To feel like this is discrimination towards certain trades

[Unicorns87]

Basically I'm looking for other people's opinions on this matter. I understand it will probably be extremely mixed views.
But I am very confused by how it works and how it is fair to certain people like myself.

I am a self-employed mobile nail technician. I am only part-time now because I have a little boy and my job itself isn't a huge earner anyway. After all my costs, I pretty much take minimum wage.

My trade is one of the ones that has been deemed unsafe/illegal to carry out during lockdown. So the government have told me I cannot under any circumstances work but only paid me 80%, then 70% and now 40% when claiming the SEISS.

However, I have a friend who has been honest with me about her partner. He is a carpenter. He is already on a very high wage and therefore claimed almost £7,000 for the first 3 months SEISS at 80%.
But the type of work he does meant that he was actually able to carry on working and earned almost what he would have done had coronavirus not occured.
He then claimed the 2nd lot and I expect will claim the 3rd as because he is self employed and takes his own money, he will somehow make it look like he hasn't earned what he would have done.
Therefore, she admitted that they are thousands of pounds better off then what they would have been.

How is this fair. It's a simple case of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer.
How is it fair that the people who have been told cannot work can still only claim the same amount as what the people who have been told can work if they can socially distance.
Surely those type of trades should have only been able to claim a fraction of what the trades who werent allowed to work could.

My husband was then made redundant, has had to take a huge paycut and in the second lockdown I have been told I cannot work again but can only claim 40%.
We are going to lose our home.
Yet my friend and her partner and I'm sure plenty of others are laughing.

It sounds like other person is at best playing the system, if not outright comitting fraud.

Carpentry does not require close physical contact with another person. Your job does. That's why the rules are different.

It’s tough, but carpentry is an important and useful trade. It is a “need to have” trade.

Pretty nails are a “nice to have” trade.

Can you look into retraining for a skill which is important and will weather future changes?

It is an unfortunate fact that all too often women are encouraged into the provision of “nice to have” roles, and men into the “need to have” roles. It’s part of their plan to keep us down. Fight back!

The problem isn't rich Vs poor. He's early more because it is a skilled occupation which he's highly trained for with the added bonus he can socially distance so can continue to either work from home/workshop. You can't socially distance or work from home and your occupation has a smaller monetary value compared to a good carpenter.

I don't think there's anything in the scheme that says you can't be earning an income therefore he is entitled to claim. Would you expect him to turn down work in order to use the scheme?

I understand you're annoyed that they're seemingly making more money from it but he's using the scheme correctly. You are also benefiting from the same scheme so can't see the problem.

OP - the problem is that your friend's partner is claiming the grant and effectively committing fraud as he had to state to HMRC that his work has been affected when it hasn't been. I know, as I've processed my husband's claims. He also works in the building trade but has only managed to secure a week or two of work since before lockdown. It's bloody annoying as it'll be costing the country a fortune to supplement the income of (what I suspect will be) many like him that claimed regardless. Consequently, those of us that really need it have to endure the decreasing value.

It isn’t favouring certain trades over another. Your friend’s partner just knows how to play the system. There will also be nail technicians that know how to play the system and carpenters who don’t know how to play the system. Be angry at your friend and her partner for playing the system.

With regards the restrictions for your work, yes they are fair (if it doesn’t seem like it). We will have a carpenter in during the next lockdown. He’ll be working in the living room and even if I stay in the living room I can maintain 2m distance from him but I’ll actually go work in another room. If you’re doing someone’s nails you can maintain 2m, or even 1m, distance with them and you certainly can’t do their nails if you’re in a different room to them.

It’s not discrimination, he’s a carpenter and a skilled worker, pretty nails aren’t.

Yanbu however that he’s fraud.

It’s tough, but carpentry is an important and useful trade. It is a “need to have” trade.

Pretty nails are a “nice to have” trade.

The decision about whether to allow nail techs and carpenters wasn’t based at all on whether they are important trades or nice to have trades the tax paid by nail technicians isn’t just a “nice to have” tax for the economy, is it?

Loads of fraud going on sadly. I know a business that’s been claiming furlough throughout for its workers, but they are all in the factory and working as normal, so the owner is doubling profit. I’d like to think HMRC will dig this out, but I’m not sure they have capacity.

I think it’s more that certain jobs are deemed essential AND allow for social distancing.
Sadly nails and other beauty treatments are not essential and are also higher risk due to you having to be very close to clients.

I do feel for you. There are lots of temporary part time jobs about at present some off which offer on the job training - could you pick up some supermarket or delivery shifts, sign up for a care or TA agency (some are having to take on people without any previous history or training), offer babysitting services, courier/food, Royal Mail are taking on lots of workers etc

You are describing fraud, not unfairness.

His trade he can do whilst sd , but only supposed to claim if affects your business , I helped someone claim it and they claimed because first lockdown they also didn't work ( carpenter ) they never claimed the second lot as they has got back to normal work by then
So yes if your friends been working and hasn't been affected my understanding is shouldn't claim

Unfortunately OP, you have chosen to do a part time minimum wage job and not grow your business. You could have been trading since July and not needed the second payment, you could even have worked more if your partner was made redundant. You have four weeks of closure now which is rubbish, but what would you do if you were off sick?
You cannot judge your friend's other half. For a long period he probably wasn't working as no one was allowed in anyone's home unless it was emergency. The grant could be claimed if your business was impacted, regardless of how long for. Maybe he claimed it thinking he was never going to make that money he lost back, and then business picked up. You just don't know.

He's committing fraud. His business was not "adversely affected by Coronavirus"

The decision about whether to allow nail techs and carpenters wasn’t based at all on whether they are important trades or nice to have trades hmm the tax paid by nail technicians isn’t just a “nice to have” tax for the economy, is it?

But if the OP was doing a “need to have” trade she’d still be able to work.

Everyone pays tax. And everyone benefits from it.

The restrictions are totally fair. You’re doing something that requires you to be touching someone and be in close contact, his role means he doesn’t need to be in close contact with customers, it’s totally different.

As for the grant, if his business was impacted at all, even for a few days or losing one customer, he’s entitled to claim it, he’s not doing anything wrong.

It's not "fair", but the entire Covid support system is badly thought out. At first, it was understandable/excusable as the Govt/HMRC/Treasury needed to do it very quickly, but at first The Chancellor was saying "no one would be left behind", so there was the strong suggestion that the covid support rules etc would be tweaked to be fairer. But 7 months on, and they're still using the same flawed criteria for eligibility, as evidenced by the National Audit Office's report that 2.9 MILLION self employed people have been excluded from the support schemes, many on purely arbitrary and nonsensical grounds. It's noteworthy that The Chancellor has changed his tune from "no one will be left behind" to "we can't help everyone". HMRC have all the "evidence" they need from tax returns etc to provide better support to the excluded self employment, but a political decision has been made not to help them. And some people still think Rishi is a brilliant Chancellor and is the next leader of the Tory party - they're living in cloud cuckoo land - he hasn't a clue - he's just good in front of the camera.

Oh, op, I don't know what to say. I don't think it's discrimination, but I know how utterly shit it feels. DH lost his job, so many people we know have lost jobs and contracts and are going to lose businesses. It's a horrible time for so many of us and it can be very difficult to listen to people whose experience has been, thus far, quite the opposite. I'm sorry you're dealing with this. I don't have any easy answers. There are no easy answers.

@TheOrigRights

He's committing fraud. His business was not "adversely affected by Coronavirus"

Not necessarily, there's no quantum of how badly a business had to be affected due to flawed rules. All he needs to have done is lost a customer each period, or had to spend some money on PPE each period, or had to pay more for his usual supplies due to his usual supplier being closed due to covid, and legally he's eligible. There's nothing in the law to say that he must have lost more than the covid support grant he received. So, yes, plenty of self employed will be better off, because their grants were more than their losses - all perfectly legal. Blame Rishi, HMRC and the Treasury for fundamentally flawed rules of their covid support schemes, and for which they've not changed the criteria despite being well aware of the flaws.

It IS ‘discrimination’ towards certain trades and businesses - but that’s because some trades can be done at a physical distance from other people, and some can’t.

You can’t do nails anywhere other than in hand’s reach sitting directly opposite someone.

Your friend’s DH can do his job alone.

He was as entitled to the grants as you IF he could show his business suffered. And it did, a little bit, according to your OP. His accountant will have advised him to take it.

How is it fair that the people who have been told cannot work can still only claim the same amount as what the people who have been told can work if they can socially distance.
Surely those type of trades should have only been able to claim a fraction of what the trades who werent allowed to work could.

It’s not particularly fair. It’s not been fair for so many self-employed people.

But they did it this way because otherwise the admin involved in processing the grants would have been massive and costly. Any means-tested benefit is, whereas anything where the rules are simple is not. It would have delayed payments and been a nightmare.

Being self-employed during this pandemic is super shit for most people. It isn’t fair, but I don’t think you can expect it to be, honestly.

@Badbadbunny

It's not "fair", but the entire Covid support system is badly thought out. At first, it was understandable/excusable as the Govt/HMRC/Treasury needed to do it very quickly, but at first The Chancellor was saying "no one would be left behind", so there was the strong suggestion that the covid support rules etc would be tweaked to be fairer. But 7 months on, and they're still using the same flawed criteria for eligibility, as evidenced by the National Audit Office's report that 2.9 MILLION self employed people have been excluded from the support schemes, many on purely arbitrary and nonsensical grounds. It's noteworthy that The Chancellor has changed his tune from "no one will be left behind" to "we can't help everyone". HMRC have all the "evidence" they need from tax returns etc to provide better support to the excluded self employment, but a political decision has been made not to help them. And some people still think Rishi is a brilliant Chancellor and is the next leader of the Tory party - they're living in cloud cuckoo land - he hasn't a clue - he's just good in front of the camera.

^This. I was self employed but didn't qualify for a penny from government. My business has closed and I've had to get a job (very very lucky to get one). My sister also didn't get a penny. Then again neither of us votes Tory so maybe they are cleverer than we think - they have certainly shafted us.

Your business cannot carry on, because it cannot be done in a covid safe manner. That's the reasoning, nothing else apart from who's business is more worthy or essential or carried out by rich or poor people.

When you sit there holding someone's hand and breathing the same air as them, it's very likely that if one of you has covid, it will be transmitted to the other, and all your other clients, and their friends and family too.

My DP has not been able to do his job either and won't for months because he works on concerts and festivals, so hasn't done one of those jobs for about 8 months now. He's also not had a penny in support because he was on PAYE with one of his main clients in the qualifying year, which wiped out his eligibility for the SEISS grants.

Fortunately he's managed to get work in another industry so he's still earning money. Is that something you could do?

We’re construction and we were decimated by it, most of our work is in commercial industry and everything was cancelled. I can run sites with very little infection risk, my BFF is a hairdresser and couldn’t say the same.

But, what your describing is fraud, I know of a few people doing nails, hair etc locally that carried on despite the restrictions and claimed any grant etc and it made me so angry and sad for my friend but I did feel angry at the whole trade. Also, we didn’t get a grant, we had to take the bounce back loan so we have to find the money to repay if we recover whereas many trades, companies etc had grants. It’s swings and roundabouts

But I *didnt

It might not be fraud. It might be that the one-size fits all covid-help for self employed people actually benefits some people, not others. It is almost certainly cheaper for the Gov to give a one-size fits all payment than to do a means-test and minutely examine all the self-employed peoples annual accounts, which will be available in a few years time.

It feels unfair, because it is unfair, but it is not necessarily illegal.

@Changethetoner it clearly says you can only claim if your business has been affected not if you have continued to work throughout
We can't always blame the goverment