free hit
counters
Coronavirus - Page 81 - General Chat - The Lotus Forums #ForTheOwners Jump to content


Coronavirus


Barrykearley

Recommended Posts


Upgrade today to remove Google ads and support TLF.

Laying of staff isn't free, redundancy is an expensive process and to be fair (not to the people who's jobs they are), companies can only lay off staff if their job is no longer required otherwise employees with more than 2 years service can call them to account for the redundancy. If their job is no longer required, why are the government paying their wages to keep them employed in a job which isn't needed?

I get that a huge amount of redundancies would have been a bad place to be in but those people would be being re-hired now as their jobs are once again needed and the companies with money in the bank are the ones who would have paid for it in the mean time. 

88 Esprit NA, 89 Esprit Turbo SE, Evora, Evora S, Evora IPS, Evora S IPS, Evora S IPS SR, Evora 400, Elise S1, Elise S1 111s, Evora GT410 Sport

Evora NA

For forum issues, please contact the Moderators. I will aim to respond to emails/PM's Mon-Fri 9-6 GMT. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This part is also good news as I have heard of some sole traders proposing to go bust

HMRC will also be handed powers to target beneficiaries of the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme (SEISS) and small companies that received grants of up to £25,000 to help them through the crisis. If HMRC suspects a business did not actually require a loan, or that a sole trader ceased trading soon after receiving money from the SEISS scheme, it will be able to put the burden on those investigated to prove otherwise

hindsight: the science that is never wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold FFM

Or maybe the Government knew a crisis was looming, one that would potentially see large numbers of people being laid off in big companies as our service focused economy started to grind to a halt due to a Global pandemic.

That in turn would further hit the "service chain" as people would not be going to work, so food, clothes, transport purchases etc would all take a hit and many more people could be laid off/leave work as small businesses folded.

So, understanding this the Government thought ahead and came up with a Job Retention Scheme - the clue is obviously in the second word there - Retention, NOT Redundancy.  The intent was for the Government to help out all businesses for a period of time to safeguard and protect, in the first instance, the jobs of hard working citizens.  Sounds like a great plan to me, and smaller businesses have been further supported with rates relief for the whole year, access to cheap (0%) Government backed loans etc.

So first and foremost. Let's have some positive gratitude for the politicians in our Government who actually have done a great job, in this instance of trying to support their citizens.  Hip hip.......

However, some businesses, large and small, have, as ever, tried to "cheat the system", taking tax payers money whilst continuing to pay dividends and bonuses to some and planning to make significant furloughed employees redundant at the end of the process. Others, have used the facilities to generate "free money" that they have squirrelled away with some bordering on fraud and some down well committing fraud as part of the process.

So secondly, let's name and shame these companies and lets show them we have a long memory when it comes to showing them our disgust, by refusing to buy their products or services, in the future.  Boo hoo.......

So, the Government, recognising some companies (BA, wonder where you fit in all of this with Sports Direct et al) were basically taking the piss has put in place a mechanism to haul their asses to account.  Hip hip....

I for one am very happy we have a conservative government right now. Fcuk knows what state we would be in, right now, if that muppet fence sitter Corbyn and his cronies had been in power. It really does not bare thinking about what a damned bloody mess we'd be in.

I'm saying this government is wonderful and perfect. But in comparison to the alternative....

  • Like 2

Alcohol. Sex. Tobacco. Drugs. Chocolate.  Meh! NOTHING in this world is as addictive as an Evora +0. It's not for babies!    

The first guy to ride a bull for fun, was a true hero. The second man to follow him was truly nuts!   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold FFM

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought that dividends and bonuses are based on a company’s previous tax year’s accounts and directors have a legal and contractual duty to pay shareholders dividends if they’ve been previously declared, although I’m not not sure about the situation with bonuses, never having had any.

As to whether there’s a moral issue at stake, that’s quite another thing.

Margate Exotics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold FFM

Dividends once declared need to be paid, however Boards can vote prior to their declaration to not pay them.  Bonus' payments are nearly always discretionary and can be removed/not paid.

Alcohol. Sex. Tobacco. Drugs. Chocolate.  Meh! NOTHING in this world is as addictive as an Evora +0. It's not for babies!    

The first guy to ride a bull for fun, was a true hero. The second man to follow him was truly nuts!   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold FFM

@C8RKH off topic but the maxi-facial surgeon who rebuilt my head (amazing and  talented bloke who also turned up to my 50th and danced with his wife all night, you can check him out just Google Rob Bentley Kings College) is the brother in law of Mike Ashley! Now back on topic 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold FFM

Sounds like a nice bloke Dan but not sure the point.  He obviously ain't involved in Sports Direct and I ain't making this personal.

Alcohol. Sex. Tobacco. Drugs. Chocolate.  Meh! NOTHING in this world is as addictive as an Evora +0. It's not for babies!    

The first guy to ride a bull for fun, was a true hero. The second man to follow him was truly nuts!   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold FFM
13 hours ago, C8RKH said:

Dividends once declared need to be paid, however Boards can vote prior to their declaration to not pay them.  Bonus' payments are nearly always discretionary and can be removed/not paid.

It's all about timing. And if the dividends were declared last year, then companies will have to stump up this year, whether they like it, or not. After a bit of legwork, I discovered that not all bonus payments are discretionary, as they could be linked to previous profits made and could be contractual, so again, there's an obligation in those cases to stump up. So the pots of money that everyone thinks is available to save employees being laid off is legally spoken for.

To me though, what will be interesting is what happens in the next tax/accounting year, although if the current furore has diminished, I don't suppose we'll get to hear, or even notice.

Margate Exotics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My commercial tenants all received a £10k Covid grant from the council, it was not means tested and never has to be paid back.

none of the tenants, except one, have really noticed a downturn and have managed to keep busy, in fact, two of them A private ambulance company and a well known parcel delivery company have never had it so good.

I was also talking to a friend who has received a £25k Covid grant, furloughed all staff. Both he and his partner continued trading for the last three months, worked their backsides off and have managed to clear a £50k debt at their bank.

seems to be lots of free money about for some, but we will all have to help pay it back....hard times coming possibly!

I also think the 80% of wages was too high, 60% seems a more realistic figure, what with all the payment holidays on offer for virtually everything, the week willed will certainly be storing up problems for the future

Edited by Francisco Franco
Addition
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold FFM
On 14/06/2020 at 17:25, pete said:

This part is also good news as I have heard of some sole traders proposing to go bust

HMRC will also be handed powers to target beneficiaries of the Self-Employment Income Support Scheme (SEISS) and small companies that received grants of up to £25,000 to help them through the crisis. If HMRC suspects a business did not actually require a loan, or that a sole trader ceased trading soon after receiving money from the SEISS scheme, it will be able to put the burden on those investigated to prove otherwise

I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the scheme had been abused by some unscrupulous operators. HMRC is going to have a field day when they catch up with them.

Margate Exotics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Francisco Franco said:

I also think the 80% of wages was too high, 60% seems a more realistic figure, what with all the payment holidays on offer for virtually everything, the week willed will certainly be storing up problems for the future

I definitely agree, after all , we the UK voting population by default have ratified the level of support paid in situations such as unemployment and sickness, and that's nowhere near 80%, nor even 60% of the average income. So, if it's OK for others to take a massive financial drop, then surely we have to equally be prepared for a massive drop if we no longer had to go into work (and all the expense that goes with it), let alone the reduction in luxury expenditure (eating / drinking out, events, clothes shopping ).  The message given by the 80% / £2.5k is don't worry you'll not loose anything due to COVID-19. Well somebody has to pay and I think it's us the UK taxpayers who carried on working/ trading.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold FFM

Several companies are promising to pay back furlough payments in the future out of profits.  A very nice move.  BA, take note.....

  • Like 2

Alcohol. Sex. Tobacco. Drugs. Chocolate.  Meh! NOTHING in this world is as addictive as an Evora +0. It's not for babies!    

The first guy to ride a bull for fun, was a true hero. The second man to follow him was truly nuts!   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, andydclements said:

I definitely agree, after all , we the UK voting population by default have ratified the level of support paid in situations such as unemployment and sickness, and that's nowhere near 80%, nor even 60% of the average income. So, if it's OK for others to take a massive financial drop, then surely we have to equally be prepared for a massive drop if we no longer had to go into work (and all the expense that goes with it), let alone the reduction in luxury expenditure (eating / drinking out, events, clothes shopping ).  The message given by the 80% / £2.5k is don't worry you'll not loose anything due to COVID-19. Well somebody has to pay and I think it's us the UK taxpayers who carried on working/ trading.

That was the exact message intended though - support the population and the economy whilst we deal with this pandemic by placing our way of life on hold.  It was the right government support, when we needed it.  I think its one of the best things of recent times ever done by governments and I don't think it warrants the time to compare it to other long-term and lower scale (in terms of applications) benefits.  A number of my friends have been furloughed and this scheme has meant they've been okay.   As has been said above, that some companies are exploiting the scheme (BA shame on you!) is another thing and I agree with posts above that long term we should vote with our feet and not support these immoral businesses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furlough does not mean your job is safe, it may just mean your ok until the government says go back to work and if the company can't trade your redundant. I know someone this has happened to. There is going to be huge unemployment, what happens to the catering staff, the cleaners, the caretakers, the car park attendants etc. at the offices in the City if most will have the majority of staff working from home? Insurance companies may well go under with unprecedented payouts. The hospitality sector will be decimated, so much for moving tables outside, we live in the UK its normally wet and cold. There is a storm coming and its going to be a hard one.

Amateurs built the Ark

Professionals built the Titanic

"I haven't ridden in cars pulled by cows before" "Bullocks, Mr.Belcher" "No, I haven't, honestly"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold FFM

@red vtec there is a difference between "furlough" and the JRS (Job Retention Scheme) is there not?  Any employee can be furloughed, however, there are defined rules for claiming for furlough'd workers under the JRS scheme through HMRC.

There is nothing to prevent someone from being made redundant whilst on furlough (or indeed whilst not on furlough) but remember it is the "role" that is made redundant and not an individual. So you cannot make someone redundant in a role and then employ someone else in the same role.  The key issue is around what the furlough is and is not used for.  It is to be used to pay employees salaries (up to the limits), it is not to be used to substitute redundancy payments so if a business believes it will not be viable, it still needs to ensure it is able to pay the redundancy obligations they have accrued.

Hope that makes sense.

  • Like 1

Alcohol. Sex. Tobacco. Drugs. Chocolate.  Meh! NOTHING in this world is as addictive as an Evora +0. It's not for babies!    

The first guy to ride a bull for fun, was a true hero. The second man to follow him was truly nuts!   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@C8RKH I have not said it is being used to reduce redundancy payments to the employer, I am saying that in some cases it is just a delay before redundancy. A company might not have business to open back up, the demand/sector has disappeared. Therefore it will make sweet FA if it is furlough or JRS to the poor sod made redundant.

Amateurs built the Ark

Professionals built the Titanic

"I haven't ridden in cars pulled by cows before" "Bullocks, Mr.Belcher" "No, I haven't, honestly"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold FFM

If the company does not have the resources to reopen then it should not be furloughing staff but closing and making people redundant. Might sound harsh but the reality is that the JRS is a grant to protect jobs, not to provide a free income and defer redundancy until the grant stops. I've heard some horrendous stories of how the grants, interest free loans and various other schemes are being systematically raped and abused by some. For instance one self employed guy who just thought it was free money he could blow - but he forgot that the Grant goes through his books so will now be taxable so when he withdrew it to make a £25k luxury purchase it ended up pushing him into a higher earnings tax bracket as it was deemed as "earnings".  I've heard of much worse abuses than that.

Alcohol. Sex. Tobacco. Drugs. Chocolate.  Meh! NOTHING in this world is as addictive as an Evora +0. It's not for babies!    

The first guy to ride a bull for fun, was a true hero. The second man to follow him was truly nuts!   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Gold FFM
14 hours ago, Buddsy said:

Fox news, BBC News, Sky News they are all in the same barrel.

 

Wow seems Im not alone anymore! 

MORE THAN A FIFTH OF PEOPLE IN ENGLAND BELIEVE COVID-19 IS A HOAX

 

buddsy

Tell that to an ex-work colleague of mine who's partner died of Covid at the end of April.

  • Like 1

Signature not working...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...