Jeremy Hunt in plea to early retirees: ‘Britain needs you’

Anonymous101

Sea_Shell said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Sea_Shell said:

So, if me and a like minded neighbour, both became self employed cleaners, could we clean each others houses, charge each other £££ which would enable us to both pay reduced (class2?) voluntary NI contributions??

That can't be right (or legal?) Surely?

Erm, yes, that is how it is.

There are limits though.  A while back, there was someone who suggested employing their wife for domestic services at home.  The thread meandered as always but concluded that was not permitted.  IIRC, the suggestion was to pay from the individual's Ltd Co.

Having given it some more thought, of course that is exactly how it is.    That's commerce.

It does however mean that if you have a circle of services, all used by each other, say hairdresser, beautician, dog walker, then they can all get paid with the same £££, that just goes round and round.     

3 x £££ is then effectively GDP, everyone's a winner!!!?

I suppose that's why its called GROSS domestic product, not NET ? 

NET.... typically referred to as "the deficit"!

Its interesting to think about though, perhaps GDP shouldn't be the be all and end all.

Reminds me of our family situation. We will soon have 2 children in full time childcare. Mrs. Anon is an average earner and the childcare bill eats up pretty much all of her salary, that effectively puts her at Net zero. So what is the point in peddling hard for zero financial benefit for a couple of years?

Maybe the whole approach of more people working just to pay the bills needs a rethink? Less workers but a population generally living healthier happier lives which don't need to be serviced so highly through income support, childcare, social care, nhs, prisons etc etc etc could be a better solution?

zagfles

Grumpy_chap said:

Sea_Shell said:

So, if me and a like minded neighbour, both became self employed cleaners, could we clean each others houses, charge each other £££ which would enable us to both pay reduced (class2?) voluntary NI contributions??

That can't be right (or legal?) Surely?

Erm, yes, that is how it is.

There are limits though.  A while back, there was someone who suggested employing their wife for domestic services at home.  The thread meandered as always but concluded that was not permitted.  IIRC, the suggestion was to pay from the individual's Ltd Co.

Yes there's a specific rule to prevent this. But don't think there's anything to stop you cleaning next door's house and next door cleaning your house.

diystarter7

zagfles said:

badmemory said:

diystarter7 said:

You have a point as do I.
Would you agree that someone working then getting benfits as millions do is not a cost effect use of taxpayers money, ie the admin costs etc, and taxpapers money?

Surely there must be a better system

There is a better system.  Stop employers underpaying & taking advantage of our benefits system & then people wouldn't need to claim benefits.

A single person on full time minimum wage would generally earn too much to claim benefits. Similarly a couple with no kids who both work full time min wage almost certainly won't get benefits.

In work benefits are almost exclusively claimed by people with children or disabilities or part timers. Do you suggest employers should pay people with children more, or a part timer the same as a full timer?

Hi

People on PT work and getting benefits should be pulled up more often for interviews and assessed why they cant work more hours.

One of the places I worked at years ago - not sure how it workd but she said something about " cant work more than 16 hours" -  - the reason she mentoned that was that a full time role for our admin had come up annd I was confused until someone enlightedn me.

Not sure how rules have changed since - btw, she had 2 kids aged around 10.

Thanks

Fortnite_hero

Hi

People on PT work and getting benefits should be pulled up more often for interviews and assessed why they cant work more hours.

One of the places I worked at years ago - not sure how it workd but she said something about " cant work more than 16 hours" -  - the reason she mentoned that was that a full time role for our admin had come up annd I was confused until someone enlightedn me.

Not sure how rules have changed since - btw, she had 2 kids aged around 10.

Agree with the above.

Brother in law is single with no dependants, he claims UC and has just had to work an extra 2 hours to a grand total of 14 per week.

Why are we paying UC to people who should be working full time. The criteria for UC should be X amount of hours per week not so many £ per week 

This would stop the "I can't work more than 16 hours as it effects my benefits nonsense.

Silvertabby

Fortnite_hero said:

Hi

People on PT work and getting benefits should be pulled up more often for interviews and assessed why they cant work more hours.

One of the places I worked at years ago - not sure how it workd but she said something about " cant work more than 16 hours" -  - the reason she mentoned that was that a full time role for our admin had come up annd I was confused until someone enlightedn me.

Not sure how rules have changed since - btw, she had 2 kids aged around 10.

Agree with the above.

Brother in law is single with no dependants, he claims UC and has just had to work an extra 2 hours to a grand total of 14 per week.

Why are we paying UC to people who should be working full time. The criteria for UC should be X amount of hours per week not so many £ per week 

This would stop the "I can't work more than 16 hours as it effects my benefits nonsense.

Nothing new.  Well before the introduction of UC, my then boss offered a full time post to a part timer.  This lady was always complaining about being short of money, and her children weren't youngsters, so you'd have thought that she would have jumped at the offer?

No - she claimed that under 'Government rules'  she wasn't allowed to work any more hours, or they would cut her benefits.

SpudGunPaul

diystarter7 said:

zagfles said:

badmemory said:

diystarter7 said:

You have a point as do I.
Would you agree that someone working then getting benfits as millions do is not a cost effect use of taxpayers money, ie the admin costs etc, and taxpapers money?

Surely there must be a better system

There is a better system.  Stop employers underpaying & taking advantage of our benefits system & then people wouldn't need to claim benefits.

A single person on full time minimum wage would generally earn too much to claim benefits. Similarly a couple with no kids who both work full time min wage almost certainly won't get benefits.

In work benefits are almost exclusively claimed by people with children or disabilities or part timers. Do you suggest employers should pay people with children more, or a part timer the same as a full timer?

Hi

People on PT work and getting benefits should be pulled up more often for interviews and assessed why they cant work more hours.

One of the places I worked at years ago - not sure how it workd but she said something about " cant work more than 16 hours" -  - the reason she mentoned that was that a full time role for our admin had come up annd I was confused until someone enlightedn me.

Not sure how rules have changed since - btw, she had 2 kids aged around 10.

Thanks

Were the extra hours offered enough to cover child care for two children? I very much doubt they were. 

Anonymous101

Last few comments are around the issues I mentioned in my last post.

It doesn't pay to work (wages - child care costs) unless you're earning more than an average salary, say £30k pro rata.
Childcare varies from setting to setting but a rough guide for 5 days per week care is £1000 a month per child. Its around £50-£60 per day before any government help.

The significance of 16 hrs is that you need to work a minimum of 16 hours to qualify for a level of childcare support (30 hrs per week term time). You don't receive any additional benefit if you work more than this but you would incur additional childcare costs.

Malthusian

`Sea_Shell said:

So, if me and a like minded neighbour, both became self employed cleaners, could we clean each others houses, charge each other £££ which would enable us to both pay reduced (class2?) voluntary NI contributions??

That can't be right (or legal?) Surely?

Is £660 a year (I'm assuming the idea is to pay Class 2 rather than Class 3) worth the loss of a friend and a lot of stress?
"Ere, you didn't dust the top of the bookcase. What do you think I'm paying you for?"
"You don't really pay me anything, you idiot, we're only cleaning each other's houses is a tax dodge."
"Better start doing the job properly then or I'll shop us both to HMRC."
"Why would you throw a grenade that will blow us both up?"
"Prisoner's Dilemma. I can't help being principled. I really hate dust in places I can't see. Take your pick."
Any job immediately becomes ten times more stressful if you are doing it for someone else, even if you are doing it for free.

Sea_Shell said:

It does however mean that if you have a circle of services, all used by each other, say hairdresser, beautician, dog walker, then they can all get paid with the same £££, that just goes round and round.     

3 x £££ is then effectively GDP, everyone's a winner!!!?

Yep, that's GDP. Suppose you have the same people in the same closed economy but the hairdresser has died. The economy works exactly the same and the same £££ goes round and round, except that everyone has to cut their own hair. Is the community not objectively better off with nice haircuts? GDP says it is.
(Opponents of GDP says it is not, because people only value nice haircuts because they have been conned by capitalism.)

Sea_Shell

For the record, I have no intention of "fudging" any self employment.

I can't be bothered with the paperwork 😉

CoastingHatbox

Fortnite_hero said:

Hi

People on PT work and getting benefits should be pulled up more often for interviews and assessed why they cant work more hours.

One of the places I worked at years ago - not sure how it workd but she said something about " cant work more than 16 hours" -  - the reason she mentoned that was that a full time role for our admin had come up annd I was confused until someone enlightedn me.

Not sure how rules have changed since - btw, she had 2 kids aged around 10.

Agree with the above.

Brother in law is single with no dependants, he claims UC and has just had to work an extra 2 hours to a grand total of 14 per week.

Why are we paying UC to people who should be working full time. The criteria for UC should be X amount of hours per week not so many £ per week 

This would stop the "I can't work more than 16 hours as it effects my benefits nonsense.

The problem here is that wages have not kept pace with growth in GDP.
The problem isn't the welfare state itself. It is employers offering such poor wages people are worse off after working more hours.

A significant proportion of UC (and before that Tax Credits) is supporting employers that do not pay properly.