Question on claiming UC whilst working on a low income.

Spoonie_Turtle

Whoops, it seems I missed half a page of comments as Alice_Holt's comment already mentioned the GSE test, and calcotti's that it wasn't enforced.  Sorry fellow members for appearing to ignore your comments there!

poppy12345

Spoonie_Turtle said:

Whoops, it seems I missed half a page of comments as Alice_Holt's comment already mentioned the GSE test, and calcotti's that it wasn't enforced.  Sorry fellow members for appearing to ignore your comments there!

Easy done, if your page hadn't refreshed. It's happened to me many times.

calcotti

poppy12345 said: It's happened to me many times. 

Me too.  

tifo

Spoonie_Turtle said:

Am I right in thinking there was officially the gainful self-employment test for Tax Credits, but it just wasn't strictly enforced?  So if S/E people worked the right number of hours, realistically they could claim regardless of whether the business was actually viable or not.

Seems to be the case. And in this case the state is paying for people in unviable businesses, something that UC does not do.

Sometimes 1 year is not enough to build a business (then MIF applies), an extreme example is amazon who turnover billions but have little profit. On UC someone with high costs and low profits would be told to look for another job, not build their business. Many users on here have said that.

kaMelo

The reasons for a business not making a profit are many and varied but not making a profit does not equate to being an unprofitable business and not taking a salary from it. Amazon and Tesla are two examples whose wealth increased exponentially despite making a loss on paper.

tifo

kaMelo said:

The reasons for a business not making a profit are many and varied but not making a profit does not equate to being an unprofitable business and not taking a salary from it. Amazon and Tesla are two examples whose wealth increased exponentially despite making a loss on paper.

I agree, i've been in business for many years. But UC don't see it that way, if you're not making a profit, minimum wage 35 hours, then you should not be in business and look for work. It's a fact they do this.

If Bezos and Musk had been on UC (theoretically of course) they'd have been told to close their business and look for work  

kaMelo

tifo said:

kaMelo said:

The reasons for a business not making a profit are many and varied but not making a profit does not equate to being an unprofitable business and not taking a salary from it. Amazon and Tesla are two examples whose wealth increased exponentially despite making a loss on paper.

I agree, i've been in business for many years. But UC don't see it that way, if you're not making a profit, minimum wage 35 hours, then you should not be in business and look for work. It's a fact they do this.

If Bezos and Musk had been on UC (theoretically of course) they'd have been told to close their business and look for work  

That's the whole point, their businesses may have shown losses on paper however the businesses, and themselves personally, were/are doing very well indeed. They show as loss making due to reinvesting any profits left over after paying themselves handsomely.

If someone is self employed and cannot generate enough profit to pay themselves a salary at least equal to the MIF then surely it's only right to question whether it's a viable business. Some people will have previous wealth or family to fall back on, they have that luxury to take as long as they like. If someone is asking for help from the state then surely it's only right to ask the question are they doing everything they can to help themselves..

tifo

kaMelo said:

If someone is self employed and cannot generate enough profit to pay themselves a salary at least equal to the MIF then surely it's only right to question whether it's a viable business.

 Many owners of startups forego a salary to build the business. Yes, I understand that there will be investment into the business but this depends on personal circumstances. I also understand that the state can't be subsidising unviable businesses. But small businesses are the backbone of this country and every large corporation was a small business at some time.

My point was about the difference in tax credits and UC towards employed and self employed and within UC itself. We don't want to take over this thread on those points though.