Coronavirus

[tom kilner]

Or maybe the government knew they would lay off staff of they didn't get a wedge off the taxpayer?

Those big companies probably let them know what would happen before the rules were made.

[Bibs]

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. 

[pete]

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

[C8RKH]

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....

[Chillidoggy]

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.

[C8RKH]

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.

[Dan E]

@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 

[C8RKH]

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.

[Dan E]

There is no point and I think he thinks Ashley is a Twunt 🤪 I was just amazed he was related, you are never going to get me backing Ashley 

[Chillidoggy]

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.

[C8RKH]

Which is why I said they were "nearly always" discretionary.  Also, even though a bonus may be contractual and the conditions triggered, the executive can always decline to take it!

However, I would say a company that needs to use it's "free cash" reserves up to pay bonuses and dividends is probably not going to be around for long....

I think the point is, profitable companies, that are well managed, will and did have reserves to get them through lean times. The Government has stumped up the cash to ensure that not all their reserves would be used and that therefore furloughed employees would have a job to come back to thanks to government support. The cash was not there to help the companies to restructure, fcuk staff over and make a load of them redundant which is what some companies appear to be doing.

I'm a very strong supporter of Sunak and his policies around this so will admit my bias runs deep.  I think he has been a revelation in his role and I am confident that he is the right person for the job for now and the coming few hard years.  He seems able to strike a well defined balance, so much so that not even the unions have complained it was not enough really!  A remarkable act to pull off for a Conservative Chancellor.

[Peapod]

Today in Oxford Street. Obviously Black Lives Do Not Matter. Cretins.

Edited June 15, 2020 by Peapod
typo

[LotusLeftLotusRight]

Can’t be seen dead protesting without the latest Nike trainers!

[Francisco Franco]

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 June 15, 2020 by Francisco Franco
Addition

[Chillidoggy]

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.

[andydclements]

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.

[C8RKH]

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

[Bravo73]

3 hours ago, Buddsy said:

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

All that goes to show is that at least a fifth of people in England are absolute idiots. But then we know that already. 

[Techyd]

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.

[red vtec]

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.

[C8RKH]

@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.

[williamtherebel]

[red vtec]

@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.

[C8RKH]

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.

[Mysterae]

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.