Rules and Guidelines
Want to participate in the discussions? Please read our Community Rules and Guidelines. Need some help? Visit Support and Answers.

  • State Not Answered
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 17 replies
  • Subscribers 32 subscribers
  • Views 2192 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
You may also be interested in
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

80% pay

Former Community Member
Former Community Member
This does raise a few points! I can see both sides having spent 13 years as an employee interspersed with being self-employed out of my total of 46 years working.

My understanding is:

I'd say most business use an accountant to minimise their tax bill by claiming for office items including the new phone monthly rental, new lap top etc yet alone other things as transport costs including the new van, all of which are not available to the employed.

I suspect also that quite a few jobs that are paid in cash, are not always declared in full.

Purchase of tools and equipment also tends to be a call made on reducing taxable income when there is a profit to be reduced.

The consequence I see is that the tax paid averaged over the last three years will be lower and subsequently, any "Government" pay given out in June will be considerably less than the living standards some have got used to............... One "perk" is that they can still continue earning whereas to qualify for the employee 80%, they must be furloughed. 

Secondly, those small or sole traders fronted with a Ltd company are employees, so does the Ltd company have to pay themselves as per the 80% scheme in place for employees? The directors of those companies are not self employed, they also take dividends to reduce tax, so have they excluded themselves from yesterday's announcement? Yet alone to be furloughed, they must not do any work at all for their employer, ie their own business?


Regards


BOD
Parents
  • 0

    AJJewsbury:




    The point of self-isolation is to delay and flatten the curve - accept that most people will still get infected, but the numbers turning up at hospital per day won't be (too) overwhelmingly large. Also, delaying buys time to to manufacture more PPE, ventilators, construct temporary hospitals, train staff etc. Finally, the idea is that vulnerable people will be kept self-isolated for months. By the time they're "let out", most of the "healthy" population will have been been infected, recovered, and will now be providing herd immunity.



    Agreed. But the thing that worries me is how long do you have to stretch things out to achieve that? I tried some very (very) rough calculations - presuming things like 2.5% of victims will need intensive care, a massive increase in ICU capacity (including the new Nightingale and a few equivalents elsewhere - and presuming they can find all the extra ICU staff) and hopelessly hopeful assumptions like you can regulate things so every ICU unit is kept exactly at capacity - and for the UK sized population concluded that the process would take around 18 months - which seems like a lot more than the 3-weeks to 3-months that's often talked about - and an awful long time for most of the economy to be kept shutdown.


    I do wish that all this talk about ventilators would stop. Full ventilation requires an ITU bed and they require personnel, who cannot be trained in just a few days.


    And then, what is the prognosis for a patient who is on ventilation? The figure for recovery (of hospital patients) published in worldometers.info is 4% of "closed" cases in UK. Those stats seem to show that 99% of cases have been "mild" as opposed to "serious or critical". So it appears that 135 lives at most have been saved so far in hospitals.


    It seems abundantly clear that the economy cannot continue as it is at the moment, and the Government cannot continue to pay 80% wages and bale out companies for any extended period. I simply ask whether all the economic turmoil is justified by a small number of lives saved? That's a political decision and each of us will have a different view on the matter.

Reply
  • 0

    AJJewsbury:




    The point of self-isolation is to delay and flatten the curve - accept that most people will still get infected, but the numbers turning up at hospital per day won't be (too) overwhelmingly large. Also, delaying buys time to to manufacture more PPE, ventilators, construct temporary hospitals, train staff etc. Finally, the idea is that vulnerable people will be kept self-isolated for months. By the time they're "let out", most of the "healthy" population will have been been infected, recovered, and will now be providing herd immunity.



    Agreed. But the thing that worries me is how long do you have to stretch things out to achieve that? I tried some very (very) rough calculations - presuming things like 2.5% of victims will need intensive care, a massive increase in ICU capacity (including the new Nightingale and a few equivalents elsewhere - and presuming they can find all the extra ICU staff) and hopelessly hopeful assumptions like you can regulate things so every ICU unit is kept exactly at capacity - and for the UK sized population concluded that the process would take around 18 months - which seems like a lot more than the 3-weeks to 3-months that's often talked about - and an awful long time for most of the economy to be kept shutdown.


    I do wish that all this talk about ventilators would stop. Full ventilation requires an ITU bed and they require personnel, who cannot be trained in just a few days.


    And then, what is the prognosis for a patient who is on ventilation? The figure for recovery (of hospital patients) published in worldometers.info is 4% of "closed" cases in UK. Those stats seem to show that 99% of cases have been "mild" as opposed to "serious or critical". So it appears that 135 lives at most have been saved so far in hospitals.


    It seems abundantly clear that the economy cannot continue as it is at the moment, and the Government cannot continue to pay 80% wages and bale out companies for any extended period. I simply ask whether all the economic turmoil is justified by a small number of lives saved? That's a political decision and each of us will have a different view on the matter.

Children
No Data

Community Rules & Guidelines