Lots of profitable firms used the furlough scheme exactly as intended SHOCK HORROR
Man this is dumb. 75m profit does not mean 75m of cash lying about. It could be driven by anything on its balance sheet – e.g the market value of any real estate or other assets, it’s own debt, intangibles etc.
What’s it supposed to do? Sell a few stores to cover payroll? And have to make a load of people redundant? The whole point of furlough was precisely to avoid this.
Well they don’t give the Tory party cash for nothing do they?
Obviously there is a big problem with Tory donors. But profitable firms using furlough is not the issue. The scheme was designed to avoid redundancies, which it did. Businesses making profit doesn’t mean it would have cut staff as soon as there was no work to be done.
When you stop regarding the Conservatives as a political party and start viewing them as a company (whose main income comes from gaining power, getting their claws into the nation and its assets and milking those assets dry), everything in the UK makes sense. It’s taken me the last 40 years to fully grasp this but now it’s all clear.
> “BREAKING: Business uses Government scheme exactly as it was intended to be used”
Seriously this is a nothing story. Where’s the scandal here? They used the furlough scheme exactly and literally as it was intended.
Unless they were committing fraud (which there’s no suggestion of here), companies *did not profit from the furlough scheme*. 100% of the money they claim goes directly to the staff. It actually *cost them money to keep staff on furlough* for most of the scheme (as they still had to meet some costs such as pension and NI contributions).
The entire point of the scheme was to stop companies just making staff redundant, which is exactly what would have happened if they’re added rules to restrict who could use it.
7 comments
Lots of profitable firms used the furlough scheme exactly as intended SHOCK HORROR
Man this is dumb. 75m profit does not mean 75m of cash lying about. It could be driven by anything on its balance sheet – e.g the market value of any real estate or other assets, it’s own debt, intangibles etc.
What’s it supposed to do? Sell a few stores to cover payroll? And have to make a load of people redundant? The whole point of furlough was precisely to avoid this.
Well they don’t give the Tory party cash for nothing do they?
Obviously there is a big problem with Tory donors. But profitable firms using furlough is not the issue. The scheme was designed to avoid redundancies, which it did. Businesses making profit doesn’t mean it would have cut staff as soon as there was no work to be done.
When you stop regarding the Conservatives as a political party and start viewing them as a company (whose main income comes from gaining power, getting their claws into the nation and its assets and milking those assets dry), everything in the UK makes sense. It’s taken me the last 40 years to fully grasp this but now it’s all clear.
> “BREAKING: Business uses Government scheme exactly as it was intended to be used”
Seriously this is a nothing story. Where’s the scandal here? They used the furlough scheme exactly and literally as it was intended.
Unless they were committing fraud (which there’s no suggestion of here), companies *did not profit from the furlough scheme*. 100% of the money they claim goes directly to the staff. It actually *cost them money to keep staff on furlough* for most of the scheme (as they still had to meet some costs such as pension and NI contributions).
The entire point of the scheme was to stop companies just making staff redundant, which is exactly what would have happened if they’re added rules to restrict who could use it.
This is a complete non-story.