Treasury to write off £4.3bn of public money paid out during Covid.

The self employed who were pissed off were the ones who'd fiddled their tax returns and so had low profits.

Some of them probably, but not all. I hadn't fiddled my tax return, but I received nothing. My self-employed earnings are a significant part of the overall pittance I receive, but they were less than half of my total income. There were others in my situation.

I resent being labelled as a fraudster.

Those carpets must be getting lumpy with the amount of stuff swept under them.

Tax rises - the self employed will just raise their fees and/or prices and pass that onto clients and consumers. And/or they will find ways to declare lower profits on which to pay tax. Its the poor buggers on PAYE who will get hammered. Such as pensioners who HAVE to work (often in shit jobs for shit money), who are going to pay NI for the first time.

Doodledog

The problem with the 'those in need' way of doing things (anything, not just in this case) is that it is a very blunt instrument, and it is always likely to miss out those on low incomes who have scrimped and saved a bit of money, or who are just above an arbitrary threshold.

Being 'in need' is not just about income - there are numerous other considerations to take into account, and it is all but impossible to factor them all in. Households and families need to be kept afloat as well as businesses, so if the 5% will make little difference it seems to me sensible to cut it.

Those in need are given a very small amount on which to survive. Perhaps some of you like me are just above the threshold for any relief at all.

TBH in the current situation I’d go along with ‘every little helps’ rather than do nothing and pretend the market will eventually solve the issue. I’d like to see a windfall tax on profits to help the worse off.

I think you said you’re an accountant Dinahmo so I hope people take note of what you say.

People who received SEISS grants - ie the self employed - had to have submitted relevant tax returns before they were able to claim them. The first payments were made in May 2020 I think, or later, certainly not before. By the time they were paid the relevant tax returns had all been submitted so there was little scope for fraud. The self employed who were pissed off were the ones who'd fiddled their tax returns and so had low profits.

As has been mentioned in the past, there were thousands of self employed people who did not qualify for the grants.

But the loans were made by banks who would only do so if the govt backed them. At least a year ago accountants were reporting on their forums of clients who had taken the maximum loan and then spent on a car or some other such purchase. Some people took the money because it was there for the taking and not because they needed it. The banks didn't bother to do much checking because they would not lose out.

The self employed are declaring their SEISS grants on their tax returns and are paying income class and Class 4 NIC on them, assuming that their profits, including the grants, exceed the personal allowance.

The self employed are in for a big shock in the next year or so because the govt and HMRC have decided that they should do quarterly returns of their income and expenses in addition to the end of year tax returns. Many self employed are not very computer literate and either prepare hand written records or bags of receipts and statements.

The reason given for this is that businesses will have up to date information, the assumption being that they don't already know how well or badly they are doing.

The money that is being spent this would be far better spent on chasing the loan fraudsters.

Public money - so there must be a trail as to where the money went. Accountability even if not recovery, please.

Not really sure how removing the VAT will help I have just had my bill for the last quarter is around £550 the VAT included is around £28.

The problem with the 'those in need' way of doing things (anything, not just in this case) is that it is a very blunt instrument, and it is always likely to miss out those on low incomes who have scrimped and saved a bit of money, or who are just above an arbitrary threshold.

Being 'in need' is not just about income - there are numerous other considerations to take into account, and it is all but impossible to factor them all in. Households and families need to be kept afloat as well as businesses, so if the 5% will make little difference it seems to me sensible to cut it.

It’s tax payers money ie OUR MONEY! Why are these thieves not being pursued?

Huge amounts of money are spent pursuing little people over benefit overpayments, incorrect tax returns and benefit fraud etc.

What is it that makes it ok to write this off?

The government is softening us up for austerity on the grounds that the money created by it to cover pandemic costs has to be 'repaid'.

The rationale for not clawing back fraudulently obtained monies will be that it's 'not cost effective'. But they will still insist that it has been 'borrowed' from a mythical source and will con most of the electorate into thinking it has to be 'repaid'. Not cutting VAT on fuel bills (regardless of whether or not it is effective) is part of the process. As are the tax increases due to come into effect in April.

Germanshepherdsmum

The loans were made quickly to help businesses out. It was inevitable that some would never be repaid because companies went bust regardless of the loans, and that fraudsters would get in on the game. How else do you suggest the money could have been made available with such speed to keep businesses afloat? Some people are very quick to criticise. VAT on household fuel bills is only 5% and makes little difference to the overall bill. This is nothing at all to do with the VIP route either.

I agree it is very easy to sit back and criticise in hindsight although I do think more checks could have been made regarding the legitimacy of Companies loaned to
VAT reduction on fuel I agree has absolutely nothing to do with this. If you are going to help with fuel costs it has to be targeted to those in need not an all over reduction

The loans were made quickly to help businesses out. It was inevitable that some would never be repaid because companies went bust regardless of the loans, and that fraudsters would get in on the game. How else do you suggest the money could have been made available with such speed to keep businesses afloat? Some people are very quick to criticise. VAT on household fuel bills is only 5% and makes little difference to the overall bill. This is nothing at all to do with the VIP route either.