FabSwingers.com forum: Posh Spice Bailout

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

In the dame predicament as Dicky Branson, is it a brand worth saving? High end fashion being bad for the environment, besides being unessential items?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *angOnBunnyCouple
over a year ago

Ipswich

No. The bailouts are there for those in need, it should not be viewed as the easy out like these are. If they want a loan then there are banks for that

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *itty9899Man
over a year ago

Craggy Island

No, tell her to go singing again

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"No, tell her to go singing again "

That’s her stuffed then

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ady LickWoman
over a year ago

Northampton Somewhere

I can't believe she furloughed her staff tbh. It's not like the Beckham's can't afford it. From what I read her label has made a loss in all 12 years it's been going.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"No, tell her to go singing again "

Oh god no, let her have a bailout, anything but that

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"No, tell her to go singing again

That’s her stuffed then

Lol yeah

she's got some neck wanting tax payers money,

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *atelotmanMan
over a year ago

Chatham

"No, tell her to go singing again "

Don't be silly, she cant sing to save her like.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *arlomaleMan
over a year ago

darlington

She’s entitled to do it like many other multimillionaire company owners she’s probably been advised by her accounts to do it and why shouldn’t she I’m sick of hearing the same old rubbish that oh they can afford it so what they haven’t got to where they are by being stupid

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"I can't believe she furloughed her staff tbh. It's not like the Beckham's can't afford it. From what I read her label has made a loss in all 12 years it's been going. "

Not sure if there's any system of assessing granting/refusing claims, i hope there is seeing as taxpayers money is involved

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ady LickWoman
over a year ago

Northampton Somewhere

"She’s entitled to do it like many other multimillionaire company owners she’s probably been advised by her accounts to do it and why shouldn’t she I’m sick of hearing the same old rubbish that oh they can afford it so what they haven’t got to where they are by being stupid "

Happy for your taxes to go up to pay for it, are you?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

Am I right in thinking that any money would be a loan rather than a grant?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *arlomaleMan
over a year ago

darlington

Happy for your taxes to go up to pay for it, are you?"
my taxes will go up regardless of what multimillionaire business owners do if it helps get the economy going again then I’m not bothered if my taxes go up tbh

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

Then she should have put some aside for a rainy day like most sensible people do if they can..

All of a sudden the free marketeteers have gotten a big liking for socialism and the collective helping them out..

It's entirely relevant that she is a multi millionaire, unlike other small and medium enterprises she has the means to see this through..

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Happy for your taxes to go up to pay for it, are you? my taxes will go up regardless of what multimillionaire business owners do if it helps get the economy going again then I’m not bothered if my taxes go up tbh "

Ive a feeling it will be the austerity card again.. For the less well off.

Fair do's if it means less redundancies from industry but what do some of these businesses really contribute?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

It's a joke anyway. Gets talented people to design and make the stuff and pins her name on at the end.....laughable

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here

Then she should have put some aside for a rainy day like most sensible people do if they can..

All of a sudden the free marketeteers have gotten a big liking for socialism and the collective helping them out..

It's entirely relevant that she is a multi millionaire, unlike other small and medium enterprises she has the means to see this through..

100% agree.

The furlough scheme is there to support businesses who have no means to pay staff. It is not a free-for-all.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

"No, tell her to go singing again "

No.. we need a whip round

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

Then she should have put some aside for a rainy day like most sensible people do if they can..

All of a sudden the free marketeteers have gotten a big liking for socialism and the collective helping them out..

It's entirely relevant that she is a multi millionaire, unlike other small and medium enterprises she has the means to see this through..

100% agree.

The furlough scheme is there to support businesses who have no means to pay staff. It is not a free-for-all.

And that taxes will be going up for the doctors, nurses and carers amongst others really grinds my gears with some of these people now holding their hands out..

I don't know if many of them have one of her £18,000 handbags or ever will do..

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

Certainly not.

Marrying a famous well off footy player was a shrewd move.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *bi_scotlandTV/TS
over a year ago

Glasgow

The business is really just a very very expensive hobby for her. Loses millions every year.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *estivalMan
over a year ago

borehamwood

i thought her hubby has been bailing her business out since she first started it.surley he can carry on bailing her out

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Then she should have put some aside for a rainy day like most sensible people do if they can..

All of a sudden the free marketeteers have gotten a big liking for socialism and the collective helping them out..

It's entirely relevant that she is a multi millionaire, unlike other small and medium enterprises she has the means to see this through..

100% agree.

The furlough scheme is there to support businesses who have no means to pay staff. It is not a free-for-all.

And that taxes will be going up for the doctors, nurses and carers amongst others really grinds my gears with some of these people now holding their hands out..

I don't know if many of them have one of her £18,000 handbags or ever will do..

Can I have a cheap handbag or even a plastic carrier bag with £18,000 in it please

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Then she should have put some aside for a rainy day like most sensible people do if they can..

All of a sudden the free marketeteers have gotten a big liking for socialism and the collective helping them out..

It's entirely relevant that she is a multi millionaire, unlike other small and medium enterprises she has the means to see this through..

100% agree.

The furlough scheme is there to support businesses who have no means to pay staff. It is not a free-for-all.

And that taxes will be going up for the doctors, nurses and carers amongst others really grinds my gears with some of these people now holding their hands out..

I don't know if many of them have one of her £18,000 handbags or ever will do..

I hope they're assessed before just handing out willy nilly.

If a business are a benefit to the economy and then fair enough

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here

Then she should have put some aside for a rainy day like most sensible people do if they can..

All of a sudden the free marketeteers have gotten a big liking for socialism and the collective helping them out..

It's entirely relevant that she is a multi millionaire, unlike other small and medium enterprises she has the means to see this through..

100% agree.

The furlough scheme is there to support businesses who have no means to pay staff. It is not a free-for-all.

And that taxes will be going up for the doctors, nurses and carers amongst others really grinds my gears with some of these people now holding their hands out..

I don't know if many of them have one of her £18,000 handbags or ever will do..

I hope they're assessed before just handing out willy nilly.

If a business are a benefit to the economy and then fair enough "

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

Then she should have put some aside for a rainy day like most sensible people do if they can..

All of a sudden the free marketeteers have gotten a big liking for socialism and the collective helping them out..

It's entirely relevant that she is a multi millionaire, unlike other small and medium enterprises she has the means to see this through..

100% agree.

The furlough scheme is there to support businesses who have no means to pay staff. It is not a free-for-all.

And that taxes will be going up for the doctors, nurses and carers amongst others really grinds my gears with some of these people now holding their hands out..

I don't know if many of them have one of her £18,000 handbags or ever will do..

I hope they're assessed before just handing out willy nilly.

If a business are a benefit to the economy and then fair enough "

How do you assess it's a benefit to the economy?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

Then she should have put some aside for a rainy day like most sensible people do if they can..

All of a sudden the free marketeteers have gotten a big liking for socialism and the collective helping them out..

It's entirely relevant that she is a multi millionaire, unlike other small and medium enterprises she has the means to see this through..

100% agree.

The furlough scheme is there to support businesses who have no means to pay staff. It is not a free-for-all.

And that taxes will be going up for the doctors, nurses and carers amongst others really grinds my gears with some of these people now holding their hands out..

I don't know if many of them have one of her £18,000 handbags or ever will do..

Can I have a cheap handbag or even a plastic carrier bag with £18,000 in it please

Of course..

That'll be 5 pence for the bag please..

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Then she should have put some aside for a rainy day like most sensible people do if they can..

All of a sudden the free marketeteers have gotten a big liking for socialism and the collective helping them out..

It's entirely relevant that she is a multi millionaire, unlike other small and medium enterprises she has the means to see this through..

100% agree.

The furlough scheme is there to support businesses who have no means to pay staff. It is not a free-for-all.

And that taxes will be going up for the doctors, nurses and carers amongst others really grinds my gears with some of these people now holding their hands out..

I don't know if many of them have one of her £18,000 handbags or ever will do..

I hope they're assessed before just handing out willy nilly.

If a business are a benefit to the economy and then fair enough "

Not how our society works, if employees are paying tax that becomes a benefit to society so the reason the government started the furlough scheme.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *onglegs888Couple
over a year ago

Birmingham

This is like the footballer wage rant. Lots of people on a moral high horse without actually looking at all aspects.

The reality is that if her business meets the requirements of the scheme set by government then her business has as much right to utilise it as any other business.

Flip your moral arguments around. You don’t think a rich person should use a government assistance scheme. I assume those same people don’t agree with a ‘poor’ person on benefits buying booze/fags/exit dive TVs etc?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *onglegs888Couple
over a year ago

Birmingham

Expensive!!! Damn spell check

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *eeleyWoman
over a year ago

Dudley

No, these people could afford to keep their staff employed, they fucked off to live in other countries then expect our country to bale them out, tell them to beg off the countries they fucked off to.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Then she should have put some aside for a rainy day like most sensible people do if they can..

All of a sudden the free marketeteers have gotten a big liking for socialism and the collective helping them out..

It's entirely relevant that she is a multi millionaire, unlike other small and medium enterprises she has the means to see this through..

100% agree.

The furlough scheme is there to support businesses who have no means to pay staff. It is not a free-for-all.

And that taxes will be going up for the doctors, nurses and carers amongst others really grinds my gears with some of these people now holding their hands out..

I don't know if many of them have one of her £18,000 handbags or ever will do..

Can I have a cheap handbag or even a plastic carrier bag with £18,000 in it please

Of course..

That'll be 5 pence for the bag please..

Done

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *angOnBunnyCouple
over a year ago

Ipswich

"This is like the footballer wage rant. Lots of people on a moral high horse without actually looking at all aspects.

The reality is that if her business meets the requirements of the scheme set by government then her business has as much right to utilise it as any other business.

No. If the business is viable then use a bank loan or get shareholders buy in. The furlough scheme was to help those less able to weather the storm. It's being abused so I hope they are means testing

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Expensive!!! Damn spell check "

If TVs are expensive here you have to report them for charging

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Give her some good advice if it's a failing company walk away stop any further losses and future debt

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *onglegs888Couple
over a year ago

Birmingham

"This is like the footballer wage rant. Lots of people on a moral high horse without actually looking at all aspects.

The reality is that if her business meets the requirements of the scheme set by government then her business has as much right to utilise it as any other business.

No. If the business is viable then use a bank loan or get shareholders buy in. The furlough scheme was to help those less able to weather the storm. It's being abused so I hope they are means testing"

Well then the scheme should have had such things built into it. If her business meets the criteria of the scheme then it meets the criteria.

And you view the use of benefits in the same way? Benefits are there to prevent poverty and keep people should the poverty line. I’m assuming you take issue with people spending their benefits on frivolous (sometime harmful) items that aren’t necessary.... isn’t that just as much an abuse of tax payers money? Seems to me the same point just opposite ends of the spectrum, unless it’s just rich people your moral outrage extends to??

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

"This is like the footballer wage rant. Lots of people on a moral high horse without actually looking at all aspects.

The reality is that if her business meets the requirements of the scheme set by government then her business has as much right to utilise it as any other business.

I think people see a few inconsistencies in play.

Footy players are asked to take a pay cut but hedge fund managers are making a fortune out of the crises.

People are struggling to make ends meet whilst millionaires are asking from help from the taxpayer.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *onglegs888Couple
over a year ago

Birmingham

"Expensive!!! Damn spell check

If TVs are expensive here you have to report them for charging

Lol. Let the cheap ones off??? Lol

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

"This is like the footballer wage rant. Lots of people on a moral high horse without actually looking at all aspects.

The reality is that if her business meets the requirements of the scheme set by government then her business has as much right to utilise it as any other business.

Is it being means tested.?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

"This is like the footballer wage rant. Lots of people on a moral high horse without actually looking at all aspects.

The reality is that if her business meets the requirements of the scheme set by government then her business has as much right to utilise it as any other business.

No. If the business is viable then use a bank loan or get shareholders buy in. The furlough scheme was to help those less able to weather the storm. It's being abused so I hope they are means testing

Well then the scheme should have had such things built into it. If her business meets the criteria of the scheme then it meets the criteria.

I think a lot of people do judge people on benefits buying ciggies etc tbf.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *onglegs888Couple
over a year ago

Birmingham

"This is like the footballer wage rant. Lots of people on a moral high horse without actually looking at all aspects.

The reality is that if her business meets the requirements of the scheme set by government then her business has as much right to utilise it as any other business.

I think people see a few inconsistencies in play.

Footy players are asked to take a pay cut but hedge fund managers are making a fortune out of the crises.

People are struggling to make ends meet whilst millionaires are asking from help from the taxpayer.

Missing my point. If your issue is with misuse of taxpayers money then no problem... but is your issue with misuse of taxpayers money full stop... or just in the areas that you’ve decided offend you?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *onglegs888Couple
over a year ago

Birmingham

"This is like the footballer wage rant. Lots of people on a moral high horse without actually looking at all aspects.

The reality is that if her business meets the requirements of the scheme set by government then her business has as much right to utilise it as any other business.

No. If the business is viable then use a bank loan or get shareholders buy in. The furlough scheme was to help those less able to weather the storm. It's being abused so I hope they are means testing

Well then the scheme should have had such things built into it. If her business meets the criteria of the scheme then it meets the criteria.

I think a lot of people do judge people on benefits buying ciggies etc tbf. "

Small sample size but compare threads on here saying that against threads criticising those evil rich bastards.

I’m

Just after consistent arguments, not moral outrage

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *rofessor_MarcusMan
over a year ago

Chorley

Where do I send the cheque to?

Perhaps her gormless husband will get his knighthood now

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

"This is like the footballer wage rant. Lots of people on a moral high horse without actually looking at all aspects.

The reality is that if her business meets the requirements of the scheme set by government then her business has as much right to utilise it as any other business.

I think people see a few inconsistencies in play.

Footy players are asked to take a pay cut but hedge fund managers are making a fortune out of the crises.

People are struggling to make ends meet whilst millionaires are asking from help from the taxpayer.

I'm not sure how it works tbh..like you said if it meets the criteria then she is allowed to apply.

Personally for me I think its the likes of what Branson etc are doing which is wrong.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

I thought it is meant to be for companies who would have normally let staff go because their business couldn't keep them on over this period.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Expensive!!! Damn spell check

If TVs are expensive here you have to report them for charging

Lol. Let the cheap ones off??? Lol"

You could do

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

"This is like the footballer wage rant. Lots of people on a moral high horse without actually looking at all aspects.

The reality is that if her business meets the requirements of the scheme set by government then her business has as much right to utilise it as any other business.

No. If the business is viable then use a bank loan or get shareholders buy in. The furlough scheme was to help those less able to weather the storm. It's being abused so I hope they are means testing

Well then the scheme should have had such things built into it. If her business meets the criteria of the scheme then it meets the criteria.

I think a lot of people do judge people on benefits buying ciggies etc tbf.

Small sample size but compare threads on here saying that against threads criticising those evil rich bastards.

I’m

Just after consistent arguments, not moral outrage "

I've seen several posters suggest those lazy basrards on benefits should be made to work.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *onglegs888Couple
over a year ago

Birmingham

I thought it is meant to be for companies who would have normally let staff go because their business couldn't keep them on over this period.

This is the root of the problem. Most are getting offended by something they don’t really understand. It’s a government implemented scheme thst business can apply to utilise. If that business fits the criteria it gets support... if it doesn’t it won’t. Nowhere does it mention how many handbags the company owned has lol

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here

I thought it is meant to be for companies who would have normally let staff go because their business couldn't keep them on over this period.

reality is it’s being used as a free-for-all

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

She has furghloed her staff apparently.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

I thought it is meant to be for companies who would have normally let staff go because their business couldn't keep them on over this period.

I wonder when does it become a moral thing though

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *onglegs888Couple
over a year ago

Birmingham

I thought it is meant to be for companies who would have normally let staff go because their business couldn't keep them on over this period.

I wonder when does it become a moral thing though "

That’s pretty much my question. Is your moral line misuse/misappropriate use of tax funds... or is is just at rich folk?

And just for clarity my issue is with the scheme. Design it better, build in ‘protections’ so it can’t be abused. But if people or organisations fit tjd criteria set by government (and they aren’t lying etc) then they’re entitled to use it.

Dont hate the player hate the game

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The arrogance of the very overrated and very little talented Bitch along with the other Arrogant Bastard Branson it beggars Belief why we put up with the Shit that’s churned out by these lot ??????

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *angOnBunnyCouple
over a year ago

Ipswich

"This is like the footballer wage rant. Lots of people on a moral high horse without actually looking at all aspects.

The reality is that if her business meets the requirements of the scheme set by government then her business has as much right to utilise it as any other business.

No. If the business is viable then use a bank loan or get shareholders buy in. The furlough scheme was to help those less able to weather the storm. It's being abused so I hope they are means testing

Well then the scheme should have had such things built into it. If her business meets the criteria of the scheme then it meets the criteria.

Nope notnrich at all. This is a business and she should run it as such. All reports are David constantly bails her out so the business is not viable. Its simple really. Wonder in your assumptions as to why I feel the tax payer should not be the bank for such businesses.

Why can she not go to the bank? Businesses are abusing this scheme as they abuse tax law. Yes, all above board but morally wrong.

See Wetherspoons, Amazon etc.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

I thought it is meant to be for companies who would have normally let staff go because their business couldn't keep them on over this period.

I wonder when does it become a moral thing though

That’s pretty much my question. Is your moral line misuse/misappropriate use of tax funds... or is is just at rich folk?

Dont hate the player hate the game "

Just because people have different morals doesn't mean they are hating people with more money. Not everyone is jealous of others just because they have a different view

If it misuse of the furlough scheme I am guessing she wouldn't get it so if it says she is entitled to furlough her staff at least the staff are helped as they are the important ones for me

If however it is meant to be used for a business who can't afford to keep their staff on then I would question whether that was true so then it would become a moral issue for me....but I am only going on what I would probably do morally.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Whatever people think of the Beckhams and their wealth, Posh is quite at liberty to furlough her staff.

She has paid her staff a regular wage, they have paid their taxes and Posh has paid her corporation Tax. Her wealth really has nothing to do with it, she is as entitled to this as the next person.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"It's a joke anyway. Gets talented people to design and make the stuff and pins her name on at the end.....laughable"

That's what every brand headed like a name does tbf.

Does anyone think Dr Dre sat in his studio one day and said to his producer "Right, clear my diary for the foreseeable, no interviews, no appearances, no recording tracks or listening to hopefuls to potentially sign. I want speaker components, cables clips, stitching apparatus, cable, swathes of leather and a cutting machine in this studio. And I'm going to hole up in here for six weeks, tinkering about with this lot till I produce the greatest audio sound medium imaginable. I do not wish to be disturbed. But you can knock on the door if you're delivering pizza."

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here

"Whatever people think of the Beckhams and their wealth, Posh is quite at liberty to furlough her staff.

She has paid her staff a regular wage, they have paid their taxes and Posh has paid her corporation Tax. Her wealth really has nothing to do with it, she is as entitled to this as the next person. "

This is so wrong ..

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

"Whatever people think of the Beckhams and their wealth, Posh is quite at liberty to furlough her staff.

She has paid her staff a regular wage, they have paid their taxes and Posh has paid her corporation Tax. "

I don't think you pay tax when you have losses.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Whatever people think of the Beckhams and their wealth, Posh is quite at liberty to furlough her staff.

She has paid her staff a regular wage, they have paid their taxes and Posh has paid her corporation Tax. Her wealth really has nothing to do with it, she is as entitled to this as the next person.

This is so wrong .."

No it isn't!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Whatever people think of the Beckhams and their wealth, Posh is quite at liberty to furlough her staff.

She has paid her staff a regular wage, they have paid their taxes and Posh has paid her corporation Tax.

I don't think you pay tax when you have losses."

Probably not corporation Tax, but all the other taxes and NI still applies.

Either way, the Government want to look after the employees livelihoods.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

"Whatever people think of the Beckhams and their wealth, Posh is quite at liberty to furlough her staff.

She has paid her staff a regular wage, they have paid their taxes and Posh has paid her corporation Tax.

I don't think you pay tax when you have losses.

Probably not corporation Tax, but all the other taxes and NI still applies.

Either way, the Government want to look after the employees livelihoods."

The employees will pay tax as we all do yes, but I don't think anyone pays tax if they are showing as losses for that tax year...or the year before,, or the year before that in this case

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

"Whatever people think of the Beckhams and their wealth, Posh is quite at liberty to furlough her staff.

She has paid her staff a regular wage, they have paid their taxes and Posh has paid her corporation Tax. Her wealth really has nothing to do with it, she is as entitled to this as the next person. "

If wealth had nothing to do with why where football clubs (rightly)lambasted for furloghing staff?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Whatever people think of the Beckhams and their wealth, Posh is quite at liberty to furlough her staff.

She has paid her staff a regular wage, they have paid their taxes and Posh has paid her corporation Tax. Her wealth really has nothing to do with it, she is as entitled to this as the next person.

If wealth had nothing to do with why where football clubs (rightly)lambasted for furloghing staff?"

Because Footballers are multi millionaires and I doubt that Posh's employees are!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here

"Whatever people think of the Beckhams and their wealth, Posh is quite at liberty to furlough her staff.

She has paid her staff a regular wage, they have paid their taxes and Posh has paid her corporation Tax. Her wealth really has nothing to do with it, she is as entitled to this as the next person.

This is so wrong ..

No it isn't!

The scheme has absolutely no entitlement based on having paid corporation tax or employees paying income tax.

The wealth of the business or owner of the business has everything to do with the purpose of the scheme .

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

"Whatever people think of the Beckhams and their wealth, Posh is quite at liberty to furlough her staff.

She has paid her staff a regular wage, they have paid their taxes and Posh has paid her corporation Tax. Her wealth really has nothing to do with it, she is as entitled to this as the next person.

If wealth had nothing to do with why where football clubs (rightly)lambasted for furloghing staff?

Because Footballers are multi millionaires and I doubt that Posh's employees are!

You just said wealth had nothing to do with it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Whatever people think of the Beckhams and their wealth, Posh is quite at liberty to furlough her staff.

She has paid her staff a regular wage, they have paid their taxes and Posh has paid her corporation Tax. Her wealth really has nothing to do with it, she is as entitled to this as the next person.

This is so wrong ..

No it isn't!

The scheme has absolutely no entitlement based on having paid corporation tax or employees paying income tax.

The wealth of the business or owner of the business has everything to do with the purpose of the scheme .

Try enlightening yourself by reading the qualifying criteria on the gov.uk website - Carry on and well done!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo

"Whatever people think of the Beckhams and their wealth, Posh is quite at liberty to furlough her staff.

She has paid her staff a regular wage, they have paid their taxes and Posh has paid her corporation Tax. Her wealth really has nothing to do with it, she is as entitled to this as the next person.

If wealth had nothing to do with why where football clubs (rightly)lambasted for furloghing staff?

Because Footballers are multi millionaires and I doubt that Posh's employees are!

It wasn't the footballers who were being furloughed, it was the workers who work in Admin, cleaners, groundsman etc

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Whatever people think of the Beckhams and their wealth, Posh is quite at liberty to furlough her staff.

She has paid her staff a regular wage, they have paid their taxes and Posh has paid her corporation Tax. Her wealth really has nothing to do with it, she is as entitled to this as the next person.

If wealth had nothing to do with why where football clubs (rightly)lambasted for furloghing staff?

Because Footballers are multi millionaires and I doubt that Posh's employees are!

You just said wealth had nothing to do with it."

Wealth of the employee's, not the business owners.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *arlomaleMan
over a year ago

darlington

Let’s face it she probably hasn’t a clue what’s going on at her company it’s probably why she pays managers etc etc to run it and I’d imagine it will be them that’s looking into the furlough scheme because they’d be looking at it from there point of view that the company isn’t making money so maybe mrs beck mite close the company and for me that would be a bad thing for all employees so if the furlough scheme will save them from losing their jobs then surely it’s worth pursuing

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here

"Whatever people think of the Beckhams and their wealth, Posh is quite at liberty to furlough her staff.

She has paid her staff a regular wage, they have paid their taxes and Posh has paid her corporation Tax. Her wealth really has nothing to do with it, she is as entitled to this as the next person.

This is so wrong ..

No it isn't!

The scheme has absolutely no entitlement based on having paid corporation tax or employees paying income tax.

The wealth of the business or owner of the business has everything to do with the purpose of the scheme .

Try enlightening yourself by reading the qualifying criteria on the gov.uk website - Carry on and well done!"

I’m very familiar with gov.uk thanks.

I suspect you aren’t grasping either the purpose of or the ethics of the scheme otherwise you wouldn’t be saying it’s ok for any cash rich business or owner to take tax payers money which they don’t need to .

They are entitled to it ? Really?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

Then she should have put some aside for a rainy day like most sensible people do if they can..

All of a sudden the free marketeteers have gotten a big liking for socialism and the collective helping them out..

It's entirely relevant that she is a multi millionaire, unlike other small and medium enterprises she has the means to see this through..

100% agree.

The furlough scheme is there to support businesses who have no means to pay staff. It is not a free-for-all.

And that taxes will be going up for the doctors, nurses and carers amongst others really grinds my gears with some of these people now holding their hands out..

I don't know if many of them have one of her £18,000 handbags or ever will do..

Can I have a cheap handbag or even a plastic carrier bag with £18,000 in it please

Of course..

That'll be 5 pence for the bag please..

Done

Like a kipper..

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"In the dame predicament as Dicky Branson, is it a brand worth saving? High end fashion being bad for the environment, besides being unessential items? "

There really is no way you can link Branson's begging bowl with Posh Spice.

Branson is a multi billonair tax dodging self publicist.

Posh is a talentles ex singer running a fashion business that has never made a penny in profit and in fact is only kept afloat by her husbands constant input of cash. That same husband and her live in the UK, pay UK taxes and always have. Campany's house confirm that Posh's company has never filled a profit, but she has always paid her tax, just like David has. In Fact David paid his tax in the UK even when he was employed in the USA and didn't live in the UK.

Don't mix these two with Branson for tax reasons, they couldn't be further away from each other.

If she is entitled to claim Fulough for her employees, then she is.............get over it and move on.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

"This is like the footballer wage rant. Lots of people on a moral high horse without actually looking at all aspects.

The reality is that if her business meets the requirements of the scheme set by government then her business has as much right to utilise it as any other business.

No. If the business is viable then use a bank loan or get shareholders buy in. The furlough scheme was to help those less able to weather the storm. It's being abused so I hope they are means testing

Well then the scheme should have had such things built into it. If her business meets the criteria of the scheme then it meets the criteria.

I think a lot of people do judge people on benefits buying ciggies etc tbf.

Small sample size but compare threads on here saying that against threads criticising those evil rich bastards.

I’m

Just after consistent arguments, not moral outrage "

I've said in the past that the welfare system needs a massive overhaul, not sure the present attempt by this government is the one but seems to me that there is massive demonisation of some members in society, the less abled etc by certain groups..

I hate that there are generations who were and still might be able to sit on their arsed when perfectly capable of contributing to this society..

I've seen it as a lad growing up in Liverpool but it was widespread so yes with me it's about what doesn't sit well and people like Branson who don't contribute personally to UK plc and beckham who has the means to ride this out are as bad for fleecing/taking advantage of loopholes in the system..

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *arlomaleMan
over a year ago

darlington

"This is like the footballer wage rant. Lots of people on a moral high horse without actually looking at all aspects.

The reality is that if her business meets the requirements of the scheme set by government then her business has as much right to utilise it as any other business.

No. If the business is viable then use a bank loan or get shareholders buy in. The furlough scheme was to help those less able to weather the storm. It's being abused so I hope they are means testing

Well then the scheme should have had such things built into it. If her business meets the criteria of the scheme then it meets the criteria.

I think a lot of people do judge people on benefits buying ciggies etc tbf.

Small sample size but compare threads on here saying that against threads criticising those evil rich bastards.

I’m

Just after consistent arguments, not moral outrage

I hate that there are generations who were and still might be able to sit on their arsed when perfectly capable of contributing to this society..

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

"This is like the footballer wage rant. Lots of people on a moral high horse without actually looking at all aspects.

The reality is that if her business meets the requirements of the scheme set by government then her business has as much right to utilise it as any other business.

No. If the business is viable then use a bank loan or get shareholders buy in. The furlough scheme was to help those less able to weather the storm. It's being abused so I hope they are means testing

Well then the scheme should have had such things built into it. If her business meets the criteria of the scheme then it meets the criteria.

I think a lot of people do judge people on benefits buying ciggies etc tbf.

Small sample size but compare threads on here saying that against threads criticising those evil rich bastards.

I’m

Just after consistent arguments, not moral outrage

I hate that there are generations who were and still might be able to sit on their arsed when perfectly capable of contributing to this society..

Fair point, I don't know if they are but my initial point still stands that if he hasn't paid any tax let alone suing the NHS etc and she has the means to ride this out then they should not be bailed out..

If its a choice of them and a company of equal number of workers where the owners don't have hundreds of millions then the priority should be the latter..

That we are all going to be paying more in tax after this is a given, that nhs staff and carers will be doing so also to prop up multi millionaires who avoid paying tax is plain wrong..

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *arlomaleMan
over a year ago

darlington

"This is like the footballer wage rant. Lots of people on a moral high horse without actually looking at all aspects.

The reality is that if her business meets the requirements of the scheme set by government then her business has as much right to utilise it as any other business.

No. If the business is viable then use a bank loan or get shareholders buy in. The furlough scheme was to help those less able to weather the storm. It's being abused so I hope they are means testing

Well then the scheme should have had such things built into it. If her business meets the criteria of the scheme then it meets the criteria.

I think a lot of people do judge people on benefits buying ciggies etc tbf.

Small sample size but compare threads on here saying that against threads criticising those evil rich bastards.

I’m

Just after consistent arguments, not moral outrage

I hate that there are generations who were and still might be able to sit on their arsed when perfectly capable of contributing to this society..

If its a choice of them and a company of equal number of workers where the owners don't have hundreds of millions then the priority should be the latter..

That we are all going to be paying more in tax after this is a given, that nhs staff and carers will be doing so also to prop up multi millionaires who avoid paying tax is plain wrong.. "
the possibility of our taxes going up doesn’t bother me as I’d see it as a way of kickstarting things if that means an increase then so be it and that works for multimillionaires the same applies to them so it all ends up back in the coffers

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Can't say I'm a fan but if she has furloughed her staff rather than lay them off, like so many other companies (big and small) have done then she is entitled to. Whether her application is successful is another story, but none of our business.

Just because she is famous or married to someone famous means nothing.

I should be amazed at the jealousy and hypocracy of so many on here, but sadly I am not.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

"In the dame predicament as Dicky Branson, is it a brand worth saving? High end fashion being bad for the environment, besides being unessential items?

There really is no way you can link Branson's begging bowl with Posh Spice.

Branson is a multi billonair tax dodging self publicist.

Don't mix these two with Branson for tax reasons, they couldn't be further away from each other.

If she is entitled to claim Fulough for her employees, then she is.............get over it and move on."

If her husband has bailed her out in the past why is she now asking for gmnt support?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

"Can't say I'm a fan but if she has furloughed her staff rather than lay them off, like so many other companies (big and small) have done then she is entitled to. Whether her application is successful is another story, but none of our business.

Just because she is famous or married to someone famous means nothing.

I should be amazed at the jealousy and hypocracy of so many on here, but sadly I am not."

Asking why the tax payer are funding 80%of the wages of a womans business..whose family sits on a fortune of an estimated £200 million is nothing to do with jealousy.

She is probably not the only one however.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Whatever people think of the Beckhams and their wealth, Posh is quite at liberty to furlough her staff.

She has paid her staff a regular wage, they have paid their taxes and Posh has paid her corporation Tax. Her wealth really has nothing to do with it, she is as entitled to this as the next person.

This is so wrong ..

No it isn't!

The scheme has absolutely no entitlement based on having paid corporation tax or employees paying income tax.

The wealth of the business or owner of the business has everything to do with the purpose of the scheme .

Try enlightening yourself by reading the qualifying criteria on the gov.uk website - Carry on and well done!

I’m very familiar with gov.uk thanks.

They are entitled to it ? Really?

I doubt very much you are familiar with the Furlough system. She has put her staff on Furlough rather than sacking them!

At least those employee's remain on at least 80% of what they were on rather than being unemployed!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here

"Whatever people think of the Beckhams and their wealth, Posh is quite at liberty to furlough her staff.

She has paid her staff a regular wage, they have paid their taxes and Posh has paid her corporation Tax. Her wealth really has nothing to do with it, she is as entitled to this as the next person.

This is so wrong ..

No it isn't!

The scheme has absolutely no entitlement based on having paid corporation tax or employees paying income tax.

The wealth of the business or owner of the business has everything to do with the purpose of the scheme .

Try enlightening yourself by reading the qualifying criteria on the gov.uk website - Carry on and well done!

I’m very familiar with gov.uk thanks.

They are entitled to it ? Really?

I doubt very much you are familiar with the Furlough system. She has put her staff on Furlough rather than sacking them!

At least those employee's remain on at least 80% of what they were on rather than being unemployed! "

What makes you think I am not aware of the CJRS?

I still maintain you haven’t grasped the purpose or ethics of Beckham using the scheme.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Whatever people think of the Beckhams and their wealth, Posh is quite at liberty to furlough her staff.

She has paid her staff a regular wage, they have paid their taxes and Posh has paid her corporation Tax. Her wealth really has nothing to do with it, she is as entitled to this as the next person.

This is so wrong ..

No it isn't!

The scheme has absolutely no entitlement based on having paid corporation tax or employees paying income tax.

The wealth of the business or owner of the business has everything to do with the purpose of the scheme .

Try enlightening yourself by reading the qualifying criteria on the gov.uk website - Carry on and well done!

I’m very familiar with gov.uk thanks.

They are entitled to it ? Really?

I doubt very much you are familiar with the Furlough system. She has put her staff on Furlough rather than sacking them!

At least those employee's remain on at least 80% of what they were on rather than being unemployed!

What makes you think I am not aware of the CJRS?

I still maintain you haven’t grasped the purpose or ethics of Beckham using the scheme.

Ah Gotcha now! So you think that the Employee's should have been sacked! - How bizarre.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here

"Whatever people think of the Beckhams and their wealth, Posh is quite at liberty to furlough her staff.

She has paid her staff a regular wage, they have paid their taxes and Posh has paid her corporation Tax. Her wealth really has nothing to do with it, she is as entitled to this as the next person.

This is so wrong ..

No it isn't!

The scheme has absolutely no entitlement based on having paid corporation tax or employees paying income tax.

The wealth of the business or owner of the business has everything to do with the purpose of the scheme .

Try enlightening yourself by reading the qualifying criteria on the gov.uk website - Carry on and well done!

I’m very familiar with gov.uk thanks.

They are entitled to it ? Really?

I doubt very much you are familiar with the Furlough system. She has put her staff on Furlough rather than sacking them!

At least those employee's remain on at least 80% of what they were on rather than being unemployed!

What makes you think I am not aware of the CJRS?

I still maintain you haven’t grasped the purpose or ethics of Beckham using the scheme.

Ah Gotcha now! So you think that the Employee's should have been sacked! - How bizarre."

You’re struggling to answer now .

Answer this - why would Beckham pay themselves £38 million in a year when profits fell by 90% and then feel they can’t afford to pay 30 staff £225,000, but ask the treasury to pay it ?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *arlomaleMan
over a year ago

darlington

Didn’t David beckham donate all his wages to french charities whilst at PSG? That’s an Amazing gesture I do recall he got stuck for that if my memory serves me

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *arlomaleMan
over a year ago

darlington

"Didn’t David beckham donate all his wages to french charities whilst at PSG? That’s an Amazing gesture I do recall he got stuck for that if my memory serves me "
stick

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"In the dame predicament as Dicky Branson, is it a brand worth saving? High end fashion being bad for the environment, besides being unessential items? "

Fuck that!

She had a good run.

Stop being a greedy bitch.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"In the dame predicament as Dicky Branson, is it a brand worth saving? High end fashion being bad for the environment, besides being unessential items?

There really is no way you can link Branson's begging bowl with Posh Spice.

Branson is a multi billonair tax dodging self publicist.

Don't mix these two with Branson for tax reasons, they couldn't be further away from each other.

If she is entitled to claim Fulough for her employees, then she is.............get over it and move on.

If her husband has bailed her out in the past why is she now asking for gmnt support?"

I'm guessing he already has put £m's in so far this year.

Even you must realize this is just a "vanity" busines ? It never has made any money, so it would also have never paid corporation tax either. What it would always have paid though is income tax and VAT like all businesses. As such it's entitled to furlough workers just like any other business. What it will never get though is a government grant (because it's never paid corporation tax), it's also very unlikely to ever get a government loan either. The fact that David has been pumping money in proves that it would never have got a normal bank loan either.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Just because she is famous or married to someone famous means nothing.

I should be amazed at the jealousy and hypocracy of so many on here, but sadly I am not.

Asking why the tax payer are funding 80%of the wages of a womans business..whose family sits on a fortune of an estimated £200 million is nothing to do with jealousy.

She is probably not the only one however."

No, upto to a maximum of 80% of their salary or £2,500 before tax. The true percentage may be much less and she may well be topping their salaries up to 80%. None of us know and again it is none of our business.

Most businesses have furloughed staff, many will have millions in the bank. That means nothing, as it will be proportionate to their turnover, just the overheads for many of these will be hundreds of thousands a week and that money will go very quickly. Money that will be needed to restart the operations of that business and the economy.

So a company with £2m cash in bank may be worse off than a small business with £20k in the bank, but no one will have an issue with that small business furloughing staff.

Instead, lets just bash someone for being rich and famous and for having the audacity to try and keep people in a job.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

" I’m very familiar with gov.uk thanks.

They are entitled to it ? Really?

I doubt very much you are familiar with the Furlough system. She has put her staff on Furlough rather than sacking them!

At least those employee's remain on at least 80% of what they were on rather than being unemployed!

What makes you think I am not aware of the CJRS?

I still maintain you haven’t grasped the purpose or ethics of Beckham using the scheme.

Ah Gotcha now! So you think that the Employee's should have been sacked! - How bizarre.

You’re struggling to answer now .

Answer this - why would Beckham pay themselves £38 million in a year when profits fell by 90% and then feel they can’t afford to pay 30 staff £225,000, but ask the treasury to pay it ?"

You really are struggling - bless!

Regardless of what you believe is right or wrong, the Government can not force the Beckhams to pay their staff!

The furlough scheme is to protect both the employers and the employee's.

In this particular case it is protecting the employee's!

The alternative might be that the Beckhams sack them which seems to be option that you prefer - how bizarre.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *bi_scotlandTV/TS
over a year ago

Glasgow

"Whatever people think of the Beckhams and their wealth, Posh is quite at liberty to furlough her staff.

She has paid her staff a regular wage, they have paid their taxes and Posh has paid her corporation Tax. Her wealth really has nothing to do with it, she is as entitled to this as the next person. "

Given the massive losses the company makes they won't be paying corporation tax.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here

" I’m very familiar with gov.uk thanks.

They are entitled to it ? Really?

I doubt very much you are familiar with the Furlough system. She has put her staff on Furlough rather than sacking them!

At least those employee's remain on at least 80% of what they were on rather than being unemployed!

What makes you think I am not aware of the CJRS?

I still maintain you haven’t grasped the purpose or ethics of Beckham using the scheme.

Ah Gotcha now! So you think that the Employee's should have been sacked! - How bizarre.

You’re struggling to answer now .

Answer this - why would Beckham pay themselves £38 million in a year when profits fell by 90% and then feel they can’t afford to pay 30 staff £225,000, but ask the treasury to pay it ?

You really are struggling - bless!

Regardless of what you believe is right or wrong, the Government can not force the Beckhams to pay their staff!

The furlough scheme is to protect both the employers and the employee's.

In this particular case it is protecting the employee's!

The alternative might be that the Beckhams sack them which seems to be option that you prefer - how bizarre.

You think it’s ok for someone who has paid themselves £38 million despite a drop in profits of 90% to take £225,000 from the government ?

It’s a simple question .

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"No, tell her to go singing again "

Please don't

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *eeleyWoman
over a year ago

Dudley

" I’m very familiar with gov.uk thanks.

They are entitled to it ? Really?

I doubt very much you are familiar with the Furlough system. She has put her staff on Furlough rather than sacking them!

At least those employee's remain on at least 80% of what they were on rather than being unemployed!

What makes you think I am not aware of the CJRS?

I still maintain you haven’t grasped the purpose or ethics of Beckham using the scheme.

Ah Gotcha now! So you think that the Employee's should have been sacked! - How bizarre.

You’re struggling to answer now .

Answer this - why would Beckham pay themselves £38 million in a year when profits fell by 90% and then feel they can’t afford to pay 30 staff £225,000, but ask the treasury to pay it ?

You really are struggling - bless!

Regardless of what you believe is right or wrong, the Government can not force the Beckhams to pay their staff!

The furlough scheme is to protect both the employers and the employee's.

In this particular case it is protecting the employee's!

The alternative might be that the Beckhams sack them which seems to be option that you prefer - how bizarre.

The fact is, they can afford to pay their staff, they should pay them. That's what it boils down to.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

Just because she is famous or married to someone famous means nothing.

I should be amazed at the jealousy and hypocracy of so many on here, but sadly I am not.

Asking why the tax payer are funding 80%of the wages of a womans business..whose family sits on a fortune of an estimated £200 million is nothing to do with jealousy.

She is probably not the only one however.

So a company with £2m cash in bank may be worse off than a small business with £20k in the bank, but no one will have an issue with that small business furloughing staff.

Instead, lets just bash someone for being rich and famous and for having the audacity to try and keep people in a job."

It is our business as we are ultimately paying it.

Like I said before her husband has bailed her out before so why is she asking for a payout now?

It's fair to say some businesses have (or tried to )take advantage of the situation and I'd include liverpool FC in that.People have a right to ask why a man who owns an island needs a handout.

I think you are gifting victoria Beckham with a degree of altruism she doesnt have.She is in business to make money (not doing so well there)and to enhance the brand..not to keep people in a job.

What is going to be interesting is the aftermath of this of The economy does go tits up.Labour were hammered for baling out The banks.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here

" I’m very familiar with gov.uk thanks.

They are entitled to it ? Really?

I doubt very much you are familiar with the Furlough system. She has put her staff on Furlough rather than sacking them!

At least those employee's remain on at least 80% of what they were on rather than being unemployed!

What makes you think I am not aware of the CJRS?

I still maintain you haven’t grasped the purpose or ethics of Beckham using the scheme.

Ah Gotcha now! So you think that the Employee's should have been sacked! - How bizarre.

You’re struggling to answer now .

Answer this - why would Beckham pay themselves £38 million in a year when profits fell by 90% and then feel they can’t afford to pay 30 staff £225,000, but ask the treasury to pay it ?

You really are struggling - bless!

Regardless of what you believe is right or wrong, the Government can not force the Beckhams to pay their staff!

The furlough scheme is to protect both the employers and the employee's.

In this particular case it is protecting the employee's!

The alternative might be that the Beckhams sack them which seems to be option that you prefer - how bizarre.

The fact is, they can afford to pay their staff, they should pay them. That's what it boils down to.

Exactly

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

" I’m very familiar with gov.uk thanks.

They are entitled to it ? Really?

I doubt very much you are familiar with the Furlough system. She has put her staff on Furlough rather than sacking them!

At least those employee's remain on at least 80% of what they were on rather than being unemployed!

What makes you think I am not aware of the CJRS?

I still maintain you haven’t grasped the purpose or ethics of Beckham using the scheme.

Ah Gotcha now! So you think that the Employee's should have been sacked! - How bizarre.

You’re struggling to answer now .

Answer this - why would Beckham pay themselves £38 million in a year when profits fell by 90% and then feel they can’t afford to pay 30 staff £225,000, but ask the treasury to pay it ?

You really are struggling - bless!

Regardless of what you believe is right or wrong, the Government can not force the Beckhams to pay their staff!

The furlough scheme is to protect both the employers and the employee's.

In this particular case it is protecting the employee's!

The alternative might be that the Beckhams sack them which seems to be option that you prefer - how bizarre.

You think it’s ok for someone who has paid themselves £38 million despite a drop in profits of 90% to take £225,000 from the government ?

It’s a simple question .

In going for a lie down.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

" You think it’s ok for someone who has paid themselves £38 million despite a drop in profits of 90% to take £225,000 from the government ?

It’s a simple question .

They won't be receiving the £225,000, their employee's will!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here

" You think it’s ok for someone who has paid themselves £38 million despite a drop in profits of 90% to take £225,000 from the government ?

It’s a simple question .

They won't be receiving the £225,000, their employee's will!

Words fail me

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

" You think it’s ok for someone who has paid themselves £38 million despite a drop in profits of 90% to take £225,000 from the government ?

It’s a simple question .

They won't be receiving the £225,000, their employee's will!

Yes but the business should be paying that.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here

[Removed by poster at 26/04/20 18:55:34]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

You all know what she should have done?

Put the company into voluntary liquidation. Laid all the staff off without any redundancy payout or wages owed. The employees would of then waited months for the Liquidator to realise assets before paying then with all the other creditors. That would probably be less than they were owed or entitled to so the government would then pay the difference ( probably not far off the furlough amount). Then she could have started again after the shutdown.

Hope that would gave satisfied everyone. Her employees would have had no money coming in, might of lost their houses etc but at least you would have sat more comfortably on your moral high horses.

Without furlough, that is exactly what a number of limited companies would have been doing.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *eeleyWoman
over a year ago

Dudley

"You all know what she should have done?

Hope that would gave satisfied everyone. Her employees would have had no money coming in, might of lost their houses etc but at least you would have sat more comfortably on your moral high horses.

Without furlough, that is exactly what a number of limited companies would have been doing."

Or, she could just pay the staff out of her multi million pound fortune, you know, like any decent person would have done.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Just because she is famous or married to someone famous means nothing.

I should be amazed at the jealousy and hypocracy of so many on here, but sadly I am not.

Asking why the tax payer are funding 80%of the wages of a womans business..whose family sits on a fortune of an estimated £200 million is nothing to do with jealousy.

She is probably not the only one however.

So a company with £2m cash in bank may be worse off than a small business with £20k in the bank, but no one will have an issue with that small business furloughing staff.

Instead, lets just bash someone for being rich and famous and for having the audacity to try and keep people in a job.

It is our business as we are ultimately paying it.

Like I said before her husband has bailed her out before so why is she asking for a payout now?

It's fair to say some businesses have (or tried to )take advantage of the situation and I'd include liverpool FC in that.People have a right to ask why a man who owns an island needs a handout.

I think you are gifting victoria Beckham with a degree of altruism she doesnt have.She is in business to make money (not doing so well there)and to enhance the brand..not to keep people in a job.

What is going to be interesting is the aftermath of this of The economy does go tits up.Labour were hammered for baling out The banks."

So you don't think any business should furlough their employees then. Just sack them and let them lose their houses and starve. How very thoughtful.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"You think it’s ok for someone who has paid themselves £38 million despite a drop in profits of 90% to take £225,000 from the government ?

It’s a simple question .

It seems to me you have no understanding of how a business is run or should be run.

First off, keeping to the thread, Posh's fashion arm has never ever made any profit so where you got the "90% drop in profits" is anyone's guess.

The figure of £38m i suspect is pulled out of the air as well. Posh has never even had a personal wealth of £38m even at the height of the "spice girls" earning power...............the fact that david has been ploughing in £6m a year says to me whatever she did has gone anyway. Yes, they are as a couple very wealthy, mostly his. If he has been supporting his wife's "vanity" project, that's up to him. But at the end of the day, her business has furloughed it's employees and is fully entitled to. No doubt when peeps can actually go into some high end shop and waste £18K on a handbag, they will be out of furlough again.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

Just because she is famous or married to someone famous means nothing.

I should be amazed at the jealousy and hypocracy of so many on here, but sadly I am not.

Asking why the tax payer are funding 80%of the wages of a womans business..whose family sits on a fortune of an estimated £200 million is nothing to do with jealousy.

She is probably not the only one however.

So a company with £2m cash in bank may be worse off than a small business with £20k in the bank, but no one will have an issue with that small business furloughing staff.

Instead, lets just bash someone for being rich and famous and for having the audacity to try and keep people in a job.

It is our business as we are ultimately paying it.

Like I said before her husband has bailed her out before so why is she asking for a payout now?

It's fair to say some businesses have (or tried to )take advantage of the situation and I'd include liverpool FC in that.People have a right to ask why a man who owns an island needs a handout.

I think you are gifting victoria Beckham with a degree of altruism she doesnt have.She is in business to make money (not doing so well there)and to enhance the brand..not to keep people in a job.

What is going to be interesting is the aftermath of this of The economy does go tits up.Labour were hammered for baling out The banks.

So you don't think any business should furlough their employees then. Just sack them and let them lose their houses and starve. How very thoughtful."

Yes that's exactly what I said.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"You all know what she should have done?

Hope that would gave satisfied everyone. Her employees would have had no money coming in, might of lost their houses etc but at least you would have sat more comfortably on your moral high horses.

Without furlough, that is exactly what a number of limited companies would have been doing.

Or, she could just pay the staff out of her multi million pound fortune, you know, like any decent person would have done. "

So you don't agree with furlough either and would prefer companies shut down and let people starve. Well done

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here

"You think it’s ok for someone who has paid themselves £38 million despite a drop in profits of 90% to take £225,000 from the government ?

It’s a simple question .

It seems to me you have no understanding of how a business is run or should be run.

First off, keeping to the thread, Posh's fashion arm has never ever made any profit so where you got the "90% drop in profits" is anyone's guess.

It seems to me you also have no grasp of the ethics of this.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *erry bull1Man
over a year ago

doncaster

She’s not doing it to feather her own nest , but for the benefit of the employee,s

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *eeleyWoman
over a year ago

Dudley

"You all know what she should have done?

Hope that would gave satisfied everyone. Her employees would have had no money coming in, might of lost their houses etc but at least you would have sat more comfortably on your moral high horses.

Without furlough, that is exactly what a number of limited companies would have been doing.

Or, she could just pay the staff out of her multi million pound fortune, you know, like any decent person would have done.

So you don't agree with furlough either and would prefer companies shut down and let people starve. Well done"

What an utterly ridiculous thing to say. No point talking to someone who cannot have a discussion without putting words in people's mouths.

There's alot more if like to say but I'd like to stay off the naughty step.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"You think it’s ok for someone who has paid themselves £38 million despite a drop in profits of 90% to take £225,000 from the government ?

It’s a simple question .

It seems to me you have no understanding of how a business is run or should be run.

First off, keeping to the thread, Posh's fashion arm has never ever made any profit so where you got the "90% drop in profits" is anyone's guess.

It seems to me you also have no grasp of the ethics of this.

Posh's furlough has nothing to do with ethics. Just like all small to medium businesses at the moment, it's down to survival.

If you want to talk about ethics, then bring up the question of Branson. A tax dodger of the first degree trying to put pressure on the government for a bailout worth £Billions and he dosn't pay a penny in tax in the UK

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here

"You think it’s ok for someone who has paid themselves £38 million despite a drop in profits of 90% to take £225,000 from the government ?

It’s a simple question .

It seems to me you have no understanding of how a business is run or should be run.

First off, keeping to the thread, Posh's fashion arm has never ever made any profit so where you got the "90% drop in profits" is anyone's guess.

It seems to me you also have no grasp of the ethics of this.

Posh's furlough has nothing to do with ethics. Just like all small to medium businesses at the moment, it's down to survival.

Of course her situation has ethics to it (as does the Branson/Virgin scenario - albeit slightly different in that the CJRS is non repayable and Branson is looking for a loan).

You don’t think she could/should dip in to her multi million pound wealth to pay the staff (likely to be no more than about £225,000) instead of taking from the tax payer?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *rank speakerMan
over a year ago

Worcester

Am I right in thinking that any money would be a loan rather than a grant? "

I think you're correct with the loan point? However I can see that this topic has become a little controversial? The who, how and why any large businesses are helped out I hope will be scrutinised? Not that I've much faith in the average senior civil servant actually doing some due diligence?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *abs..Woman
over a year ago

They should all be means tested. If they can pay things themselves then they should.

If it is a loan then the interest on it should be huge. The government manage to screw students over with their loan rates so they should have no issue there.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

"They should all be means tested. If they can pay things themselves then they should.

If it is a loan then the interest on it should be huge. The government manage to screw students over with their loan rates so they should have no issue there. "

I think the interest rates are very low.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *abs..Woman
over a year ago

"They should all be means tested. If they can pay things themselves then they should.

If it is a loan then the interest on it should be huge. The government manage to screw students over with their loan rates so they should have no issue there.

I think the interest rates are very low."

They aren’t low and it’s not fixed. I could go down the road and get a fixed term loan at a better rate. It should be fixed.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

"They should all be means tested. If they can pay things themselves then they should.

If it is a loan then the interest on it should be huge. The government manage to screw students over with their loan rates so they should have no issue there.

I think the interest rates are very low.

They aren’t low and it’s not fixed. I could go down the road and get a fixed term loan at a better rate. It should be fixed. "

I stand corrected..I just read somewhere they were at a favourable rate.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"No, tell her to go singing again "

Is that what she’s calling it? Like Yoko Ohno

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *abs..Woman
over a year ago

"They should all be means tested. If they can pay things themselves then they should.

If it is a loan then the interest on it should be huge. The government manage to screw students over with their loan rates so they should have no issue there.

I think the interest rates are very low.

They aren’t low and it’s not fixed. I could go down the road and get a fixed term loan at a better rate. It should be fixed.

I stand corrected..I just read somewhere they were at a favourable rate."

No they’re not. There only thing about it is they don’t start paying it back until they earn over a certain amount. There are many inconsistencies for students unfortunately.

Victoria Beckham on the other hand is practically made of money and this is just a little hobby for her which I don’t think people should fund. Means test or high interest rate on a loan will do the trick.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ouple in LancashireCouple
over a year ago

in Lancashire

" I’m very familiar with gov.uk thanks.

They are entitled to it ? Really?

I doubt very much you are familiar with the Furlough system. She has put her staff on Furlough rather than sacking them!

At least those employee's remain on at least 80% of what they were on rather than being unemployed!

What makes you think I am not aware of the CJRS?

I still maintain you haven’t grasped the purpose or ethics of Beckham using the scheme.

Ah Gotcha now! So you think that the Employee's should have been sacked! - How bizarre.

You’re struggling to answer now .

Answer this - why would Beckham pay themselves £38 million in a year when profits fell by 90% and then feel they can’t afford to pay 30 staff £225,000, but ask the treasury to pay it ?

You really are struggling - bless!

Regardless of what you believe is right or wrong, the Government can not force the Beckhams to pay their staff!

The furlough scheme is to protect both the employers and the employee's.

In this particular case it is protecting the employee's!

The alternative might be that the Beckhams sack them which seems to be option that you prefer - how bizarre.

You think it’s ok for someone who has paid themselves £38 million despite a drop in profits of 90% to take £225,000 from the government ?

It’s a simple question .

It's obscene..

And clearly acceptable to some on here because they can do..

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

"They should all be means tested. If they can pay things themselves then they should.

If it is a loan then the interest on it should be huge. The government manage to screw students over with their loan rates so they should have no issue there.

I think the interest rates are very low.

They aren’t low and it’s not fixed. I could go down the road and get a fixed term loan at a better rate. It should be fixed.

I stand corrected..I just read somewhere they were at a favourable rate.

No they’re not. There only thing about it is they don’t start paying it back until they earn over a certain amount. There are many inconsistencies for students unfortunately.

I'm guessing it would have been hard to means test every business who applied?

It would have meant going through the books etc.

I suppose a degree of trust would have been required

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *attyduk76Man
over a year ago

nearby

The main issue with all of this is the treasury literally had a few weeks to roll this out. Imagine if it went with the same process as universal credit or something like that, most of the companies that actually need the money would have gone under by the time they sorted out who needed it. Rock and a hard place springs to mind.

There doesn’t seem to be an issue with BA furloughing it’s staff ... similar business model to Virgin just without the celebrity owner, but will and have taken advantage of it, having said that the staff wages are probably a smaller amount of expenditure as newer staff are all on a expenses based salary. The big cost is the planes all sat on the ground all still need paying for.

But to conclude the Beckham thing ... morally maybe she should fund her staff but that’s her choice .. there are hundreds of businesses who could get thru without but ultimately it’s about a quick response to a tough situation.

Be safe

"They should all be means tested. If they can pay things themselves then they should.

If it is a loan then the interest on it should be huge. The government manage to screw students over with their loan rates so they should have no issue there.

I think the interest rates are very low.

They aren’t low and it’s not fixed. I could go down the road and get a fixed term loan at a better rate. It should be fixed.

I stand corrected..I just read somewhere they were at a favourable rate.

No they’re not. There only thing about it is they don’t start paying it back until they earn over a certain amount. There are many inconsistencies for students unfortunately.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ercuryMan
over a year ago

Grantham

VBs fashion business will be run by smart accountants. Like many have said, it's just a vanity project. One that gets her publicity, gets her into places but the day to day running will be left to others with (supposedly) more talent.

It may be morally wrong but her business is legally entitled to use the furlough scheme. The backlash may come when all this is over, and a different way of looking at life emerges.

Finally, remember why rich people are rich. Because they don't like spending their own money!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

"VBs fashion business will be run by smart accountants. Like many have said, it's just a vanity project. One that gets her publicity, gets her into places but the day to day running will be left to others with (supposedly) more talent.

It may be morally wrong but her business is legally entitled to use the furlough scheme. The backlash may come when all this is over, and a different way of looking at life emerges.

Finally, remember why rich people are rich. Because they don't like spending their own money! "

Who will get the backlash though?

The rich and powerful always come out unscathed.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *uck-RogersMan
over a year ago

Tarka trail

I'll tell you what she wants. What she really really wants.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

She has the choice, make redudencies because roles are currently not required or furlough which means the staff still get paid and likely a job to come back to in the future. Nothing moral about it. It's a business and they have to adapt for a short period of time. Furlough is there to stop mass unemployment and keep the economy going post COVID. The wealth of the owner has no relevance what so ever.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

I'm not sure what great value it would have for society if she got a loan. If she's got no assets, it perhaps doesn't bode well for her and her business. I don't know her story but possibly it wasn't going to work.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

"She has the choice, make redudencies because roles are currently not required or furlough which means the staff still get paid and likely a job to come back to in the future. Nothing moral about it. It's a business and they have to adapt for a short period of time. Furlough is there to stop mass unemployment and keep the economy going post COVID. The wealth of the owner has no relevance what so ever. "

The wealth of the owner does have relevance.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Has she actually asked for a government loan ? Or has she just taken advantage of the job retention scheme (furlough) ?

I would imagine her exit strategy will be to build that brand to the point where she can sell it to a large brand such as the LVMH group. That’s why she is running it despite taking annual losses. Takes a long time to build an established high fashion brand

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here

"Has she actually asked for a government loan ? Or has she just taken advantage of the job retention scheme (furlough) ?

Not a loan, using the CJRS.

“Taking advantage” sums it up perfectly

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *attyduk76Man
over a year ago

nearby

The wealth of the owner does have relevance."

How ? Take as an example BMW they have furloughed their factories .. now BMW can afford to support workers at the mini factory ... but they have taken advantage of the scheme... it’s sound business to use it and at the end of the day that is what the accountants and managers are supposed to do “manage it for the owners” ie the share holders & to get through this with the minimum amount of pain/loss.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

The wealth of the owner does have relevance.

I thought the purpose of the scheme was to help struggling businesses?

Which is why the likes of virgin and football clubs got slated for applying for it.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ulfilthmentMan
over a year ago

Just around the corner

I thought the aim was to compensate businesses (and by extension their employees) who can’t do their business (and make money) because the government has restricted how and if they can work.

All the business shareholders who aren’t big names should be coughing up too based on the general thrust of this thread.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

"I thought the aim was to compensate businesses (and by extension their employees) who can’t do their business (and make money) because the government has restricted how and if they can work.

All the business shareholders who aren’t big names should be coughing up too based on the general thrust of this thread."

That's what I thought?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *attyduk76Man
over a year ago

nearby

The wealth of the owner does have relevance.

I thought the purpose of the scheme was to help struggling businesses?

Which is why the likes of virgin and football clubs got slated for applying for it."

Define struggling ... Struggling to pay staff or struggling to maintain profits .. In my case I have been furloughed and it saves the company I work for 1.25 million a month. Can the company afford to keep paying us? probably ... but as 60% of the company can’t work from home it makes sound business sense to use the system to protect against any down turn in the future, so all staff furloughed. Also worth noting that the 2.5 k isn’t actually 2.5 k it’s 2.5k plus NI & company pension contribution.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

The wealth of the owner does have relevance.

I thought the purpose of the scheme was to help struggling businesses?

Which is why the likes of virgin and football clubs got slated for applying for it.

Well that's the grey area isnt it?

It seems some businesses are being slated for using it whilst others arent.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *attyduk76Man
over a year ago

nearby

Now the football teams are another question entirely : I suspect the footballers are not PAYE so will not qualify support staff will .. another thing the teams will struggle with is if they don’t pay the players the contracts are potentially void hence players can go elsewhere, loosing the club massive assets. So all in all a very complicated situation.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *attyduk76Man
over a year ago

nearby

The wealth of the owner does have relevance.

I thought the purpose of the scheme was to help struggling businesses?

Which is why the likes of virgin and football clubs got slated for applying for it.

Well that's the grey area isnt it?

It seems some businesses are being slated for using it whilst others arent."

Very grey yes... and comes back to the main point I made a lot earlier you can’t slate Posh for using the system just cause people think she doesn’t deserve it based on the fact that she is married to David Beckham ... There are far far bigger offenders out there we just don’t read about them in the tabloids...

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *ionelhutzMan
over a year ago

liverpool

The wealth of the owner does have relevance.

I thought the purpose of the scheme was to help struggling businesses?

Which is why the likes of virgin and football clubs got slated for applying for it.

Well that's the grey area isnt it?

It seems some businesses are being slated for using it whilst others arent.

I agree with that.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"I can't believe she furloughed her staff tbh. It's not like the Beckham's can't afford it. From what I read her label has made a loss in all 12 years it's been going. "

If that's the case, that will rule her out of government assistance.

My understanding is that assistance is only available for financially viable companies.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *attyduk76Man
over a year ago

nearby

"I can't believe she furloughed her staff tbh. It's not like the Beckham's can't afford it. From what I read her label has made a loss in all 12 years it's been going.

If that's the case, that will rule her out of government assistance.

My understanding is that assistance is only available for financially viable companies."

Loans yes ... furlough no ... every company that pays staff on PAYE are eligible.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *attyduk76Man
over a year ago

nearby

"I can't believe she furloughed her staff tbh. It's not like the Beckham's can't afford it. From what I read her label has made a loss in all 12 years it's been going.

If that's the case, that will rule her out of government assistance.

My understanding is that assistance is only available for financially viable companies."

In the Covid act there was actually protection for business owners to protect them against prosecution as company directors are not allowed to run a company that is failing and they know its failing ... this is seen as a green light to companies to use the help even if they are failing.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *layfullsamMan
over a year ago

Solihull

[Removed by poster at 27/04/20 11:24:29]

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *layfullsamMan
over a year ago

Solihull

"No, tell her to go singing again "

Please god no, hasn't the nation suffered enough

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *arksxMan
over a year ago

Leicester / London

"Has she actually asked for a government loan ? Or has she just taken advantage of the job retention scheme (furlough) ?

It's a vanity project and has never made a profit. Lvmh would never want it, they want her. Or at least the "followers" and recognition she brings.

Her companies initial mandate is not to make money. It was used to cement her status in the fashion industry.

Before her fashionista "rebranding" she was the talentless one from the spice girls who married a footballer and became a wag.

Great... and good for her but not exactly swhat vanity fair or the next fashion label "needed" and their next big launch.

With her own fashion house... she can run a company ltd at a loss with no blowback on her own personal wealth and wave it around like a passport for her dubious credentials.

She was "evolved" with the land rover evoque launch and had the balls to the tell the automotive media "she designed the car"

Which of course they saw right through her bullshit.

Even the car designer called her out on her crap publicly. But the car sold like hot cakes because wannabe wags wanted to drive their Chelsea tractor.

With all that said her furlong request is for 20 employees.

I'd rather more focus was spent on the Beckham overall tax avoidance over the last 2 decades which would amount to millions.

Including bullshit stunts like David Beckham donating his psg salary to charity only for it to be to lower his overall tax liability on his much bigger estate.

A couple of grand on employees that have no direct influence how the beckhams handle the tax affairs or their public image isn't really in the same boat.

These crisis all show up how Machiavellian the rich are. It will all be forgotten in 6 months wants it out the public eye.

Or even more oddly the general public who support and defend their greed whilst it raises their taxes

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

Then she should have put some aside for a rainy day like most sensible people do if they can..

All of a sudden the free marketeteers have gotten a big liking for socialism and the collective helping them out..

It's entirely relevant that she is a multi millionaire, unlike other small and medium enterprises she has the means to see this through..

100% agree.

The furlough scheme is there to support businesses who have no means to pay staff. It is not a free-for-all.

And that taxes will be going up for the doctors, nurses and carers amongst others really grinds my gears with some of these people now holding their hands out..

I don't know if many of them have one of her £18,000 handbags or ever will do..

I hope they're assessed before just handing out willy nilly.

If a business are a benefit to the economy and then fair enough

How do you assess it's a benefit to the economy?"

1. Are they an offshore company (tax avoiding) yet want a handout

2. Have the enough capital to bail themselves out

3. Individuals in a company's capital ...

e.g footballers, managers etc. = no no furlough (sling yer hook) , the lady who mops out the toilets at the stadium = furlough

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago

"Has she actually asked for a government loan ? Or has she just taken advantage of the job retention scheme (furlough) ?

It's a vanity project and has never made a profit. Lvmh would never want it, they want her. Or at least the "followers" and recognition she brings.

Her companies initial mandate is not to make money. It was used to cement her status in the fashion industry.

Before her fashionista "rebranding" she was the talentless one from the spice girls who married a footballer and became a wag.

Great... and good for her but not exactly swhat vanity fair or the next fashion label "needed" and their next big launch.

With her own fashion house... she can run a company ltd at a loss with no blowback on her own personal wealth and wave it around like a passport for her dubious credentials.

She was "evolved" with the land rover evoque launch and had the balls to the tell the automotive media "she designed the car"

Which of course they saw right through her bullshit.

Even the car designer called her out on her crap publicly. But the car sold like hot cakes because wannabe wags wanted to drive their Chelsea tractor.

With all that said her furlong request is for 20 employees.

I'd rather more focus was spent on the Beckham overall tax avoidance over the last 2 decades which would amount to millions.

Including bullshit stunts like David Beckham donating his psg salary to charity only for it to be to lower his overall tax liability on his much bigger estate.

A couple of grand on employees that have no direct influence how the beckhams handle the tax affairs or their public image isn't really in the same boat.

These crisis all show up how Machiavellian the rich are. It will all be forgotten in 6 months wants it out the public eye.

Or even more oddly the general public who support and defend their greed whilst it raises their taxes

Well said

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *abs..Woman
over a year ago

"They should all be means tested. If they can pay things themselves then they should.

If it is a loan then the interest on it should be huge. The government manage to screw students over with their loan rates so they should have no issue there.

I think the interest rates are very low.

They aren’t low and it’s not fixed. I could go down the road and get a fixed term loan at a better rate. It should be fixed.

I stand corrected..I just read somewhere they were at a favourable rate.

No they’re not. There only thing about it is they don’t start paying it back until they earn over a certain amount. There are many inconsistencies for students unfortunately.

I'm guessing it would have been hard to means test every business who applied?

It would have meant going through the books etc.

I suppose a degree of trust would have been required "

I think it is proven that you can’t trust multi millionaires and their accountants. Not every one of them obviously but I think they should be embarrassed about doing this whilst sitting on the assets they have - and I don’t mean their bums

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Whatever people think of the Beckhams and their wealth, Posh is quite at liberty to furlough her staff.

She has paid her staff a regular wage, they have paid their taxes and Posh has paid her corporation Tax.

I don't think you pay tax when you have losses.

Probably not corporation Tax, but all the other taxes and NI still applies.

Either way, the Government want to look after the employees livelihoods.

The employees will pay tax as we all do yes, but I don't think anyone pays tax if they are showing as losses for that tax year...or the year before,, or the year before that in this case"

Tax is in different brackets and you can only offset against the same kind of tax. You cant offset business losses against national insurance payments or vat payments they will still have been paid

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

"Whatever people think of the Beckhams and their wealth, Posh is quite at liberty to furlough her staff.

She has paid her staff a regular wage, they have paid their taxes and Posh has paid her corporation Tax. Her wealth really has nothing to do with it, she is as entitled to this as the next person.

This is so wrong ..

No it isn't!

The scheme has absolutely no entitlement based on having paid corporation tax or employees paying income tax.

The wealth of the business or owner of the business has everything to do with the purpose of the scheme .

Try enlightening yourself by reading the qualifying criteria on the gov.uk website - Carry on and well done!

I’m very familiar with gov.uk thanks.

They are entitled to it ? Really?

I doubt very much you are familiar with the Furlough system. She has put her staff on Furlough rather than sacking them!

At least those employee's remain on at least 80% of what they were on rather than being unemployed! "

They also seem to be pretty unfamiliar with the line between a company and an individual, and cash and assets

The beckhams might be worth however many millions but that will be asset wealth not cash

Its also actually a non relevant point about how much money they have personally because the scheme is set up to cover the BUSINESS expense of staff wages while those staff are not able to do their job ,

pandemic or no pandemic, profit making or loss making company, its never been the responsibility of an owner of a limited company (or owners when its publicly traded to shareholders) to cover an unpaid business expense , that only applies to a sole trader not registered as a company or a partnership (without limited liability). Their liability is limited to whatever capital they have already put in, and without this government scheme, and no idea of when things will return to normal, many would cut their losses and close up shop rather than keep the debts building... that is why the scheme was set up and why her business is eligible

Think of it in a similar scenario but on a smaller scale... wee davey runs a cafe, he has 3 employees, his business cash account runs like most, customer cash in, pays bills and wages, buys more stock, cycle starts again (not much leftover) ... the cash has stopped coming in so he can’t keep paying the bills or the wages

Davey also has a personal car worth £10k and a house worth £500k .... should he take advantage of the furlough scheme or should he start selling his house and car because he had more than enough in personal assets to keep those 3 wee employees paid?

Of course the answer is furlough... and it doesn’t change any just because we happen to be talking about davey or posh

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *attyduk76Man
over a year ago

nearby

"Whatever people think of the Beckhams and their wealth, Posh is quite at liberty to furlough her staff.

She has paid her staff a regular wage, they have paid their taxes and Posh has paid her corporation Tax. Her wealth really has nothing to do with it, she is as entitled to this as the next person.

This is so wrong ..

No it isn't!

The scheme has absolutely no entitlement based on having paid corporation tax or employees paying income tax.

The wealth of the business or owner of the business has everything to do with the purpose of the scheme .

Try enlightening yourself by reading the qualifying criteria on the gov.uk website - Carry on and well done!

I’m very familiar with gov.uk thanks.

They are entitled to it ? Really?

I doubt very much you are familiar with the Furlough system. She has put her staff on Furlough rather than sacking them!

At least those employee's remain on at least 80% of what they were on rather than being unemployed!

They also seem to be pretty unfamiliar with the line between a company and an individual, and cash and assets

The beckhams might be worth however many millions but that will be asset wealth not cash

Of course the answer is furlough... and it doesn’t change any just because we happen to be talking about davey or posh"

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *abs..Woman
over a year ago

It’s more of an ethical and moral decision though surely. Paying the salaries of those that work for them is not beyond the realms of possibility and decency. They are claiming because they can, they accounts will see to that.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here

"Whatever people think of the Beckhams and their wealth, Posh is quite at liberty to furlough her staff.

She has paid her staff a regular wage, they have paid their taxes and Posh has paid her corporation Tax. Her wealth really has nothing to do with it, she is as entitled to this as the next person.

This is so wrong ..

No it isn't!

The scheme has absolutely no entitlement based on having paid corporation tax or employees paying income tax.

The wealth of the business or owner of the business has everything to do with the purpose of the scheme .

Try enlightening yourself by reading the qualifying criteria on the gov.uk website - Carry on and well done!

I’m very familiar with gov.uk thanks.

They are entitled to it ? Really?

I doubt very much you are familiar with the Furlough system. She has put her staff on Furlough rather than sacking them!

At least those employee's remain on at least 80% of what they were on rather than being unemployed!

They also seem to be pretty unfamiliar with the line between a company and an individual, and cash and assets

The beckhams might be worth however many millions but that will be asset wealth not cash

Of course the answer is furlough... and it doesn’t change any just because we happen to be talking about davey or posh"

Do you think the Beckhams cash flow / bank accounts are empty ?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *attyduk76Man
over a year ago

nearby

"Whatever people think of the Beckhams and their wealth, Posh is quite at liberty to furlough her staff.

She has paid her staff a regular wage, they have paid their taxes and Posh has paid her corporation Tax. Her wealth really has nothing to do with it, she is as entitled to this as the next person.

This is so wrong ..

No it isn't!

The scheme has absolutely no entitlement based on having paid corporation tax or employees paying income tax.

The wealth of the business or owner of the business has everything to do with the purpose of the scheme .

Try enlightening yourself by reading the qualifying criteria on the gov.uk website - Carry on and well done!

I’m very familiar with gov.uk thanks.

They are entitled to it ? Really?

I doubt very much you are familiar with the Furlough system. She has put her staff on Furlough rather than sacking them!

At least those employee's remain on at least 80% of what they were on rather than being unemployed!

They also seem to be pretty unfamiliar with the line between a company and an individual, and cash and assets

The beckhams might be worth however many millions but that will be asset wealth not cash

Of course the answer is furlough... and it doesn’t change any just because we happen to be talking about davey or posh

Do you think the Beckhams cash flow / bank accounts are empty ?"

Missing the point I think ?

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *abs..Woman
over a year ago

"Whatever people think of the Beckhams and their wealth, Posh is quite at liberty to furlough her staff.

She has paid her staff a regular wage, they have paid their taxes and Posh has paid her corporation Tax. Her wealth really has nothing to do with it, she is as entitled to this as the next person.

This is so wrong ..

No it isn't!

The scheme has absolutely no entitlement based on having paid corporation tax or employees paying income tax.

The wealth of the business or owner of the business has everything to do with the purpose of the scheme .

Try enlightening yourself by reading the qualifying criteria on the gov.uk website - Carry on and well done!

I’m very familiar with gov.uk thanks.

They are entitled to it ? Really?

I doubt very much you are familiar with the Furlough system. She has put her staff on Furlough rather than sacking them!

At least those employee's remain on at least 80% of what they were on rather than being unemployed!

They also seem to be pretty unfamiliar with the line between a company and an individual, and cash and assets

The beckhams might be worth however many millions but that will be asset wealth not cash

Of course the answer is furlough... and it doesn’t change any just because we happen to be talking about davey or posh

Do you think the Beckhams cash flow / bank accounts are empty ?"

That’s the age old angle for the extremely wealthy ... all their cash is tied up in assets. They will not have a shortage of cash, I guarantee it

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *otsossieMan
over a year ago

local, but not too local

Furlough of staff is fair enough, it’s the ones who are giving a 20% pay cut and THEN furloughing the staff that get me. I know a few people being treated this way and it’s just skimming their wages!

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *heBirminghamWeekendMan
over a year ago

here

"Whatever people think of the Beckhams and their wealth, Posh is quite at liberty to furlough her staff.

She has paid her staff a regular wage, they have paid their taxes and Posh has paid her corporation Tax. Her wealth really has nothing to do with it, she is as entitled to this as the next person.

This is so wrong ..

No it isn't!

The scheme has absolutely no entitlement based on having paid corporation tax or employees paying income tax.

The wealth of the business or owner of the business has everything to do with the purpose of the scheme .

Try enlightening yourself by reading the qualifying criteria on the gov.uk website - Carry on and well done!

I’m very familiar with gov.uk thanks.

They are entitled to it ? Really?

I doubt very much you are familiar with the Furlough system. She has put her staff on Furlough rather than sacking them!

At least those employee's remain on at least 80% of what they were on rather than being unemployed!

They also seem to be pretty unfamiliar with the line between a company and an individual, and cash and assets

The beckhams might be worth however many millions but that will be asset wealth not cash

Of course the answer is furlough... and it doesn’t change any just because we happen to be talking about davey or posh

Do you think the Beckhams cash flow / bank accounts are empty ?

That’s the age old angle for the extremely wealthy ... all their cash is tied up in assets. They will not have a shortage of cash, I guarantee it

Of course it is, and for anybody to defend the Beckhams taking tax payers money really defies all logic and sense.

(closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately

By *arksxMan
over a year ago

Leicester / London

"Whatever people think of the Beckhams and their wealth, Posh is quite at liberty to furlough her staff.

She has paid her staff a regular wage, they have paid their taxes and Posh has paid her corporation Tax. Her wealth really has nothing to do with it, she is as entitled to this as the next person.

This is so wrong ..

No it isn't!

The scheme has absolutely no entitlement based on having paid corporation tax or employees paying income tax.

The wealth of the business or owner of the business has everything to do with the purpose of the scheme .

Try enlightening yourself by reading the qualifying criteria on the gov.uk website - Carry on and well done!

I’m very familiar with gov.uk thanks.

They are entitled to it ? Really?

I doubt very much you are familiar with the Furlough system. She has put her staff on Furlough rather than sacking them!

At least those employee's remain on at least 80% of what they were on rather than being unemployed!

They also seem to be pretty unfamiliar with the line between a company and an individual, and cash and assets

The beckhams might be worth however many millions but that will be asset wealth not cash

Of course the answer is furlough... and it doesn’t change any just because we happen to be talking about davey or posh"

Thats Because you are providing a logical argument based on finances and current legislation

But that's not the publics argument behind this.

Furloughing has now been politicised and the genre public are looking at it with a moral perspective. Morally what she doing is wrong like many others.

And rightly so. This is financial moral hazard. Capitalism is about risk and reward.

Not.. risk only in the good times and only if you are already assest rich

Becuase don't worry business daddy aka the government will wipe your arse for you in the bad times.

And decent business manager will leave a positive cahflow their accounts. To be needed to bailed out after 1 month shows how poorly alot of business have been run for the last 12 years.

The government policy has been rushed through without reviws and once again its providing a benefit to some of the richest citizens.

Wait to see what happens to benefits for the general public in a year's time. It will be more cuts to exisitng benefits under universal credit.

I'm not a fan of a large welfare state but Id rather see the money go towards the vunerable, unwell, unemployed and public services.

Than posh spices yummy mummy business.

Are the Beckham being used as the face of these villains... Yes

But all she has to do to resolve her public image is pay 20 members of staff herself... We've only had 1 months payroll so far