SSP

Re: SSP

Hannah Wynne Richards — Mon, 14 May 2012 09:51:00 GMT

Bloody tax

Wynne

Re: SSP

plantagenet — Sun, 13 May 2012 16:58:07 GMT

The upshot of my error was that I had to delete half a year of the P11 data for the employee in question and the P32 summaries for the same period. The data then had to be re-entered correctly with me reclaiming the odd pound - literally!

Unfortunately, I had downloaded basic tools 2012 and transferred the data, which was of course wrong. Next step was to uninstall 2012 which the anti virus software thought was most odd and wouldn't permit it until my teenage offspring stepped in. After that I installed 2012 again, transfered the data and have - yippee - submitted the returns with a week to spare before public flogging (or whatever the HMRC does to employers who don't collect their tax and do their paper work for them on time.) Now I can do last month's pay correctly and take a deep breath before I have to conquer 2 x maternity leave complications - at least I know I get that back, not that even the extra pays what it costs in holiday pay and more expensive short-term staff.

I'm not usually militant, but having wasted hours of unpaid work for the HMRC, I would happily support a strike by employers, just paying my employees gross for a month, on the grounds that unpaid work is unjust.

In the meantime my spouse is unable to get the tax rebate due back from the HMRC who have required 'activation' several times and refuse to indicate when this might be successful. Can the taxpayer impose fines for late payment - I don't think so.

Re: SSP

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Wed, 02 May 2012 03:22:11 GMT

[quote user="plantagenet"]So, I naively thought NI insured against illness but no, it's just another tax[/quote]

Yep.

Re: SSP

Anthony Todd — Tue, 01 May 2012 23:28:31 GMT

[quote user="John Rimmer"]I wouldn't trust the advice of anyone who uses a grocer's apostrophe. [/quote]

Well, we'll be seein' if sum of yoo's' folks' on this 'ere Fred take this reply lyin' down.

He's one of those peeps who crosses the "i"s and dots the "t"s

Re: SSP

John Rimmer — Tue, 01 May 2012 19:48:09 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]You are allowed to dismiss an employee who has repeated time off for illness provided you follow the correct steps with verbal and written warnings etc.[/quote]

Technically, yes. But that does not protect you against a claim for unfair dismissal or disability discrimination, nor does following the correct procedure (to the letter) guarantee that you will sucessfully defend such a claim.

We are currently defending ourselves against one such. The employee was never dismissed, she resigned after being on the sick for 6 mths and claiming SSP for most of that time. We are being sued for unfair dismissal and disability discrimination. The disability relates to depression diagnosed after the last day she worked and the discrimination relates to our failure to fund private counselling sessions specifically during the six months that she was on the sick. The sessions were available free from and offered by her GP. The fact that the joint appointed expert witness (a legal experienced consultant psychologist) has stated that the claimant is NOT disabled under the definitions of the relevant acts, counts for almost nothing. To date we estimate costs approaching £35k in mounting a defence including 5 days at an employment tribunal and we are being sued for close on £90k. It has cost the claimant nothing except perhaps her integrity and some friends.

We have been in business for more than 25 years and this is only the second ET case we have had - both in the same month!! (the other was a serial claimant, a vet who had done it before and is currently doing it again). The system is iniquitous and tilted hugely against the employer (though, interestingly, not obviously in favour of employees in general who, though having nothing to lose, miss out in that there is not a credible, fair forum for hearing legitimate cases).

Employment law is a lottery and I am pleased for any employer who has missed out on the experience of being shafted in the name of employment law but rest assured, it is nothing to do with good management, it is purely good fortune.

[/quote]

Re: SSP

John Rimmer — Tue, 01 May 2012 19:34:48 GMT

[quote user="Anthony Todd"]

[quote user="plantagenet"]Right, blood pressure relieved a little[/quote]

[I didn't realise the employer paid it either......]

I do know BA has an interview procedure for sickies which sounds as if it might be altruistically supportive but will probably boil down to WhyTF do you get sick so often? would be if I was the interviewer!

and this might be of use:

Recovery under the Percentage Threshold Scheme (PTS)

You may be able to recover some or all of the SSP you have paid. To check if you can recover some or all of the SSP you have paid in a particular tax month, you will need to know what SSP you have paid to all of your employee's in all your PAYE schemes in that particular tax month and your gross Class 1 NICs liability in all your PAYE schemes for the same tax month.

Check whether you can recover some or all of the SSP you have paid

[/quote]

I wouldn't trust the advice of anyone who uses a grocer's apostrophe.

Re: SSP

plantagenet — Tue, 01 May 2012 17:58:00 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]I've tried calling them several times the last few days[/quote]

Always use the 'new employer' helpline, even when you aren't one!

Re: SSP

plantagenet — Tue, 01 May 2012 17:53:40 GMT

Right, here goes!

1st you calculate the SSP to which employee is entitled. (x)

2nd you take the gross NI paid for all employees that month (6th-5th) and calculate 13% of that (y)

If y>x you don't get anything

if x>y you get x-y

Don't ask me the logic or the justice of that.

Net result is I have to take most of that employees P11 entries off and the corresponding P32s and put it back on correctly. Only then can I finish the year and change the tax codes (they told me 3 out of 4, I assume the last is standard) so I have paid March on a guess and will have to do it this weekend - what joy!

So, I naively thought NI insured against illness but no, it's just another tax and its so reassuring to know that if enough of my staff were sick for long enough, I'd go bust, and that would really secure their futures wouldn't it!

Presumably, I should be privately insuring the business against staff sickness.

Re: SSP

Martin Atkinson — Tue, 01 May 2012 15:57:13 GMT

[quote user="Evelyn Barbour-Hill"]

It's in the general instructions all employers receive. It only comes"online" now.

I know you're using Basic Pay Tools. It should be reminding you to check for "alerts".

Change it for each employee in "employee's details"

Credit where credit's due: BPT is one of the better things HMRC have done.

[/quote]

When you go to employees details and try to change the tax code it asks if you've received notification of the code change. I've looked at every possible source and I haven't directly or indirectly. To change the tax code I therefore have to lie and say I have received it or my poor nurses still pay tax on 745L. I lied.

Re: SSP

Thomas Johnson — Tue, 01 May 2012 15:53:04 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]

It is in addition to the quoted pay yes, and a significant sum. However consider what would happen if NI were cancelled. Every employer would have an additional 12.5% of available funds. Yes they could pay themselves more but it is unlikely to happen unless there is an endless source of staff. Other businesses are competing for the same staff as you. They all have an additional 12.5% available as well. Some will spend a bit more on wages to attract the best staff and you will have to compete. You will then have to spend some of that 12.5% as well. This continues until it has all gone. Wages increase and you are no better off.

[/quote]

Or they would reduce their charges, you would then have to reduce your charges, and this would continue until it has all gone. You and your staff are no better off, but the customer pays less, which may increase turnover as veterinary treatment becomes more affordable...

Re: SSP

Evelyn Barbour-Hill — Tue, 01 May 2012 15:06:20 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"] about the fact that I've not received a notification to increase my employees' tax code but in the budget it went up to from 745 to 810 on 6th April. What have others done about this?[/quote]

It's in the general instructions all employers receive. It only comes"online" now.

I know you're using Basic Pay Tools. It should be reminding you to check for "alerts".

Change it for each employee in "employee's details"

Credit where credit's due: BPT is one of the better things HMRC have done.

Re: SSP

Gillian Mostyn — Tue, 01 May 2012 15:00:10 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]Of course I could forego all the differential in my salary and split it between them and call myself a Trust - but then I'd have to not charge the clients and there would be no money to pay anyone. What a quandary. [/quote]

Re: SSP

Martin Atkinson — Tue, 01 May 2012 14:09:00 GMT

[quote user="plantagenet"] I will chat to helpline ( who are generally nice and sympathetic) and see what the answer is. I certainly hope I am wrong but not from what I have read.[/quote] Best of luck - I've tried calling them several times the last few days, waded through a dozen different options only to and get re-directed then told the lines are all busy and been cut off, about the fact that I've not received a notification to increase my employees' tax code but in the budget it went up to from 745 to 810 on 6th April. What have others done about this?

Re: SSP

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 01 May 2012 14:03:02 GMT

Yes but the people who work would be better off-and if the government had the sense to balance the reduced tax revenue by reducing social security the scroungers would be worse off-which would be doubly beneficial-the country desperately needs to tackle the benefit culture by restoring the differential between standard of living for the unskilled workers and the willfully idle

Wynne

Re: SSP

Mark Holmes — Tue, 01 May 2012 13:32:00 GMT

[quote user="Malcolm Ness"]

You're right, of course. We shouldn't be trusting mere citizens with money, we should give it all to those clever people in government and trust them to look after us from cradle-to-grave. Works well enough in North Korea.

[/quote]

Don't mistake me for socialist, I was just pointing out that if employers NI contributions were cancelled tomorrow wage inflation would wipe out any additional profits for the employer within a few years.

Re: SSP

Martin Atkinson — Tue, 01 May 2012 12:41:08 GMT

I would like to steer away from the scrounging scumbag social security seekers here - we've had threads on that in the past and it doesn't get anywhere. But I don't understand why someone red starred Mark, what he says may not be technically correct but it it is true in the wider scheme of things. My staff aren't even aware that I make a NI contribution greater than their's and look somewhat sheepish when this is pointed out when they come cap in hand for a wage rise in these difficult financial times. Of course I could forego all the differential in my salary and split it between them and call myself a Trust - but then I'd have to not charge the clients and there would be no money to pay anyone. What a quandary.

Re: SSP

Malcolm Ness — Tue, 01 May 2012 12:39:28 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]

You are looking at it from the perspective of your own business not across the full market.

[/quote]

Re: SSP

Mark Holmes — Tue, 01 May 2012 12:33:18 GMT

[quote user="Hannah Wynne Richards"]Unfortuneately not entirely true Employers NI (the forgotten tax-except by us who have to pay it ) is on top of quoted pay, not taken away from it-and at 12.8% is a substantial amount[/quote]

[quote user="plantagenet"]Rubbish! It comes out of the money that would give me a reasonable return on my investment / time off / a reasonable salary / a pension.[/quote]

You are looking at it from the perspective of your own business not across the full market.

It assumes that there is competition for staff and given the high levels of unemployment it might not work through completely. The point is the 12.5% comes out of the available employment budget. Without it you could employ more people, pay those employed better or pocket it providing there is no wage inflation. My point is there would likely be wage inflation which eats some or most of that 12.5%

Re: SSP

plantagenet — Tue, 01 May 2012 12:07:38 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"] but it is actually the employee who pays not you[/quote]

Rubbish! It comes out of the money that would give me a reasonable return on my investment / time off / a reasonable salary / a pension.

Re: SSP

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 01 May 2012 11:55:51 GMT

Unfortuneately not entirely true Employers NI (the forgotten tax-except by us who have to pay it ) is on top of quoted pay, not taken away from it-and at 12.8% is a substantial amount I wouldn't mind quite as much if NI contributions were entirely spent on retirement pensions for those who had actually worked for a living It's also squandered on wastes of space who have no intention of working as it's far too comfortable on social security-and that makes me livid Unemployment pay should be reduced to about a third current levels-no one would starve , but they would have an incentive toget off their backsides-and signing a false sick note should be a criminaloffence, carrying a long custodial sentence for the doctor concerned

Wynne

Re: SSP

Mark Holmes — Tue, 01 May 2012 11:38:34 GMT

[quote user="plantagenet"]In fact I don't even understand the logic behind why I should pay employers' NI, let alone pension contributions. [/quote]

It is difficult to see it but it is actually the employee who pays not you. I know it is termed your contribution but it comes out of the available funds to employ staff. It increases your employment costs and reduces what you can offer the employee in wages. In a competitive market place for staff people pay what the business can afford to pay. How many on here would like to be able to afford to pay more.... you could pay more if not for the NI contributions. So over time and across the market the effect of NI contributions is to reduce the wages of the employees.

You might argue that you would not need to pay more.... you would because if nobody had NI contributions to pay they could pay more as well. You would all be competing for the same staff but with more funds with which to compete. Wages would increase.

It could be argued that increased wages and reduced NI would give people the freedom to choose if they prefer to spend now and starve in retirement. Unfortunately society seems to find starving pensioners untidy and forces the system to ensure some form of provision.

It also increases unemployment, it benefits those in work by providing for their retirement but penalises those out of work who cannot be employed.

Feel any better?

Re: SSP

plantagenet — Tue, 01 May 2012 10:30:56 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]I'm even more confused, I just enter the details on PAYE Basic Tools P11 calculator and claim SSP back at the end of the month by deducting it from my PAYE payments and submit my end of year return, HMRC have never questioned it. I have no idea what percentage of the total NI payment it is,some months it could be one day others a couple of weeks - wouldn't HMRC tell me it is was wrong? Its not my problem unless they do. Perhaps because I only ever had have had 2 or 3 full time employees it makes a difference.[/quote]

I was trying to do my end of year when the system highlighted it. I only have 4 employees. I will chat to helpline ( who are generally nice and sympathetic) and see what the answer is. I certainly hope I am wrong but not from what I have read.

Takes off disgruntled employer hat and replaces with surgical one - update this afternoon I hope.

Re: SSP

Malcolm Ness — Tue, 01 May 2012 10:24:56 GMT

[quote user="Martin Atkinson"]You are allowed to dismiss an employee who has repeated time off for illness provided you follow the correct steps with verbal and written warnings etc.[/quote]

Re: SSP

Martin Atkinson — Tue, 01 May 2012 10:15:36 GMT

I'm even more confused, I just enter the details on PAYE Basic Tools P11 calculator and claim SSP back at the end of the month by deducting it from my PAYE payments and submit my end of year return, HMRC have never questioned it. I have no idea what percentage of the total NI payment it is,some months it could be one day others a couple of weeks - wouldn't HMRC tell me it is was wrong? Its not my problem unless they do. Perhaps because I only ever had have had 2 or 3 full time employees it makes a difference.

Re: SSP

Hannah Wynne Richards — Tue, 01 May 2012 10:05:45 GMT

I once had a nursing assistant who was very healthy until she had been employed too long to be easily dismissed-when she started taking time off-about 1 day per week because she was "bad " -local slang for ill-I was inclined to take it literally Anyway I offered to reduce her to a 4 day week, thinking that might improve matters-and at least I would know when she would be missing-as well as saving 20% of her wages-but she didn't want that Until then I had been more generous than the law demanded, and paid a normal day for occasional days sick,but decided I could no longer afford to do so That employees health mysteriously suddenly improved, but I had to make it a blanket policy so as to avoid accusations of unfairness, so another employee who's attendance was exemplary suffered when she was genuinely ill

Wynne