Taxpayer support

[999tigger]

Very little of this is true - and it works both ways.

 

We are talking about part time workers (Not ZHC employees).

1. Most PT workers have set days - ie in a job share One person works mornings 5 days a week the other afternoons. or one works Monday Tuesday weds til 1 the other weds, thurs, fri. Some jobs only need 20 hours work to fulfil the requirements. That would be a PT job.

2. PT workers have equal pay. It is the law. I accept there is some saving in EE and ER NI contribution, but this is massively outweighed by the hassle of employing additional people with all the baggage that goes with employing people.

3. They have exactly the same employment rights. This is errant nonsense. They are no easier to fire. If only it was easy to fire hopeless, useless workers without the risk of a malicious tribunal made up of lefties, unionist and other people with nothing better to do.

 

Sorry to burst your bubble

 

OK important points first.

3. Yes I was wrong , it didnt used to work that way, but I should have checked. Mea culpa on that point.

2. I never said pay wasnt equal.

1. Again you are answering your own question and not the one asked by the OP. It will depend on the situation but there can be advantages employing 2 people on a logistical point.

 

You dont really hide your predjudices Ron. A shame sometimes I think you might be reasonable, but your language gives you away.

 

FTAOD though I was wrong about acquiring UD rights. My fault for not checking.

[I1L2T3]

No, it's someone else (I do know more than one person claiming benefits, possibly more than can be said for a lot of the people who so vigorously defend them). I've told her to get clarification as it sounds rubbish, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's true.

 

 

 

No it isn't, and she's in a better position than most to directly control her own income. Strange how taxes paying for her to keep a failing business model going gets derision in this case, but people are calling for the nationalisation of the steel and coal industry - taxes to pay for a failing business model.

 

Even Corbyn had a dig at this woman on his Facebook page, he seemed far more interested in pointing out she was a Conservative voter than actually proposing a fix to her issue. Opposition for the sake of opposition.

 

She is most likely playing the system. Her business and many others like it are not intended to make money. They are vehicles for making tax credit claims. Simple as.

 

In fact, Osborne announced procedures around this in his 2014 Autumn statement, specifically around tests for self-employed tax credit claimants. Google 'Minimum Income Floor' and don't make the mistake that because somebody is attempting to 'run' a business that they are somehow behaving virtuously. There are loads out there who are running these zombie businesses to cream as much as possible out of the taxpayer.

 

Cupcake anyone?

[Mister M]

No, it's someone else (I do know more than one person claiming benefits, possibly more than can be said for a lot of the people who so vigorously defend them). I've told her to get clarification as it sounds rubbish, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's true.

 

 

 

No it isn't, and she's in a better position than most to directly control her own income. Strange how taxes paying for her to keep a failing business model going gets derision in this case, but people are calling for the nationalisation of the steel and coal industry - taxes to pay for a failing business model.

 

Even Corbyn had a dig at this woman on his Facebook page, he seemed far more interested in pointing out she was a Conservative voter than actually proposing a fix to her issue. Opposition for the sake of opposition.

 

I've not read this supposed 'dig' at the Question Time woman by Jeremy Corbyn. But it sounds like the lady in question, Michelle Dorrell, hasn't read it as she now, apparently, 'quite likes' Jeremy Corbyn

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11935413/Ex-Tory-voter-breaks-down-on-Question-Time-over-tax-credit-cuts.html

It's a funny old world.

 

And why should Jeremy Corbyn propose to 'fix' her issue? Isn't that the job of Government? And the job of H.M. Opposition is to oppose.

On your substantive point, you're not seriously trying to equate a woman who runs a 'nail bar' in Folkestone with the UK's Coal and Steel industry are you?

[RonJeremy]

1 pt workers doing the hours you say will be entitled to wtc again wages topped up by the taxpayer (more profit for

the business)

2 so you accept that there is saving to the employer in ee and er ni contributions again(more profit for the business)

3 why did you leave out zhc workers its still the same people on these hours again getting wages topped up by the taxpayer(more profit for the business:roll:

 

Lol. You think it's a bad thing for a small business to make a profit? You sound so anti business it's laughable.

 

1. No. The wages aren't being topped up at all, they are paid directly to the person claiming them. It makes no difference to the employer. If I employ a millionaire's wife for 20 hours or a poorer person for 20 hours at the same rate of pay, (and I have done), it costs me the same to employ them. It makes me no more profit whether the employee gets WTC or not. Your supposition is totally with foundation. Utterly, utterly wrong in every way.

2. Very slight advantage in er NI. But offset by what I have told you. So negligible to not be a consideration. I mean you have to pay them both for Christmas day so it would probably cost more to employ 2.

3. We were talking about part time (I think). ZHCs are a different matter and have been done to death on a different thread.

 

Businesses are there to make a profit. They pay tax on this profit and support all the public sector with the tax they pay. You should actually be grateful to businesses for everything that they provide.

 

---------- Post added 17-10-2015 at 16:25 ----------

 

OK important points first.

3. Yes I was wrong , it didnt used to work that way, but I should have checked. Mea culpa on that point.

Thank you. And good on you for admitting.

 

2. I never said pay wasnt equal.

Too true, I misread your post properly - my bad.

1. Again you are answering your own question and not the one asked by the OP. It will depend on the situation but there can be advantages employing 2 people on a logistical point.

I think I was the OP!!

What was the question again? I'll try to answer it.

 

You don't really hide your prejudices Ron. A shame sometimes I think you might be reasonable, but your language gives you away.

My language become a little emotional sometimes when I see something that is wrong. It is not easy employing people, it really is not. And I don't use emotional language with my employees - but I can on here! So I do.

 

FTAOD though I was wrong about acquiring UD rights. My fault for not checking.

Again...

[tinfoilhat]

I've not read this supposed 'dig' at the Question Time woman by Jeremy Corbyn. But it sounds like the lady in question, Michelle Dorrell, hasn't read it as she now, apparently, 'quite likes' Jeremy Corbyn

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11935413/Ex-Tory-voter-breaks-down-on-Question-Time-over-tax-credit-cuts.html

It's a funny old world.

 

And why should Jeremy Corbyn propose to 'fix' her issue? Isn't that the job of Government? And the job of H.M. Opposition is to oppose.

On your substantive point, you're not seriously trying to equate a woman who runs a 'nail bar' in Folkestone with the UK's Coal and Steel industry are you?

 

I didn't agree we should have bailed out the banks to the degree we did and I don't agree we with dishing out tax payer money to private enterprises owned by billionaires. I paid more corporation tax than Facebook. Where tinfoilhats hand out? I can be a vehicle for terrorism (like Facebook) or pollute our area (like the coal and steel industry does) if that's a criteria.

 

Then on the other hand we won't help green industries. Bonkers.

[Cyclone]

I haven't swallowed any government spin. I haven't seen the government spin. You put a couple of links that refer to benefit fraud and how it relates to uncollected taxes. I'm not sure of the relevance.

The OP is about legal benefits being claimed, not about fraud. Fraud is a problem, but not totally relevant to the thread.

My problem on this thread is with the system, not with individuals fraudulently claiming benefits or people evading tax for that matter.

 

You're convinced that there are large numbers of people gaming the system, but you can't or won't supply any figures to show that it's happening.

I'd say that you've swallowed the tory spin in it's entirety.

[I1L2T3]

You're convinced that there are large numbers of people gaming the system, but you can't or won't supply any figures to show that it's happening.

I'd say that you've swallowed the tory spin in it's entirety.

 

People are going to stretch the rules to the max. It's human nature.

 

Of course the backdrop to that is declining real wages, increased living costs and eroded employment rights. There's always more to the story.

[the_bloke]

She's in no more in a position to control her own income than the zhc teenager at sports direct. If she doesn't get the orders, she doesn't get the work, she doesn't get paid. Clinging onto tax credits as an guaranteed income stream isn't clever. It's nice to have to help get it off the ground but it has to be short term.

 

I disagree with the part I've bolded. The zhc teen at sports direct won't get more hours or more money without either getting more hours or more pay, or getting a different job. This lady however has the chance of changing her business to actually return a profit - change suppliers, charge more (or less), learn how to sell better etc.

 

The rest of it I agree with. It really has to be the short term, from what I understand of her predicament she sees tax credits as a never ending source of income, which IMO it should never be so.

 

She is most likely playing the system. Her business and many others like it are not intended to make money. They are vehicles for making tax credit claims. Simple as.

 

That's one possibility; another is that she doesn't make any money on the books. It would be a bit silly to put yourself in the public spotlight though if the profits come from cash in hand work that don't go near the accounts. Let's face it, we all know self employed people that fiddle the system to maximise the return from the state.

 

I've not read this supposed 'dig' at the Question Time woman by Jeremy Corbyn.

 

From the Facebook article:

 

'On Question Time a mother explained the effects of the tax credits cuts on her family. On Wednesday at PMQs I told David Cameron about Kelly, a single mum of a disabled child who also cannot see how she will be able to provide for her family after these cuts.

 

People voted for the Conservative government in May because they believed Cameron when he said he would balance the books fairly; instead he is dealing with the deficit on the backs of low and middle income earners, and the poorest. David Cameron categorically denied there would be tax credit cuts because he knew this would be unpopular with the very people he needed to vote for him.

 

People who voted Conservative in May were misled. This Tory government is not the Party of the British worker, but is the problem for the British worker.'

 

That's the whole post.

 

And the job of H.M. Opposition is to oppose.

 

Opposition without presenting an alternative is pointless; it provides nothing for someone to get behind, nothing for someone in a similar situation to feel they should vote for. In this case all they've done is potentially alienate any Tory voters who are facing cuts in tax credits, by blaming them for voting for it.

 

Labour: 'You are an idiot for voting Conservative'

Voter: 'What would you have done instead?'

Labour: 'Nevermind that, you were an idiot.'

 

On your substantive point, you're not seriously trying to equate a woman who runs a 'nail bar' in Folkestone with the UK's Coal and Steel industry are you?

 

To the point where they are both businesses that don't produce a product that enough people buy in order to return profits, yes. I don't want the taxpayer to subsidise either business.

[RonJeremy]

You're convinced that there are large numbers of people gaming the system, but you can't or won't supply any figures to show that it's happening.

I'd say that you've swallowed the tory spin in it's entirety.

 

If it wasn't a problem, why would the Tories waste money on trying to clamp down on it?

[the_bloke]

As an update:

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11937376/Tory-voter-who-confronted-minister-over-tax-credit-cuts-may-not-be-affected-by-reforms.html

 

'However Ms Dorrell, 35, told The Telegraph that despite her passionate intervention she did not know how she was likely to be affected by the reforms.

 

However, the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggested that because Ms Dorrell does not make a profit she is unlikely to be hit by changes to the income threshold for working tax credits, which is being almost halved to £3,850 a year.

 

She will also not be affected by the changes to child tax credits, which will only be restricted to the first two children for new parents from April 2017.

 

Accountants said that she may face scrutiny from HMRC over her business under a new test for self-employed benefit claimants.

 

The test requires that in order for people to claim tax credits work must be carried out on a "commercial basis" with a "view to a profit".

 

Ms Dorrell said that her business makes a maximum of £150 week, all of which is put back into new products and advertising. The business has a website but is not advertised at her property.

 

Robin Williamson, an accountant at the Low Income Tax Reform Group, said: "If she receives no income from her business it is always possible that HMRC may investigate to see if this test is satisfied."