to earn up to £2,500 per month, self employed people that employed these people were allowed to earn up to £2,500 per months but with 2 months missing 😳

Those self employed were also allowed to continue to earn money while claiming grants.
Been rather lucrative for many especially in the cash economy.

I think I read somewhere that Self Employed people, employed on average 6 staff, (I personally employed 4, 1 left before the Furlough scheme was announced, 1 officially retired and 2 are still on Furlough).

It seems there are no solid stats, roughly 4.2 million people have self-employed status in the UK (though some will be PAYE as well). Now I cannot find data, so some of this is extrapolation, but it looks like somewhere between 50,000 and 200,000 of them operate a PAYE scheme (meaning that they have employees). I cannot find data on how many employees they have. Where the complication comes in is that many self-employed people, temporally employ other people on a self-employed basis, as contractors, so a good chunk of that 4.2 million is a chain. However those people are not paid via PAYE and so got no CJRS, they were however able to claim SEISS themselves. 

JJC1956 said:

If Self Employed people never received any help from the Government, it wouldn’t just be them losing their businesses it would also mean all of the staff losing their jobs, do the Maths, it would have been mayhem, 300,000 small businesses closing = 1.8 million staff plus the self employed now out of work.

That means that what you have said above gets somewhat jumbled up, especially as small businesses (Ltd), operating PAYE will be able to claim CJRS for furloughed staff, but not SEISS for the owner. 

JJC1956 said:
I am sure that there are probably a lot of people that have made money out of SEISS and Furlough but the alternative would have been a disaster for this government and this country. PS My business has been closed since March last year. (Caterer). 

I know plenty of self-employed people who were impacted by the lockdowns, all of them are net better off due to SEISS, whilst their gross earnings are down once the grants are factored in they are 20-70% better off than in 19/20. Now most of the Ltd companies I know who have been hit by the lockdowns have not really had any benefit from things. Yes they can furlough employees via CJRS, however that is more expensive than making them redundant, so they have had the cost of holidays, pensions, 20% (where paid) etc. over the same period, they are actually net worse off even where business has largely recovered. 

JJC1956

MattMattMattUK said:

JJC1956 said:

superbigal said:

JJC1956 said:

Jeremy535897 said:

justwhat said:

Jeremy535897 said:

justwhat said:

You got robbed for the extra months. In a nutshell. If they had tried that with the employment furlough there would have been an outcry.

I don't know how getting a less generous free handout can be regarded as "robbed"?

lack of parity , why not do the same to people furloughed? They did what they did because they could get away with it. The is no justification for giving a "less generous"  free handout. 

Maybe robbed is a bit strong. However its not a fair situation.

When you ask small children whether they would prefer to have one sweet if other children get two, or for every child to get no sweets at all, nearly all of them say they would rather everybody had no sweets at all.

Yes, and they all grew up to work for HMRC 😁
In all seriousness, last year people that were Furloughed were allowed to earn up to £2,500 per month, self employed people that employed these people were allowed to earn up to £2,500 per months but with 2 months missing 😳

Those self employed were also allowed to continue to earn money while claiming grants.
Been rather lucrative for many especially in the cash economy.

I think I read somewhere that Self Employed people, employed on average 6 staff, (I personally employed 4, 1 left before the Furlough scheme was announced, 1 officially retired and 2 are still on Furlough).

It seems there are no solid stats, roughly 4.2 million people have self-employed status in the UK (though some will be PAYE as well). Now I cannot find data, so some of this is extrapolation, but it looks like somewhere between 50,000 and 200,000 of them operate a PAYE scheme (meaning that they have employees). I cannot find data on how many employees they have. Where the complication comes in is that many self-employed people, temporally employ other people on a self-employed basis, as contractors, so a good chunk of that 4.2 million is a chain. However those people are not paid via PAYE and so got no CJRS, they were however able to claim SEISS themselves. 

JJC1956 said:

If Self Employed people never received any help from the Government, it wouldn’t just be them losing their businesses it would also mean all of the staff losing their jobs, do the Maths, it would have been mayhem, 300,000 small businesses closing = 1.8 million staff plus the self employed now out of work.

That means that what you have said above gets somewhat jumbled up, especially as small businesses (Ltd), operating PAYE will be able to claim CJRS for furloughed staff, but not SEISS for the owner. 

JJC1956 said:
I am sure that there are probably a lot of people that have made money out of SEISS and Furlough but the alternative would have been a disaster for this government and this country. PS My business has been closed since March last year. (Caterer). 

I know plenty of self-employed people who were impacted by the lockdowns, all of them are net better off due to SEISS, whilst their gross earnings are down once the grants are factored in they are 20-70% better off than in 19/20. Now most of the Ltd companies I know who have been hit by the lockdowns have not really had any benefit from things. Yes they can furlough employees via CJRS, however that is more expensive than making them redundant, so they have had the cost of holidays, pensions, 20% (where paid) etc. over the same period, they are actually net worse off even where business has largely recovered. 

Obviously an Accountant