Small business grant of 10K

[Puffingbilly413]

1 hour ago, kevinjohnsonmbe said:

This sounds more like the “...but he’s getting more than me and I don’t think it’s fair...” type of classic politics of envy. 

 

Just for your personal info though, don’t assume I’m not grafting. I get SFA from the current business assistance packages because I chose to re-invest rather than take profit from the business. 
 

I get SFA because of MY choices. But guess what, we’re all victims of our own decisions. 
 

 

Hi Kevin,

 

I do think there has to be an element of fairness about this.  I agree we need to live with our decisions but at the same time we're also having to deal with the decisions of others ie our politicians and local councils.

 

If a firm happens to have a rateable premises and that rateable value is fairly low (say small workshop) then where I am the rates will be really low and 100% rebated, so zero.  If your area's rates people don't deem your setup rateable (eg works van, admin done from the house etc) then even if you want to become 'rated' they won't do it.

 

So in many cases, there will be two arb firms - one 'paying' business rates at 100% rebate and the other not.  Their other fixed and variable costs are arguably going to be around the same for a firm with a similar turnover etc.  Yet as the SBBS is the method  government has chosen to judge eligibility for support through, firm A will get £10,000 as a grant and firm B will get nada.

 

I'm in the same position as you Kevin in that as the director of my limited company (ie and also its sole employee) that chooses not to take a salary to re-invest in the firm and pay back start up debt (ironically to myself as a private individual).  As I'm not deemed 'rateable' I qualify for nothing.  I read that this situation might change but I'm not holding my breath. 

 

Tree work is fortunately one of three strands of income for me so I'm not destitute by any margin but as someone who has paid a significant amount of tax over the years, I do also feel that the situation is 'unfair'.  Not because others are getting what we are not but more because our financial situations are very similar yet the support available is hugely different.

 

I'd think it more sensible to assess eligibility for support on turnover and running costs and do so on a sliding scale.  If those firms that are currently not eligible for support then society will end up having to foot the bill in other ways.

 

There is also the other factor to consider that even if you decide you can go out to work safely, for many there simply is no demand currently as people are unsurprisingly guarding their cash and won't spend on 'discretionary' services like tree work (unless it's emergency stuff)

 

I've got no Pimms in the house at the moment but you've given me a thirst for it so I might have to get some in!

 

 

[briscoe]

I agree I have enjoyed renting a container at a low rate and keeping overheads down. My point was that an identical container opposite me who happened to be there at the right time ie a voa inspection now qualifies for a 10k handout which would be very useful given the current climate. Essentially not being there on the day means that your 10k down. Must be lots of others in similar situation. 

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

7 hours ago, Rough Hewn said:

So what you're actually saying is you're in the same boat as the rest of us?  

 

There's only 1 boat!

But the events surrounding us now will have economic reverberations for years to come.

 

Agreed, not least of which, where is the money coming from and how is it going to be recouped?

All I'm suggesting is a bit of solidarity amongst us.

 

Solidarity is no bad thing, but in this example, I just don't think throwing money at the situation is the right, nor sustainable, answer.  Yes, it does have some place in the order of things, but it is not the silver bullet.

GDP down 30%? in one quarter,

 

GDP down because just about everyone simply down tools when that was never the government instruction.  The likes of Nicola Sturgeon, Sadih Khan, various police forces (and the AA more importantly) jumped on the bang wagon of 'stop work', and misrepresented essential and non essential work when they misinterpreted the government guidance.  Non essential were the businesses that were REQUIRED to close.  Work from home if possible, if not, travel to work.  It has always been that simple.  People were so keen to find reasons NOT to go to work they forgot to think through how it could be achieved with the application of some agility and imagination.

 

That is a point I've been at pains to question from the outset

 

We both have.  A > 6% sustained drop in GDP has been modelled to have a greater, long term,  deleterious effect on life expectancy than the worse predicted outcome from C19 - go figure!

 
Oil at negative prices.

 

Again, a consequence of supply out stripping storage with an associated drop in demand.  It was never intended that everyone should just stop in their tracks.  There is an environmental upside to that though - the skies are bluer and clearer.

The shit is hitting the fan.

 

Because we are a commerce based economy - the exchange of goods or services for money which is taxed to provide public services.  No money in x bundles going out = certain disaster.  

How many arb firms trading in February?
How many do you think will be trading next February?

 

Don't know but those that are sitting at home relying on handouts are likely to be the least resilient I'd suggest.

How do you social distance/actually conform to HSE at work?

 

It's really not that difficult.  Yes, we've heard all the disproportionate scare mongering about the potential for having to effect an aerial rescue, or touching the same rope as the climber etc, etc, blah, blah...  It's not really that difficult with a little imagination and I'd suggest a day in the tree is probably less hazardous that a trip to the supermarket.

Apologies for swearing at you.

 

No need, no offence taken, appreciated all the same.

You're a bright spark most of the time Kevin.

 

Damned by faint praise, that's probably more offensive that the expletive ?

There's a lot of us who maybe aren't as savvy in business as some on here, but we still have families to feed and bills to pay.

 

There's only 1 boat, we are all in it, it's up to each how hard they pull.

(Oh yeah, fuck corbyn. Just another establishment millionaire in the end)

 

Good to close on a note of full agreement ?
 

??

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

6 hours ago, Puffingbilly413 said:

Hi Kevin,

 

I do think there has to be an element of fairness about this.  I agree we need to live with our decisions but at the same time we're also having to deal with the decisions of others ie our politicians and local councils.

 

If a firm happens to have a rateable premises and that rateable value is fairly low (say small workshop) then where I am the rates will be really low and 100% rebated, so zero.  If your area's rates people don't deem your setup rateable (eg works van, admin done from the house etc) then even if you want to become 'rated' they won't do it.

 

So in many cases, there will be two arb firms - one 'paying' business rates at 100% rebate and the other not.  Their other fixed and variable costs are arguably going to be around the same for a firm with a similar turnover etc.  Yet as the SBBS is the method  government has chosen to judge eligibility for support through, firm A will get £10,000 as a grant and firm B will get nada.

 

I'm in the same position as you Kevin in that as the director of my limited company (ie and also its sole employee) that chooses not to take a salary to re-invest in the firm and pay back start up debt (ironically to myself as a private individual).  As I'm not deemed 'rateable' I qualify for nothing.  I read that this situation might change but I'm not holding my breath. 

 

Tree work is fortunately one of three strands of income for me so I'm not destitute by any margin but as someone who has paid a significant amount of tax over the years, I do also feel that the situation is 'unfair'.  Not because others are getting what we are not but more because our financial situations are very similar yet the support available is hugely different.

 

I'd think it more sensible to assess eligibility for support on turnover and running costs and do so on a sliding scale.  If those firms that are currently not eligible for support then society will end up having to foot the bill in other ways.

 

There is also the other factor to consider that even if you decide you can go out to work safely, for many there simply is no demand currently as people are unsurprisingly guarding their cash and won't spend on 'discretionary' services like tree work (unless it's emergency stuff)

 

I've got no Pimms in the house at the moment but you've given me a thirst for it so I might have to get some in!

 

 

Nothing at all to disagree with there. 

 

I'm seeing far more people that are milking this system as a cash cow than not.  Take the supermarkets for example, prices creeping up, trading and profits through the roof, yet they are still drawing down the advantages that are meant for 'struggling' businesses.

 

7,000+ second homes in Cornwall & Scilly opted for business rates (on the basis of an occasional holiday let) rather than pay council tax (then receive rate relief so pay nothing) are creaming 100s of k in state aid whilst the local economy bombs.

 

https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornwall-news/claims-second-home-owners-cornwall-3962892

 

How is that right and proper? 

 

How come MPs got a one off £10k payment for working at home?

 

The system is shot full of holes but adding more is not a solution....

 

 

[Mick Dempsey]

It’s all a bit weird @kevinjohnsonmbe over here the large DIY supermarket stores (Bati Leclerc) are rammed Monday to Saturday, dawn till dusk with peeps getting house improvement stuff, just because they sell animal food.

But the smaller independent DIY stores are shut, by order of the gubmint.

 

Tough pill to swallow for the little guy.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 26, 2020 by Mick Dempsey

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

1 minute ago, Mick Dempsey said:

It’s all a bit weird @kevinjohnsonmbe over here the large DIY supermarket stores (Bati Leclerc) are rammed Monday to Saturday, dawn till dusk with peeps getting house improvement stuff, just because they sell animal food.

But the smaller independent DIY stores are shut, by order of the gubmint.

 

Tough pill to swallow for the little guy.

 

 

 

 

I don’t disagree it’s a tough pill Mick. 
 

Mate of mine has 130 blokes sat at home on furlough because he simply can’t get the bulk supplies he needs (because the suppliers shut down rather than thinking it through properly.)

 

On the plus side, there’s a sudden explosion of builders doing private cash jobs (or home improvements) and topping up their 80% very nicely thank you very much....
 

What ever system is put in place there’ll be genuine needy and greedy grabby. If only such things were simple...

[briscoe]

A lot of small businesses / self employed are probably going to need some form of government assistance as the social distancing will have a negative effect on business/income . Its probably best to support them with a decent package than see there business fail and end up on Universal credit which will cost more long term. Bring on a universal basic income

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

2 minutes ago, briscoe said:

A lot of small businesses / self employed are probably going to need some form of government assistance as the social distancing will have a negative effect on business/income . Its probably best to support them with a decent package than see there business fail and end up on Universal credit which will cost more long term. Bring on a universal basic income

I said at the beginning, there will probably never be a better opportunity / justification case for universal income (including some wealth redistribution) than that which we have under the current situation. Everyone gets the same, those that choose to work harder get to top their own income up in relation to the effort they make. 

[briscoe]

My understanding with UBI is that it would be identical payment for everyone say £350-500pm . Things like social housing, child benefit would have to come out of this payment or charity. UBI seems a great idea but I am aware of people on universal credit who get a total package of just over a £1k month for a single person. I'm not sure where it would leave them. 

[GA Groundcare]

We qualified for the 10k business grant and our rateable value was on the edge of getting the full 25k. I could of bought a garden shed, had it measured and we would of been 15k better off.... However, that would put our overhead costs up down the line long term.  Whilst there is business rate cuts at the moment its not going to be forever. The debt needs paying back...

I took the 10k and felt fortunate to get that.

 

Remember when they dropped VAT from 17.5 to 15 to "increase spending".