Job Support Scheme Job Support Scheme - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Posts 11 to 16 of 16
  1. #11

    Godlike

    Lance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    home
    Posts
    5,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oliverson View Post
    It's a bag of tulipe isn't it? Really not worth bothering with. I can't see how this will prevent any firm from making the redundancies they were already planning on.
    That’s entirely the point.
    Don’t try and make employers retain staff they wouldn’t otherwise keep.
    Make it worthwhile for them to keep staff they want but they might not be able to afford.
    See You Next Tuesday

  2. #12

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lance View Post
    Make it worthwhile for them to keep staff they want but they might not be able to afford.
    Does it though?

  3. #13

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Jul 2018
    Posts
    277

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ittony View Post
    Yes, one third of the two thirds you're not working, so 22.22 recurring percent.
    So it went from 80% furlough to 22% with this pile of wank and they are spinning it as an even better support plan?

  4. #14

    More time posting than coding


    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mattster View Post
    Could you not have taken advantage of the original furlough scheme?
    No. Did anyone here? I was working trying to find new clients and doing the odd hour of maintenance here and there for old ones. I suppose I could have fraudulently pretended I wasn't.

    The flexi furlough scheme they introduced half way through would have been a nice help, but of course that was only offered to those who'd already benefitted from the full furlough. So annoying.

  5. #15

    Contractor Among Contractors


    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,183

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ittony View Post
    No. Did anyone here? I was working trying to find new clients and doing the odd hour of maintenance here and there for old ones. I suppose I could have fraudulently pretended I wasn't.

    The flexi furlough scheme they introduced half way through would have been a nice help, but of course that was only offered to those who'd already benefitted from the full furlough. So annoying.
    I was in contract until May so wasn't eligible.

  6. #16

    Still gathering requirements...


    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oilboil View Post
    You've got your figures wrong.

    So how it works for us
    So let's take a typical contrator PAYE salary at £792/month.
    - Get the scheme with 33% of the time worked. So get £261/month from LTD
    - Then for the hours not worked, the amount is up to £530 for which the gov pay 1/3 (£175) and your LTD pay 2/3 (£355).

    So you end up with the LTD paying 78% of the wage £616 and the gov 22% at £175


    You are correct about getting the £261 (1/3) from the limited as that is what you worked. (You could have worked more than 1/3 of the time in that case the figures differ but the proportiosn stay the same - the scheme only covers 66% of the wages unpaid)

    The remaining 2/3rds is where you have it wrong...

    The first 33% of the unpaid 2/3rds is paid by the limited
    The second 33% of the unpaid 2/3rds is paid by HMRC
    The last 33% fo the unpaid 2/3rds is incurred by the employee in lost wages

    So in this case the LTD pays 55%, HMRC 22% and the employee loses 22%

    The wording of guidance on the HMRC website specifically says "we expect employers not to make this up to 100% out of their own funds" which is different to the CJRS where they encouraged employers to make it up to the 100% but did not force them
    ahh that looks really tulip then. I didn't realise.

    And of course, if we decide after the end of the scheme to top up the salary to compensate for the loss, then it could be seen as tax avoidance if investigated by HMRC...

    Looks like a bad idea to take it for roughly £1000 max...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •