Job Support Scheme

[Lance]

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.

[mattster]

Make it worthwhile for them to keep staff they want but they might not be able to afford.

Does it though?

[dsc]

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?

[ittony]

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.

[SussexSeagull]

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.

[cwah]

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...