About contractors & benefits

[SpontaneousOrder]

I know people here seem to generally deride the idea of signing on in between contracts, etc.
My question is if people deride it because it's just a lame thing to do, or because they think it's actually very naughty.

There has been much vitriol expressed here towards bankers and the way their profits are privatised, while their risks are socialised.

It strikes me that as a contractor we're taking on a certain amount of risk in return for higher returns. Most of us don't *have* to take that risk. Surely, voluntarily taking on that risk in the hope of higher returns while relying on benefits to see you through the lean times, is exactly the same kind of privatised profits & socialised risk/loss.

I'm sure that in an emergency, when you've got kids to feed, that you'll do whatever you need to - but then is that a sign that you should stop contracting?
If you can't afford the risk then is it right to continue anyway but using all of those employed tax payers as a crutch to fund your aspirations of a better lifestyle? Is that any different than the bankers?

(not that I blame the bankers fo rplaying the game - but that's a different topic).

[jamesbrown]

Assuming it's a lawful claim, it should be based on need, not the maximum you can get away with. If it's needed, it's perfectly fine. At the same time, if you need benefits as a contractor, you're probably better off as a permie. If it's being exploited, cynically, to improve income between contracts, that isn't acceptable IMHO. It's worth remembering that most contractors pay a minimum into the system (i.e. you can't have your cake and eat it).

[VectraMan]

If you're genuinely a business, then your income is going to fluctuate and you justify your high fees and tax scams because of that risk. If a business makes no money in one month, it still has to pay its employees; it doesn't (or at least shouldn't be able to) lay everyone off and send them to the dole office. So if you are genuinely a business just because you're out of a contract doesn't mean your company can stop paying you and therefore you shouldn't be getting benefits.

If there's a point where YourCo has genuinely run out of money (and not because you've extracted it all as tax free dividends), then fair enough. Time to sign on. But you can't claim to be taking a risk above that of an employee if you get the state to bail you out any time you're not currently earning.

At least that's the way I see it; and that's the principle I followed. With hindsight I probably could have had £70 odd a week of JSA for the couple of 6-9 month periods I was on the bench without it causing any kind of issue and I'd be a couple of thousand pounds better off now.

[tractor]

...

Comparing the risks we take and the risks bankers take is the wrong way to look at it. Typically a contractor risks their own money (or risks the security of a permie income rather than actual cash investment). Bankers risk anyone's money BUT their own and are paid handsomely for it whether they win or lose. There is no personal risk other than getting caught for scamming in which case their risk is more akin to that of a bank robber not a bank worker or indeed, a contractor.

Personally, I would have to be down to my absolute last pennies before I would claim. I don't look down on other contractors if/when they claim routinely between contracts but it does make me think that with things like this and the other tulip many contractors claim to want to or try to get away with, it's no wonder the press and the public still think we are all MGB's and that is why I dislike this type of thing.

[PurpleGorilla]

What about child benefit? If applicable?

[tractor]

....

What about child benefit? If applicable?

Agreed but why stop there;

Childcare
Heating allowance for big fat Lords and retirees with big fat pensions
Bus passes for the same
etc ad nauseum

I think all benefits should be means tested except where severe disability is concerned

[eek]

Agreed but why stop there;

Childcare
Heating allowance for big fat Lords and retirees with big fat pensions
Bus passes for the same
etc ad nauseum

I think all benefits should be means tested except where severe disability is concerned

I would argue the exact opposite. You give the things away to all and change the tax allowances to reflect the change.

It's a lot cheaper on the admin and ensures everyone who needs things actually gets them. Otherwise it ends up just going to those who know how to play the system and that is just wrong

[tractor]

..

I would argue the exact opposite. You give the things away to all and change the tax allowances to reflect the change.

It's a lot cheaper on the admin and ensures everyone who needs things actually gets them. Otherwise it ends up just going to those who know how to play the system and that is just wrong

+1

Indeed, and would do away with appeals and tribunals etc too.

[SpontaneousOrder]

If you're genuinely a business, then your income is going to fluctuate and you justify your high fees and tax scams because of that risk. If a business makes no money in one month, it still has to pay its employees; it doesn't (or at least shouldn't be able to) lay everyone off and send them to the dole office. So if you are genuinely a business just because you're out of a contract doesn't mean your company can stop paying you and therefore you shouldn't be getting benefits.

If there's a point where YourCo has genuinely run out of money (and not because you've extracted it all as tax free dividends), then fair enough. Time to sign on. But you can't claim to be taking a risk above that of an employee if you get the state to bail you out any time you're not currently earning.

At least that's the way I see it; and that's the principle I followed. With hindsight I probably could have had £70 odd a week of JSA for the couple of 6-9 month periods I was on the bench without it causing any kind of issue and I'd be a couple of thousand pounds better off now.

I suppose it depends on whether you run out of money because you're not doing very well, or if it's because you live like a successful business owner while the tide is rising - knowing you'll get benefits when it inevitably falls.

It seems unlikely that anyone would persist in contracting while only making, on average throught the year/s, little enough money to qualify for benefits. Feels like the equivalent of choosing to work part time because benefits will take care of the rest.

I suppose there could be *some* who are genuinely trying to get something off the ground (i.e. more akin to a typical non-'personal service' business) and struggling. Otherwise though it seems very wrong that one should effectively be able gamble with more money than they can afford to lose. If that makes sense.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Comparing the risks we take and the risks bankers take is the wrong way to look at it...

Well in a non TBTF world bankers would be risking their own money, because banks that aren't too big to fail and become insolvent, fail.

The analogy I'm trying to make is that they don't *have* to take risks they cant afford to fund, in the same way that joe bloggs the .net developer dosn't *have* to give up employment in the hope of being able to buy himself a 60" tv as a rich contractor.

If banks should fail (assuming you think they should), then should contractors be allowed to fail too? And by 'allowed' I really mean should being bailed out so they get another shot at that 60" tv be considered a reasonable thing?