[Finance] Self employed to receive 80% of income from the Gov’t too

seagurn said:

So as a sole director of a ltd company and having laid of all subcontractors now, im not entitled to get anything exept universal credit. Was a shame really had enough work for the year but working in poeples homes is totally unworkable as some of the subbies rely on public transport and clients potentially put at risk of exposure as are the subcontractors. The link to ross martin was very helpfull thanks and gives me the clarity i was hoping for. Regards and stay safe.

Click to expand...

Dale Jasper said:

To the clued-up bods of NSC, any answers to this? Asking for a friend ......and apologies if this is fixtured somewhere in the previous 39 pages.

“Can anyone unravel this for me? I'm self employed. Hopefully entitled to Gov help. BUT if I'm asked to do the odd shift in the next 3 months (which would equal FAR less income than I may be entitled to) - should I do them? Or would I then end up out of pocket / be penalised?”

Click to expand...

Dale Jasper said:

To the clued-up bods of NSC, any answers to this? Asking for a friend ......and apologies if this is fixtured somewhere in the previous 39 pages.

“Can anyone unravel this for me? I'm self employed. Hopefully entitled to Gov help. BUT if I'm asked to do the odd shift in the next 3 months (which would equal FAR less income than I may be entitled to) - should I do them? Or would I then end up out of pocket / be penalised?”

Click to expand...

Weststander said:

I’ve always found this firm’s website a mine of free and accurate information:

https://www.rossmartin.co.uk/covid-19/4643-covid-19-company-directors-shareholders

Added to that, the very first question for one or two or three man band limited companies must shirley be asking is, is there any trade at all? If the answer is yes, it’s continuing, but on levels far reduced levels just now, I would think there’s no way owner directors could then claim they’re furloughed. If sales/services provided are genuinely zero month after month, then go on to consider the issues raised by rossmartin.

My instinct is that the government do not intend this 80% PAYE grant to subsidise the salaries of directors. Instead, at it’s heart, it exists as an alternative to making staff redundant.

Click to expand...

Beach Hut said:

I do not know the exact answer but I do know in the 80% employer scheme it is made very clear you cannot do other work so I would have thought it is the same rules

Click to expand...

LlcoolJ said:

Good luck mate. This is a perfect example of why people should desist with the snide, nasty "I'm alright because I'm lucky" rubbish.

Click to expand...

Dale Jasper said:

To the clued-up bods of NSC, any answers to this? Asking for a friend ......and apologies if this is fixtured somewhere in the previous 39 pages.

“Can anyone unravel this for me? I'm self employed. Hopefully entitled to Gov help. BUT if I'm asked to do the odd shift in the next 3 months (which would equal FAR less income than I may be entitled to) - should I do them? Or would I then end up out of pocket / be penalised?”

Click to expand...

trueblue said:

The type of comment I'm seeing most is 'you've reduced your National Insurance by operating through a Limited Company and now you're getting what you deserve - next to nothing'. Mainly, as far as I can make out, from smug employees now on 80% of their salary for doing eff all or well-heeled pensioners who worked in very different times and can't understand why few people can afford to have savings these days.

On the N.I. allegation, I suppose there's some merit to that although I'd never really given that aspect any thought. I was only really aware that Corporation Tax makes it a better way of operating, although the tax on dividends now levels things up a lot anyway (which I don't mind). Perhaps naively, this has always been in the hands of my (AFAIK) reputable accountant. What's the point in having one otherwise?

What those that are gloating ignore is the fact that in some industries - including mine - some clients only want to deal with limited companies - so it's not all about tax. Or not my tax, at least.

In my mind, the financial benefits of being self-employed (although technically I'm an employee of my own company, of course) are simply compensation for some of the pitfalls of the position - like suddenly having no income at all, currently forever, at 24 hours notice. Once my costs, tax and everything else are taken into account, I'm not that much better off than a sole trader. In my case, there's no cash in hand, made-up employees, exaggerated expenses or any of that stuff people accuse us all of doing. It simply wouldn't be possible to get away with it even if I was the type that wanted to.

If such a thing as a 'proper' job existed for people like me, I'd very likely jump at the opportunity for employee benefits and workers' rights. I'd consider those a more than acceptable trade-off for the relatively small reduction in earnings. But it's not realistically an option.

Click to expand...

LlcoolJ said:

From what I've seen so far, the self employment compensation does NOT prevent you from working and trying to keep your business going.

Which is one of the few things in all this that's actually made sense.

Click to expand...

trueblue said:

The type of comment I'm seeing most is 'you've reduced your National Insurance by operating through a Limited Company and now you're getting what you deserve - next to nothing'. Mainly, as far as I can make out, from smug employees now on 80% of their salary for doing eff all or well-heeled pensioners who worked in very different times and can't understand why few people can afford to have savings these days.

On the N.I. allegation, I suppose there's some merit to that although I'd never really given that aspect any thought. I was only really aware that Corporation Tax makes it a better way of operating, although the tax on dividends now levels things up a lot anyway (which I don't mind). Perhaps naively, this has always been in the hands of my (AFAIK) reputable accountant. What's the point in having one otherwise?

What those that are gloating ignore is the fact that in some industries - including mine - some clients only want to deal with limited companies - so it's not all about tax. Or not my tax, at least.

In my mind, the financial benefits of being self-employed (although technically I'm an employee of my own company, of course) are simply compensation for some of the pitfalls of the position - like suddenly having no income at all, currently forever, at 24 hours notice. Once my costs, tax and everything else are taken into account, I'm not that much better off than a sole trader. In my case, there's no cash in hand, made-up employees, exaggerated expenses or any of that stuff people accuse us all of doing. It simply wouldn't be possible to get away with it even if I was the type that wanted to.

If such a thing as a 'proper' job existed for people like me, I'd very likely jump at the opportunity for employee benefits and workers' rights. I'd consider those a more than acceptable trade-off for the relatively small reduction in earnings. But it's not realistically an option.

Click to expand...

Gazwag said:

Thing is now there is very little benefit if at all of working as a limited company purely as a tax exercise. I believe the biggest benefit, even more so now, is the limited liability. As long as directors haven't had to give personal guarantees you are not going to lose everything if your business goes down the pan.

Click to expand...

Silverhatch said:

Can anyone shed any light on this situation. My lad has been registered in CIS since June 2019. Has submitted 37 invoices to his company/contractor and paid weekly tax deductions. His company/contractor is not working. He will get a tax rebate by applying thru CIS/ HMRC portal at year end (few days away). BUT - will he be able to claim against a govt relief scheme? Construction Industry Scheme is HMRC driven, he’s registered, has paid tax and HMRC know his earnings

Click to expand...

Weststander said:

My instinct is that the government do not intend this 80% PAYE grant to subsidise the salaries of directors. Instead, at it’s heart, it exists as an alternative to making staff redundant.

Click to expand...

beorhthelm said:

its HMRC, they want to show those being teax efficient why they shouldnt have been. directors on PAYE would be covered in the 80%.

Click to expand...