These 80% PAYE Payments for Employees Not Working but Retained

Cardiffdaffs

Cardiffdaffs

Well-known member
Many self employed stick spouses on the PAYE as a tax ruse. Are they going to be able to claim 80% of that from the Government?. Thats crazy!!
 
I'm not in the UK so not getting any details of this except via the internet, so can anyone answer a question for me?

From the Guardian:

"Companies and organisations will be able to apply for a grant from HMRC to cover the wages of people who are not working due to coronavirus shutdowns, but who haven’t been sacked.

It will cover 80% of the salaries of these retained workers, up to £2,500 per month."

When it says "... people who are not working due to coronavirus shutdowns" that implies that it won't help anyone whose company has not shut down but who has to stay at home because their grandparents for instance are unable to look after the kids (as recommended).

Was this made clearer elsewhere?

It's an importanty point as a lot of people will be in this boat. My daughter is a single parent with three kids and her mother is high risk and unable to do the babysitting duties, but her company is still open for work.
 
It’s an incentive to keep them on rather than let go. A lot of companies would simply fold under the current circumstances, so you would claim for anyone on your payroll in order to keep the company going, which is the primary aim of the Government.

”Stand by your employees and we’ll stand behind you”
 
Thanks for the reply. I understand the reasons behind the measure, but it doesn't really answer my question which concerns people who work for companies that are not shutting down and are unable to find alternative childcare so would have to stay away from work. If the government is serious about people self-isolating they should make it clear that they are supporting these people.

My fear is that it could be a bit of a chew for some smaller employers to have to apply for a grant (and the red tape that implies) for just a couple of employees in this position when they may have to find someone to fill the position anyway. I note also the UP TO 80%, which is typically vague.
 
pierrequiroule said:
Thanks for the reply. I understand the reasons behind the measure, but it doesn't really answer my question which concerns people who work for companies that are not shutting down and are unable to find alternative childcare so would have to stay away from work. If the government is serious about people self-isolating they should make it clear that they are supporting these people.

My fear is that it could be a bit of a chew for some smaller employers to have to apply for a grant (and the red tape that implies) for just a couple of employees in this position when they may have to find someone to fill the position anyway. I note also the UP TO 80%, which is typically vague.
Click to expand...

Employers will be claiming for ALL employees on the payroll and claiming 80% of a maximum monthly salary of £2500. The employer would of course top up the difference if anyone earns more that that, if they so wish, of course.
 
But if they were not closing down they would not be claiming for ALL employees. But it's OK thanks as I've now read a report where Sunak used the word 'furloughed' which makes matters clearer.
 
I get the OPs point. If you run your business through a limited company, and you put your spouse on the payroll to be more tax efficient you can seemingly claim 80% of the salary you pay her or him. In those circumstances how do you stop that?
 
What about companies that have to keep the staff on, in the hope that there's work that will come off? But what if no work comes in, or comes off?
Effectively you've got staff sat around "working", but not actually earning the company anything that can be invoiced.
What if I'm still working, to try and get work moving, but the rest of the staff aren't?

My company is in construction and we've kept our staff just hanging around, painting and doing nothing jobs, or on client sites just waiting, whilst we wait to see if sites let us work.

The options are:
Stop working and lose all clients, then try and resume afterwards
Keep working, but turnover about 20% of normal, which is effectively pointless as it's massively losing money
Stop everything and sell up

The problem is not knowing the governments thoughts or strategy. I would have to plan it perfect, based on knowing how long this will last, but that seems impossible, so I might as well cash in now?
 
It’s pretty much anticipating that most companies will stop trading for 3 months doesnt it? In the circumstances above the company would be better off not trading for the sake of the workers so at least they get 80% of their salary paid.
 
Cardiffdaffs said:
It’s pretty much anticipating that most companies will stop trading for 3 months doesnt it? In the circumstances above the company would be better off not trading for the sake of the workers so at least they get 80% of their salary paid.
Click to expand...

Loads of construction/ utility companies working in infrastructure though, and they simply can't just stop, or they won't have anything to come back to, as the work would go to those that don't stop.
 
Cardiffdaffs said:
It’s pretty much anticipating that most companies will stop trading for 3 months doesnt it? In the circumstances above the company would be better off not trading for the sake of the workers so at least they get 80% of their salary paid.
Click to expand...

This is what Rishi Sunak said:

25D404F8-7E73-45C4-876C-2C23444219BE.jpeg
 
OP, I took the accent to be on self employed rather than business owners.

The working class self employed are using the loopholes historically left open that weren't intended for them.

They still need help in the crisis.
 
So “even if” suggests every company can claim the grants even if they are trading but need to furlough some staff to cut costs. Ok that’s clearer to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top