The Mayor, the Youth Worker and the Cash-in-Hand Job

[CC082]

Granted no PAYE tax may have been taken if they do not work over 29.34hrs a week.

However as far as NI contributions are concerned, please see below, copied and pasted from gov.uk website...

3. How much National Insurance you pay
If you're employed

You pay Class 1 National Insurance contributions. The rates are:

    12% on your weekly earnings between £149 and £797
    2% on any weekly earnings over £797

You pay National Insurance with your tax. Your employer will take it from your wages before you get paid.

Now £149 is 24.07hrs/week....Also just because the employEE does not pay any NI contributions does not automatically dictate that the employER does not pay a contribution...

Again copied and pasted from Gov.uk website...

1. Overview

For all employees earning more than £149 a week you have to deduct Class 1 National Insurance contributions (NICs) from their pay. You also pay a direct contribution on an employee's earnings above £148 a week. The exact amounts depend on:

    how much an employee earns
    their National Insurance category (this depends on their circumstances)

You have to keep National Insurance records for all employees earning more than £109 a week.

Please refer to the last sentence....My advice for this employee would be to ask to see these NI records.

[grim reaper]

I wonder if Chris (the 'leader' of the council) was aware of the cash-in-hand payments? 

Akers-belcher--council leader---an oxymoron if ever there was one! 

[ARC86]

Yet again trying to score cheap points.. how many times do i have to say i am not connected to the Labour group in Hartlepool.

Craig your talking nonsense of course an employer who breaks the law should face the consequences.. is SAB the employer in this case?

If im not mistaken the rifty is open 5 hours per week so that will put the said worker nowhere near 24 hours to pay NIC

Cc082 that is all done quite simply through sage.. does the rifty use sage? I dont know!

As for me being a great union man.. thank you i had another significant win for my members just last week.. its great being elected year after year.. and that is because my members terms and conditions come before everything else

[marky]

Surely the point of the article is to highlight SAB's shambolic and hypocritical resignation as a trustee of Manor Residents. As the article states, SAB resigned because of the 'lack of transparency'  over the tribunal cases. In other words, he was claiming that he was told nothing about the lack of contracts, payslips, minimum wage violations etc and yet here he is, directly involved in the same sort of thing himself - only this time at Rossmere.

Let's face it, he ran away from Manor Residents when it got too hot in the kitchen but from his own actions at Rossmere, he still doesn't seem to accept that there was anything wrong in what was going on at MR.

[ARC86]

Correct me if im wrong but isnt rossmere a council run site? If the said worker works at rossmere will he not be on the councils books?

For the record if im wrong i always hold my hands up and admit it but in this case nothing anybody else has said has changed my mind that this story just will not run

[CC082]

I also do not know if they use Sage but I do know that all employers must use a wages package that incorporates RTI(Real Time information)

Also, I was not weighing into the argument of this individual in particular I was merely acknowledging and pointing out that your quote below...

for anybody to start paying income tax and NIC they must earn £181.63 a week before a penny is due.

is incorrect...Your initial comments stated people should do their research before commenting....Well I am only pointing out the facts of NI contributions and that you do not have to earn £181.63 a week before a penny is due...in fact you only have to earn £149....

[marky]

If im not mistaken the rifty is open 5 hours per week so that will put the said worker nowhere near 24 hours to pay NIC

Are you real?

Let's say ASDA have someone on just 16 hours a week....are you saying because of this they shouldn't bother to supply the employee with a Statement of Employment or Payslips or to inform HMRC. Would they not bother to use the correct tax code or to provide a P60 at the end of the year?

Or are you saying that they should just say f*c* it and pay the employee cash-in-hand?

I love your comment boasting about being re-elected year after year irrespective of what sh**e you have spoken or rules you have bent in the mean time - sounds very Labour to me.

[ARC86]

I stand corrected your figure is correct for NIC mine is correct for income tax

you are also correct on RTI.. this information should be sent weekly or monthly however you are paid.. also VAT returns should be sent monthly via the same sage programme

[ARC86]

Would you like to point out where i have suggested an employer should not supply pay slips etc? Stop spinning!!

You should also note that i am a responsible employer as well as an employee at another company, so i know both sides of the rules.

For you to suggest i am "bent" says it all really, why do PHF members have to get personal and not have a rational debate.. fair does you hate Labour, its not my fault you didnt make any inroads on the manor

[CC082]

I stand corrected your figure is correct for NIC mine is correct for income tax

you are also correct on RTI.. this information should be sent weekly or monthly however you are paid.. also VAT returns should be sent monthly via the same sage programme

Thank you for acknowledging.  I appreciate everyone has their own views on here but what I don't like reading is when contributers start writing such things as "do your homework before writing such nonsense..".....In my experience if you're going to write statements like that you have to be damn sure you are stating facts or else you leave yourself open to people throwing the "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" comment in your face.

I try not to get involved in mud slinging because it solves nothing and loses the focus of the subject being discussed in the first place...

[ARC86]

Im always happy to own up if im wrong, which is more than can be said for a few people on these boards..

Marky you do yourself a disservice calling people bent and saying they use underhand tactics.. simple fact is i dont do either.. it appears to me that all PHF members on here think i am a Labour plant.. i am not! Everytime i post on here you guys are on to me like a shot.. do you call each other up and say the troll is back loI shall ho back to my original point seen as though we have gone way off tooiv and that is that this story will not run

[DRiddle]

I genuinely can't believe some of the comments on this thread. This one in particular caught my eye.

Im not taking it lightly or being biased at all, just pointing out the facts.. how many people in town have never had a cash in hand job.. i certainly have! But this story is really scraping the barrel.. i understand why you guys need to keep the pressure on but this story just wont run for the reason ive stated above.. everyone has at some point in there lives done a job for cash in hand whether that be through naivety or on the fiddle, everybody has done it

Arc, what sort of a comment is that? Lots of people speed but if you get pulled over speeding by the police, you can't just point at all the traffic on the motorway and say "Well they're all doing it".

If other people are doing it (paying cash in hand) then that's up to them and up to HMRC to deal with if and when they catch them doing it.

The difference here of course is that we're not just talking about a window cleaner bunging a young lad a few quid to help him out now and again on his round, or whatever.

We're allegedly talking about the ceremonial Mayor of our town. Although in theory the law treats both the window cleaner and the Mayor the same, I'd argue strongly that there are a significant set of extra standards and expectations one would expect of the latter.

[for fawkes sake]

I'm not a member of PHF and I suspect that the majority of people who have commented on this matter aren't members of PHF either so why you should raise this as an issue is a mystery to me.

I have read your own comments and frankly, as a union man, I am astonished at you attitude. Anyone who employs someone but refuses to provide them with a contract of employment or 'statement of employment' or payslips showing both gross and net pay as well as deductions is to me a rogue employer. Normally, i would expect the union approach to such people would be to criticise them without hestitation.

So why are you reluctant to do so and why instead do you target your criticism on those who find such behaviour towards an employee unacceptable?

If you choose to side with the rogue and not the employee then I am not surprised people think of you as being 'bent' - someone whose view of wrong doing varies with who it is who is doing the wrong.

[ARC86]

Would you care to point me to where i have said it is acceptable to breach employment law? My point is simple - this will not take off as is hoped by everyone on this thread

i am not defending anybody.. but you like everyone else on here assumes guilt without hearing both sides of the story, because the man in question is a Labour man.. did you assume that michael le vell was guilty before he was acquitted? No, of course you didnt.. but because you all have a gripe with the Labour Party you automatically assume guilt

[mk1]

Would you care to point me to where i have said it is acceptable to breach employment law? My point is simple - this will not take off as is hoped by everyone on this thread

i am not defending anybody.. but you like everyone else on here assumes guilt without hearing both sides of the story,

Go on then give us an argument  that could explain the total lack of any paperwork.

As for Kevin  well I actually did read some of  the evidence and I think he was very lucky to get off.