Government packages

[GhostofTarbera]

it’s the same one

Nay the midget one had over 20K signs


Sent from my iPhone using Contractor UK Forum

[d000hg]

What's stupid about it?

Contractors are only one example of 1-2 person companies, PSCs, etc. An extreme example too in terms of income.
Forget TV presenters too, a lot of tradesmen choose to set up a LTD. Family businesses run from home, etc. No premises so no 10k grant. Generally low turnover, often using the dividend model.

Now, finding a way to help these people is a lot more complicated... And helping self employed is hard enough (you note that can get their 80% and still work because it's too complex otherwise). Realistically, a contractor PSC billing £125k shouldn't be getting help but how on earth do you ensure that, while making sure "Dave's plumbing ltd" does?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

[Paralytic]

What's stupid about it?

It is stupid on so many levels

• It looks like Directors *can* furlough themselves and claim by 80% of their salary, so a major premise of the petition is wrong
• Expecting the government to pay people 80% of their past average dividends is ludicrous - you can't really expect to get the Ltd company reduced tax benefits of dividends, but then later want them to be counted as income for the purpose of getting employee benefits
• Think about the potential IR35 impact of that happening
• Should all shareholders of these PSCs get the dividend benefits? What about all the partners who are company secretary/admins and who get £30K+ in dividends. Do you think the govnernment should also provide for them?
• Since ensuring equality is one of the drivers to this petition, I assume you'd want the equivalent of the "not for those whose profit is more than £50K" written into the regulation, as per the self-employed benefit?
• There are now multiple petitions like this - if people really believe it in, get everyone behind a single version

[jamesbrown]

What's stupid about it?

Contractors are only one example of 1-2 person companies, PSCs, etc. An extreme example too in terms of income.
Forget TV presenters too, a lot of tradesmen choose to set up a LTD. Family businesses run from home, etc. No premises so no 10k grant. Generally low turnover, often using the dividend model.

Now, finding a way to help these people is a lot more complicated... And helping self employed is hard enough (you note that can get their 80% and still work because it's too complex otherwise). Realistically, a contractor PSC billing £125k shouldn't be getting help but how on earth do you ensure that, while making sure "Dave's plumbing ltd" does?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

Every owner of a small business has a choice about how they remunerate themselves. Had they chosen to operate PAYE on the majority of their income, 80% of the majority of that income (up to 2.5k) would’ve been available to them via the job retention scheme. To suggest that dividend payments (which are a return on investment in a profitable business) should be eligible is indeed stupid. There is no profit during the bad times. That is the point of a warchest. If you don’t have one and you expect the gov’t to bail you out for those choices, that is a stupid and mistaken belief.

[mudskipper]

This is interesting

https://assets.publishing.service.go...COVID-19-1.pdf

Not 100% sure what it's saying as it doesn't spell out what "pay" is, but on a first read sounds like they're intending to give their contractors the full package?

[dx4100]

* what about applying for roles?
* does furlough stop if you attend an interview?

Why not just keep it simple...

Furlong yourself from your LTD - and just mothball the whole thing!

Then as an individual look for work to be done via a umbrella or perm role...

If any of us are in a position where we are looking to furlough ourselves due to being in difficulties then I am not sure we can be picky about if the next "gig" is inside or perm.

[eek]

This is interesting

https://assets.publishing.service.go...COVID-19-1.pdf

Not 100% sure what it's saying as it doesn't spell out what "pay" is, but on a first read sounds like they're intending to give their contractors the full package?

That is for public sector workers I think (who seem to qualify for full pay based on things I've seen elsewhere) but equally it's hard to tell as suddenly a date stamp of March 2020 isn't much use for working out it's current accuracy.

[Paralytic]

This is interesting

https://assets.publishing.service.go...COVID-19-1.pdf

Not 100% sure what it's saying as it doesn't spell out what "pay" is, but on a first read sounds like they're intending to give their contractors the full package?

I'll eat my dividend certificate if this turns out to include anything more than PAYE salary.

[tester552]

I'll eat my dividend certificate if this turns out to include anything more than PAYE salary.

This guidance is a totally different thing from the Job Retention Scheme.

This guidance is an internal policy of a client about how to handle the coronavirus related issues and manage their workforce. Clients doesn't know about your salary or dividends if you are a PSC. This guidance seems to say that public sector clients should continue paying 80% payments to PSC-s too and keep all contractors, employees.

Most private clients will do the same and many will try to keep their contractors and continue pay 100% of the pay to PSC contractors even if orders fall temporarily. Of course for private sector clients its a bit harder to do as they don't have the money printer.

Agian, this seems to be a totally different thing from the Job Retention Scheme, this is a clients internal policy about how they want manage the workforce and if as a PSC contractor you lose your contract, be it a public client or a private client, you can only claim 80% of your PAYE through Job Retention Scheme.

Obviously this 80% which they talk about is extremely confusing for everyone as there is 80% in the JRS so this will open a can of worms.

[jamesbrown]

This guidance is a totally different thing from the Job Retention Scheme.

This guidance is an internal policy of a client about how to handle the coronavirus related issues and manage their workforce. Clients doesn't know about your salary or dividends if you are a PSC. This guidance seems to say that public sector clients should continue paying 80% payments to PSC-s too and keep all contractors, employees.

Most private clients will do the same and many will try to keep their contractors and continue pay 100% of the pay to PSC contractors even if orders fall temporarily. Of course for private sector clients its a bit harder to do as they don't have the money printer.

Agian, this seems to be a totally different thing from the Job Retention Scheme, this is a clients internal policy about how they want manage the workforce and if as a PSC contractor you lose your contract, be it a public client or a private client, you can only claim 80% of your PAYE through Job Retention Scheme.

Obviously this 80% which they talk about is extremely confusing for everyone as there is 80% in the JRS so this will open a can of worms.

Completely agree. It looks bad, juxtaposed against the terms of the JRS (referenced in the same note), but that's a red herring. Any client, public sector or otherwise, can decide to keep paying their contractors for no work (both parties agreeing). It could be 80% of the contract value or 10% or 200%. It would be nuts, on the whole, but there may be a strategic reason to do it in some cases.