KEEP programme to attract and keep key employees

Status
Not open for further replies.
Brendan Burgess

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
53,691
Advantageous tax treatment on share options for self employed

upload_2017-10-10_14-10-28.png
 
Last edited:
This announcement may be of some interest to me. Is there any further information available on this that anyone knows of?

Thanks
 
It sounds useful, not sure what is meant as 'key' employee. Ideally, extend it out to all employees in my view. Nothing like having an stake in ownership to appreciate the value of something.
 
TheBigShort said:
It sounds useful, not sure what is meant as 'key' employee. Ideally, extend it out to all employees in my view. Nothing like having an stake in ownership to appreciate the value of something.
Click to expand...

The idea behind KEEP is to enable indigenous Irish firms to recruit and retain top quality talent so that they can compete with multi-nationals.

I cannot see this being extended to employees who are not of that calibre.
 
Sophrosyne said:
The idea behind KEEP is to enable indigenous Irish firms to recruit and retain top quality talent so that they can compete with multi-nationals.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I think it is a good idea. I simply wouldn't restrict the concept of share-based remuneration to top quality talent. Even the top guys rely on the middle guys who rely on the bottom guys.
The point I was making was that ownership of an asset provides a sense of appreciation otherwise not always acknowledged. House ownership over house rental is a typical example.
So if the cleaner, or the security guard, or the factory worker, or the hairdresser, or the waiter, or the counter assistant etc were to receive some remuneration in the form of share ownership, I think that might provide for a more productive workforce at all levels of any organization.
 
There is nothing to prevent an employer from having more than one employee share scheme, one of which they may extend to all employees.
 
Sophrosyne said:
There is nothing to prevent an employer from having more than one employee share scheme, one of which they may extend to all employees.
Click to expand...

True, but makes you wonder why the government is getting involved in the first place then? Why encourage employers to offer share-based remuneration to some employees and not all?
 
Because without without cutting edge people there may not be a business or a brain drain from the business to the multi-nationals.
 
True, but it doesn't answer the question as to why government, interfering in the labour market, would not allow the same incentive for employers to be applied to all employees involved in indigenous businesses.
It's just a thought.
 
TheBigShort said:
True, but it doesn't answer the question as to why government, interfering in the labour market, would not allow the same incentive for employers to be applied to all employees involved in indigenous businesses.
It's just a thought.
Click to expand...

What makes you think that it isn't available to all employees?

Surely it's up to the employer to decide who is important enough, in their view, to be incentivised by being given a stake in the business.
 
torblednam said:
What makes you think that it isn't available to all employees?

Surely it's up to the employer to decide who is important enough, in their view, to be incentivised by being given a stake in the business.
Click to expand...

You could be right. I just took it from the notice above "...to attract key employees..." that that was intended to distinguish from all employees.
So I would imagine in a software development company, that a software developer would be a key employee and as such be able to avail of this tax beneficial scheme.
A receptionist, although important and quite often, indispensable, may not be considered key and as such will not be able to avail of the tax beneficial scheme.
 
TheBigShort said:
So if the cleaner, or the security guard, or the factory worker, or the hairdresser, or the waiter, or the counter assistant etc were to receive some remuneration in the form of share ownership, I think that might provide for a more productive workforce at all levels of any organization.
Click to expand...
Where I work the top factory workers are the hardest to find and the best paid. The top guys on our shop floor earn twice what our accountant gets. Then again there is no shortage of accountants and it is a less skillful job.
If you are listing off low skilled jobs you need to be more discerning.
 
TheBigShort said:
You could be right. I just took it from the notice above "...to attract key employees..." that that was intended to distinguish from all employees.
Click to expand...
I agree.

TheBigShort said:
So I would imagine in a software development company, that a software developer would be a key employee and as such be able to avail of this tax beneficial scheme.
Click to expand...
The issue should be can they be easily replaced. While it is a well paid and often skillful job is it a reasonably generic skill (like hairdressing) which someone can just slot into?

TheBigShort said:
A receptionist, although important and quite often, indispensable, may not be considered key and as such will not be able to avail of the tax beneficial scheme.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It's not hard to find receptionists. It is hard to find good receptionists but then again it's hard to find good people for any role.
 
Purple said:
It's not hard to find receptionists. It is hard to find good receptionists but then again it's hard to find good people for any role.
Click to expand...

And my point is, if the receptionist had a vested interest in the business by way of share ownership, it would be in the receptionists self-interest to perform the receptionist duties to the best of his or her abilities in an attempt to retain and increase the value of those shares.
 
TheBigShort said:
And my point is, if the receptionist had a vested interest in the business by way of share ownership, it would be in the receptionists self-interest to perform the receptionist duties to the best of his or her abilities in an attempt to retain and increase the value of those shares.
Click to expand...
Should people not try their best anyway?
Is it not incumbent on us all to be the best person we can be?
 
Purple said:
Should people not try their best anyway?
Is it not incumbent on us all to be the best person we can be?
Click to expand...

Yes, in an ideal world.
But in reality, people can react differently to the variety of circumstances that they find themselves in. As you mentioned already, it's hard to find a good receptionist - even though there is no apparent shortage of receptionists. But, if what you say is correct, then there is an apparent shortage of good receptionists.
So in order to overcome the issue of a shortage of good receptionists, I would propose that the KEEP scheme outlined above be extended to all employees. In view, people tend to value more what they own.
It's just a suggestion.
 
TheBigShort said:
Yes, in an ideal world.
But in reality, people can react differently to the variety of circumstances that they find themselves in. As you mentioned already, it's hard to find a good receptionist - even though there is no apparent shortage of receptionists. But, if what you say is correct, then there is an apparent shortage of good receptionists.
So in order to overcome the issue of a shortage of good receptionists, I would propose that the KEEP scheme outlined above be extended to all employees. In view, people tend to value more what they own.
It's just a suggestion.
Click to expand...
I think the whole scheme is just aimed at Start-up's. There are very few established SME's who would avail of this program. What happens if someone leaves the company? They are a shareholder but not a director. There's nothing to keep them there, even if they own a little of the firm.
 
Purple said:
I think the whole scheme is just aimed at Start-up's. There are very few established SME's who would avail of this program. What happens if someone leaves the company? They are a shareholder but not a director. There's nothing to keep them there, even if they own a little of the firm.
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure what the question here is. If someone leaves the firm, say for another job, they can sell their shares if they wish, or they can hold on to them and add them to their portfolio to any shares earned in the new firm.
If they work for 40yrs, they may end up with a significant pension fund, all earned by themselves, independent of anyone else.
 
TheBigShort said:
I'm not really sure what the question here is. If someone leaves the firm, say for another job, they can sell their shares if they wish, or they can hold on to them and add them to their portfolio to any shares earned in the new firm.
If they work for 40yrs, they may end up with a significant pension fund, all earned by themselves, independent of anyone else.
Click to expand...
Shares in a private company won't earn a dividend. They will almost certainly be restricted in who they can sell the shares to. A minority shareholding in a private company is worth very little.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top