NCFC to furlough staff

[Barbe bleu 809]

12 minutes ago, Aggy said:

I’m not sure that’s right. Firstly it doesn’t take into account tax bands.

Secondly, if the non-playing staff aren’t furloughed, then they would otherwise be entitled to full salary anyway. You’re using the money “saved” from playing staff salaries to pay the normal wages of non-playing staff. So the non-playing staff are getting paid the same amount (and therefore paying the same amount of tax) as always, but the playing staff are being paid less (and therefore paying less tax). You’re not using the money saved from the player’s salaries to give the no -playing staff some sort of bonus or pay rise.

As the club’s outgoings aren’t only wages, it’s unlikely that all money saved from playing staff pay cuts would go to salaries of non-playing staff anyway.

I'm lost.  Im suggesting that a proportion  of the highest earners salaries get diverted to the lower paid staff to help them avoid furlough.

Even though that means some loss of tax take due to differential rates  it will still save the tax payer money. How can it not do so? 

The Club would be in exactly the same position it would have been in if it instead chose to furlough the low paid and retain full salary of the top earners.

To make savings further cuts may be required.

This way the hit is taken by those best placed to take it and not the state.

 

[Aggy 747]

37 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I'm lost.  Im suggesting that a proportion  of the highest earners salaries get diverted to the lower paid staff to help them avoid furlough.

Even though that means some loss of tax take due to differential rates  it will still save the tax payer money. How can it not do so? 

The Club would be in exactly the same position it would have been in if it instead chose to furlough the low paid and retain full salary of the top earners.

To make savings further cuts may be required.

This way the hit is taken by those best placed to take it and not the state.

 

Because that’s not what you suggested. You quoted a post saying that the tax paid by players at five clubs amounted to 500,000,000. You then said that if the ‘saved’ salaries were paid to non-playing staff, the tax paid would still be 500,000,000. Which isn’t the case, as you now acknowledge.

”If the money was diverted away from players and into the pockets of non-playing staff (or elsewhere) the tax take would still be £500,000,000 as the non playing staff still pay income tax ”

 

Edited April 6, 2020 by Aggy

[Barbe bleu 809]

2 minutes ago, Aggy said:

Because that’s not what you suggested. You quoted a post saying that the tax paid by players at five clubs amounted to 500,000,000. You then said that if the ‘saved’ salaries were paid to non-playing staff, the tax paid would still be 500,000,000. Which isn’t the case, as you now acknowledge.

”If the money was diverted away from players and into the pockets of non-playing staff (or elsewhere) the tax take would still be £500,000,000 as the non playing staff still pay income tax ”

Why did you cut that quote off before it went on to include NI, VAT and duties?

[Aggy 747]

@Barbe bleu 

Because the same point stands. What N.I., VAT and duties would the footballers have been paying on 100 per cent income as opposed to reduced income?

The point you make about saving the tax payer money in the post above is fair enough, and I can’t disagree with it. But it’s not the point you made in the first post. It’s fine to just say that.

Edited April 6, 2020 by Aggy

[Barbe bleu 809]

6 minutes ago, Aggy said:

@Barbe bleu 

Because the same point stands. What N.I., VAT and duties would the footballers have been paying on 100 per cent income as opposed to reduced income?

The point you make about saving the tax payer money in the post above is fair enough, and I can’t disagree with it. But it’s not the point you made in the first post. It’s fine to just say that.

Understood and I am prepared to concede the point to some extent (even if only because I have no interest in calculating differential employer NI contributions)

 I'm not sure though that there would be too much practical difference in tax take once all tax and duties were paid. 

 

 

[Branston Pickle 3,631]

Just to mention, from the BBC:

Fifa has also urged clubs to protect jobs if at all possible, including pay cuts and deferrals, and the use of government schemes.

Seems a bit harsh to me that we are criticising our own club -and with some backing some sort of weird transfer embargo - when it appears it is doing what FIFA suggests.

Edited April 6, 2020 by Branston Pickle

[Barbe bleu 809]

When we are using FIFA as some sort of moral barometer we really are stuffed!

[Branston Pickle 3,631]

Who mentioned them being a moral barometer? No one.  
But they are, for better or worse, the lead organisation for the entire game.  

[Aggy 747]

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

 I'm not sure though that there would be too much practical difference in tax take once all tax and duties were paid. 

Probably correct, I would agree. Certainly not enough difference to be basing arguments about the club’s actions on tax / cost to the taxpayer.

Edited April 6, 2020 by Aggy

[Van wink 2,994]

On 04/04/2020 at 14:52, GJL Mid-Norfolk Canary said:

Liverpool FC......European champions and one of the richest clubs in the world, now furloughing non playing staff. How's that for the morally outraged on this thread?

Looks like they've changed their minds and apologised

[Badger 2,404]

14 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

I'm lost.  Im suggesting that a proportion  of the highest earners salaries get diverted to the lower paid staff to help them avoid furlough.

Why do you want to avoid furloughing lower paid staff?

[Barbe bleu 809]

12 minutes ago, Badger said:

Why do you want to avoid furloughing lower paid staff?

Gosh, I'd never asked myself that question and you know what? I've changed my mind!

We should ask the tax payer to fund as much of the club as possible, there is nothing more important for the state to fund right now and it is entirely right that the highly paid staff continue to earn their full whack.

It took me a while but I got there!

[Badger 2,404]

5 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Gosh, I'd never asked myself that question and you know what? I've changed my mind!

We should ask the tax payer to fund as much of the club as possible, there is nothing more important for the state to fund right now and it is entirely right that the highly paid staff continue to earn their full whack.

It took me a while but I got there!

Sorry BB, your reply doesn't make sense. I think that you are using irony but in doing so you fail to make the reasons clear.

Do you disapprove of the furlough scheme? I think that it is the only way of saving millions of jobs. Otherwise businesses will behave as they have to do and make unneeded staff redundant. 

[Barbe bleu 809]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

Sorry BB, your reply doesn't make sense. I think that you are using irony but in doing so you fail to make the reasons clear.

Do you disapprove of the furlough scheme? I think that it is the only way of saving millions of jobs. Otherwise businesses will behave as they have to do and make unneeded staff redundant. 

Do I agree with the furlough scheme in general ? Yes. it is imperfect and will be abused but it is absolutely vital for some businesses 

Do I agree that the club should use it? No.  We should go onto the scheme only after we have explored all other means of keeping going and I see little/no evidence that we have done that.

The one exception I might make would be if we went on the furlough but set up a fund to be filled with contributions from the execs and players that could be put back into public services afterwards