Are U1of 3million+ #ExcludedUK Getting NO Govt Support? Join us!

banthetrolls

Grumpy_chap said:

banthetrolls said:

Grumpy_chap said:

OK -  so everyone is everyone, including the multi-millionaires.
How much do you suggest we give to everyone as a one-off grant?

Why do you think you have the right to say that I should not be contributing to this discussion?

Your not contributing are you 
Your being pedantic and arguing any point anyone makes 
So again this area of the forum isn’t for you 
You add nothing constructive to what should be a support forum 

I am not arguing any point - I am trying to understand the point you have made.

You have still failed to clarify how much you think should have been given to everyone as a one-off grant, although I appreciate the fact you confirmed that this should go to everyone.  I actually think it is constructive to comment where a proposal has a potential flaw as it allows those wishing to take the argument to Government / MP's etc the opportunity to refine their position so that it has greater chance of succeeding.  In the context of a grant going to everyone, there would need to be a proposal as to how much this should be set at.  I also think such an approach would result in payments going to people that have not been adversely affected by corona virus to the detriment of the people that have been adversely affected.

The above is all a constructive comment on the proposal that you have put forwards.  It is not being pedantic.  It is not arguing any point anyone makes.

I hope I have not used too many big words for you to understand.

I repeat that I do not feel it is your position to say who should or should not comment on this area of the forum or this thread.  Being a support forum does not mean that every comment has to agree with your position or or suggestion.  In a similar way, parents support their children by not giving them everything they ask for.  

Apart from having a dig about using long words i completely understand what your pointing out for the first time 
So thanks for that 
As for the one off payment to everyone it would seem fraud causes are beginning to surface in the news a fair bit 
So although they may need to claw back or investigate during or after it would at least of meant a fairness for all

Of course i couldn't give you a plan for how that would work exactly but i believe other countries ,Australia for example have done something similar that i believe has worked well

Unfortunately it's all too late and can only hope the error in their judgement of ignoring people left behind is addressed in some way .
Financial holidays and loans are and were available anyway to most people so i can't include that in government help 

Senna_1st

@Grumpy_chap

amykirk1996 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Why do you think you have the right to say that I should not be contributing to this discussion?

Of course you should be contributing, but as the saying goes at the moment "you are part of the problem, quit being part of the problem and start being part of the solution".

A good starting point would be recognising that there are a large number of people, the estimates are 1-3 million but pick a number out of the air of your own choosing if you like, currently forgotten and/or excluded from support.

While I appreciate your permission to now contribute to this discussion (not that I really thought I needed your permission, but thanks all the same), but I find your statement that I am "part of the problem" to be both offensive and ill-informed.

The claim is that there are 3 million with NO support - so I do not understand why they are so hard to find given they are so profligate.  The nearest found so far is people that chose not to take the support they could have taken - that does not equal NO support.  The coronavirus support schemes are extraordinarily generous as far as I can tell.

 Ok I’m going to be so bold as to suggest you ‘may’ be living up to your user name.  

There are over 10.3k people in just the closed FB group who for so many various reasons fall outside all of qualifying criteria in the schemes and therefore get NO support. 

Just because you personally haven’t come across any doesn’t mean they are hard to find. 

Why would the chair of the Treasury Select Committee Mel Stride conclude that there are at least 1 million. Why would Martin Lewis support the cause once he had time to investigate it if he couldn’t work out the full implications of the issues. 

It’s Definitely not a matter of choice! Please be so kind as to not keep reiterating that statement.

Nobody is suggesting that the schemes are not generous, your own qualification  ‘as far as I can tell’ speaks volumes, you cannot tell as you presumably have not had your personal & business income obliterated overnight for an indeterminate time. 
In fact they are too generous for many. But that cannot be changed now. 

You’re obviously not affected personally by the failings in the system so I find it hard to understand why you persist in commenting on something you don’t have full personal knowledge of. 

It’s a very complex difficult situation which has so many anomalies that have shocked me as I’ve learnt of more and more details of them over these last 13 weeks. 
I sincerely hope you never find yourself in any kind of comparable situation. 

Right that’s my break over I’ll carry on rebuilding my business. 

justwhat

Senna_1st said:

 Ok I’m going to be so bold as to suggest you ‘may’ be living up to your user name.  

There are over 10.3k people in just the closed FB group who for so many various reasons fall outside all of qualifying criteria in the schemes and therefore get NO support. 

I sincerely hope you never find yourself in any kind of comparable situation. 

Right that’s my break over I’ll carry on rebuilding my business. 

10.3k  Many will not need help or can get the BB Loan. There will be loads on there because they want a slice of the cake. All different people all different scenarios.  Many people have savings  and could have ridden this out.
These Grants / furlough were intended to save viable businesses that had a strong good future. 

Grumpy_chap

banthetrolls said:

Apart from having a dig about using long words 

Sorry about that

Senna_1st said:

 you presumably have not had your personal & business income obliterated overnight for an indeterminate time. 

You’re obviously not affected personally

If only you were correct on either of those points.  

dunstonh

There are over 10.3k people in just the closed FB group who for so many various reasons fall outside all of qualifying criteria in the schemes and therefore get NO support. 

Is that all?    Not many of the so called 3 million then.

Why would the chair of the Treasury Select Committee Mel Stride conclude that there are at least 1 million.

That figure sounds more likely.

Why would Martin Lewis support the cause once he had time to investigate it if he couldn’t work out the full implications of the issues. 

Isn't it logical that he would?   Put yourself in his shoes.   Supporting it has nothing to lose.  Not supporting it hurts brand image with nothing to gain.    Wouldn't you be supporting it if you were looking at your brand?

It’s Definitely not a matter of choice! Please be so kind as to not keep reiterating that statement.

On a long thread of many messages, I cannot remember what issue you think you missed out on.  I think it was annual salary but you can remind me if I am wrong.  Annual salary is a choice. A choice to reduce costs by only taking your salary once a year in March.    Instead of paying a bit more to have it paid monthly.    

The cost of running monthly payroll is around £300 a year more than a single payment payroll.  So, over 17 years, that is a saving (in today's terms) of £5,100.  If you had done monthly payroll and claimed the typical maximum as a director (£719pm @ 80% =  £575.20pm)  then you would need to furlough yourself for 8 months to recover the costs of monthly payroll.   The scheme is not lasting 8 months.  So, you are financially better off by being on annual payroll than you had if you were on monthly payroll.

If it is not annual pay that is your issue then i apologise.  However, it could be applied to many others that are on annual pay schemes rather than monthly pay.

[Deleted User]

Senna_1st said:

You’re obviously not affected personally by the failings in the system so I find it hard to understand why you persist in commenting on something you don’t have full personal knowledge of. 

It’s a very complex difficult situation which has so many anomalies that have shocked me as I’ve learnt of more and more details of them over these last 13 weeks. 

One can still be objective despite being effective, staying objective will be key if you wish to get the government to change direction even slightly. 

As an example, I am a owner/director of a limited company, this will probably cost the company between one and two hundred thousand in lost profit, my personal income will be 20% of the last few years, I am entitled to no personal grants or loans. As an employer I have furloughed staff, I have accessed the CJRS, however all that money is paid to my staff and then some as I am topping up to 100%, in truth it would have been cheaper to make the majority of them redundant and without CJRS that is what happened, CJRS is of no net benefit to me or the company. I pay myself largely by dividend, that was and is my choice, if the government were to hand me a dividend equivalent of the SEISS or CJRS that would be great, but I do not expect them to, not in my opinion should they, dividend is a return on investment and investments may rise and fall.

Now I am totally supportive of finding a system which can help people who started a new business in 19/20 or who only had a few months of trading in 18/19 which made SEISS negligible, I agree that there should be something for those who are forced into short term PAYE contracts where they can not be self-employed due to there requirements of those companies. However the "Excluded" movement has rolled up so many issues into one huge mess, many of them badly thought out and some of their claimed issues are actually false and easily disprovable, for that reason it will not gain mine, or many other's support. 

Senna_1st said:

Right that’s my break over I’ll carry on rebuilding my business. 

That is exactly the right kind of proactive things that people should be done, rather than just screaming gibberish at the sky. Despite all my staff being off furloughed I have managed to recover revenue to around 45% of normal by offering products in a totally different sector, to a totally different market, for the moment I am happy with that, hopefully when the normal business returns both together may mean that late next year or the year after I and the company am in a better place than before all this, but only time will tell.

amykirk1996

Grumpy_chap said:

amykirk1996 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Why do you think you have the right to say that I should not be contributing to this discussion?

Of course you should be contributing, but as the saying goes at the moment "you are part of the problem, quit being part of the problem and start being part of the solution".

A good starting point would be recognising that there are a large number of people, the estimates are 1-3 million but pick a number out of the air of your own choosing if you like, currently forgotten and/or excluded from support.

While I appreciate your permission to now contribute to this discussion (not that I really thought I needed your permission, but thanks all the same), but I find your statement that I am "part of the problem" to be both offensive and ill-informed.

The claim is that there are 3 million with NO support - so I do not understand why they are so hard to find given they are so profligate.  The nearest found so far is people that chose not to take the support they could have taken - that does not equal NO support.  The coronavirus support schemes are extraordinarily generous as far as I can tell.

@Grumpy_chap, well I thought we may finally be getting somewhere with the detailed and informative posts on page 14, but no it seems we are right back at square one with you refusing to accept there are large numbers of forgotten and excluded people.

Grumpy_chap

amykirk1996 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Who are the 3 million getting NO government support?

That's been well documented, it doesn't matter if it's 3 million or 3 hundred, there are far too many.

3 million or 300 makes a big difference.
Marcus Rashford succeeded with the school meals vouchers because he was focused on a clear issue and clear outcome desired.
This #excluded campaign does not have the same clarity and, for that reason, will not succeed even if there are good cases for some aspects of the support to be enhanced.

banthetrolls

dunstonh said:

There are over 10.3k people in just the closed FB group who for so many various reasons fall outside all of qualifying criteria in the schemes and therefore get NO support. 

Is that all?    Not many of the so called 3 million then.

Why would the chair of the Treasury Select Committee Mel Stride conclude that there are at least 1 million.

That figure sounds more likely.

Why would Martin Lewis support the cause once he had time to investigate it if he couldn’t work out the full implications of the issues. 

Isn't it logical that he would?   Put yourself in his shoes.   Supporting it has nothing to lose.  Not supporting it hurts brand image with nothing to gain.    Wouldn't you be supporting it if you were looking at your brand?

It’s Definitely not a matter of choice! Please be so kind as to not keep reiterating that statement.

On a long thread of many messages, I cannot remember what issue you think you missed out on.  I think it was annual salary but you can remind me if I am wrong.  Annual salary is a choice. A choice to reduce costs by only taking your salary once a year in March.    Instead of paying a bit more to have it paid monthly.    

The cost of running monthly payroll is around £300 a year more than a single payment payroll.  So, over 17 years, that is a saving (in today's terms) of £5,100.  If you had done monthly payroll and claimed the typical maximum as a director (£719pm @ 80% =  £575.20pm)  then you would need to furlough yourself for 8 months to recover the costs of monthly payroll.   The scheme is not lasting 8 months.  So, you are financially better off by being on annual payroll than you had if you were on monthly payroll.

If it is not annual pay that is your issue then i apologise.  However, it could be applied to many others that are on annual pay schemes rather than monthly pay.

Don't understand your logic that you've saved money by doing it yearly so your better off
Everyone has a different way of doing business and the saving made i imagine would have gone elsewhere for business reasons 
I doubt anyone had a pandemic pot 

How many companies were prepared to completely shut down for months on end ? And look at how many have fallen or come close 
How many times has anything like this ever happened in the last 40yrs or so ?
I'm personally in the annual pay category 
I should just make it through as long as i go back to work as planned but i could really do with the furlough 
My business like many needs me to be on site so not viable to move online 

Yet the likes of big supermarkets doing better than ever have received grants 

amykirk1996

Grumpy_chap said:

amykirk1996 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

Who are the 3 million getting NO government support?

That's been well documented, it doesn't matter if it's 3 million or 3 hundred, there are far too many.

3 million or 300 makes a big difference.

The difference is I say that 1 person who is forgotten and excluded at the present time is 1 person too many, whether that be 300 or 3 million is irrelevent.

You still won't accept that anybody has been left behind, nor that there is even a problem.