Originally posted by NoRiverRequired
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Bad beat/Moaning/Venting thread - Mammy told me not to come.
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
People say I should be more humble I hope they understand, they don't listen when you mumble
Get a shiny metal Revolut card! And a free tenner!
https://revolut.com/referral/jamesb8!G10D21
-
Originally posted by ComradeCollie View PostWondering do you know what blood group you are? Have heard a few serious people suggest that people with type A blood are faring much worse than those with type O. Have yet to see any data though.
Any link to this or is it just going around type stuff?
Comment
-
Originally posted by shrapnel View PostLooks like confirmed to meWinston, sorry Bojo, to defeat this evil foreign invader?
You're fucked now. Go out and murder someone you dislike before it's too late."We are not Europeans. Those people on the continent are freaks."
Comment
-
Originally posted by ComradeCollie View PostBoris positive!
People say I should be more humble I hope they understand, they don't listen when you mumble
Get a shiny metal Revolut card! And a free tenner!
https://revolut.com/referral/jamesb8!G10D21
Comment
-
Guest
Originally posted by Silver-Tiger View PostSo Racing Post is gone. A lot of Newspapers are on their knees with no advertisers or people buying.
Will many bookmakers hit the wall quickly do you think?
Comment
-
Originally posted by jbravado View PostAny link to this or is it just going around type stuff?OBJECTIVE To investigate the relationship between the ABO blood group and the COVID-19 susceptibility. DESIGN The study was conducted by comparing the blood group distribution in 2,173 patients with COVID-19 confirmed by SARS-CoV-2 test from three hospitals in Wuhan and Shenzhen, China with that in normal people from the corresponding regions. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and 2-tailed χ2 and a meta-analysis was performed by random effects models. SETTING Three tertiary hospitals in Wuhan and Shenzhen, China. PARTICIPANTS A total of 1,775 patients with COVID-19, including 206 dead cases, from Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital, Wuhan, China were recruited. Another 113 and 285 patients with COVID-19 were respectively recruited from Renmin Hospital of Wuhan University, Wuhan and Shenzhen Third People’s Hospital, Shenzhen, China. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Detection of ABO blood groups, infection occurrence of SARS-CoV-2, and patient death. RESULTS The ABO group in 3694 normal people in Wuhan showed a distribution of 32.16%, 24.90%, 9.10% and 33.84% for A, B, AB and O, respectively, versus the distribution of 37.75%, 26.42%, 10.03% and 25.80% for A, B, AB and O, respectively, in 1,775 COVID-19 patients from Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital. The proportion of blood group A and O in COVID-19 patients were significantly higher and lower, respectively, than that in normal people (both P < 0.001). Similar ABO distribution pattern was observed in 398 patients from another two hospitals in Wuhan and Shenzhen. Meta-analyses on the pooled data showed that blood group A had a significantly higher risk for COVID-19 (odds ratio-OR, 1.20; 95% confidence interval- CI 1.02∼1.43, P = 0.02) compared with non-A blood groups, whereas blood group O had a significantly lower risk for the infectious disease (OR, 0.67; 95% CI 0.60∼0.75, P < 0.001) compared with non-O blood groups. In addition, the influence of age and gender on the ABO blood group distribution in patients with COVID-19 from two Wuhan hospitals (1,888 patients) were analyzed and found that age and gender do not have much effect on the distribution. CONCLUSION People with blood group A have a significantly higher risk for acquiring COVID-19 compared with non-A blood groups, whereas blood group O has a significantly lower risk for the infection compared with non-O blood groups. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Funding Statement Not Applicable ### Author Declarations All relevant ethical guidelines have been followed; any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained and details of the IRB/oversight body are included in the manuscript. Yes All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable. Yes The data used to support the findings of this study are included within the article.
Not peer reviewed, and should give no reason for anyone to change their behaviour. I'm A rh+
Edit: It seems people with type A blood are more likely to become infected. There is no indication of any variation of outcome when infected.Last edited by ComradeCollie; 27-03-20, 12:10.Gone full 'Glinner' since June 2022.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Murdrum View PostIndependents might go bust but bigger operators are cleaning up via online casinos and poker to a lesser extent. Those not diversified might be in trouble.
I'd punt 3 figures every week and an ex poker junkie.
The 3 figures obviously staying in my pocket now and I've lodged 20 quid only into stars to have a home game with my mates and keep in touch.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Silver-Tiger View PostAlso. With social distancing not going to be going anywhere until we have a vaccine. Surely pro sports is proper fucked and real decisions have to be made shortly?"We are not Europeans. Those people on the continent are freaks."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Silver-Tiger View PostAlso. With social distancing not going to be going anywhere until we have a vaccine. Surely pro sports is proper fucked and real decisions have to be made shortly?
Comment
-
Guest
Originally posted by Silver-Tiger View PostAre they really cleaning up? Surely the sportsbook having nothing coming through is crippling. There's always going to be the degens but plenty of me too.
I'd punt 3 figures every week and an ex poker junkie.
The 3 figures obviously staying in my pocket now and I've lodged 20 quid only into stars to have a home game with my mates and keep in touch.
All the casino games and poker are outsourced so they're simply sending traffic and picking up a %.
It's probably not the loss you'd think is all because the profitability in shops is limited anyway, many just won't reopen.
They still have plenty of traffic via other mediums outside of major sports and racing. Take for example Wrestlemania next weekend, they'll get a ton of new sign ups who have little interest in sports, more likely to stay around playing slots than punting soccer/racing.
It's a hit for sure but it's not a broad sweeping regulatory thing, Casino games, Poker & whatever else is left will keep many of them going.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Goodluck2me View PostIn what sense?
Edit: And not getting in bed with Murderous regimes. One can dream.Last edited by Hectorjelly; 27-03-20, 12:39.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DeadParrot View Postwas in town yesterday to give blood.
The city centre has been reclaimed by roaring junkies and deliveroo drivers.
It's a pretty surreal experience."Worldly wisdom teaches that it is better for reputation to fail conventionally than to succeed unconventionally." - John Maynard Keynes
Comment
-
Originally posted by NoRiverRequired View PostI have an Aunt living in New York, been there since her 20s who has transformed from an intelligent articulate woman who I was very fond of to a racist tinfoil (maga) hat wearing, Fox news consuming drooler, in the space of 4-5 years. Its so sad tbh. Last time she was over here she fell out with me early in the trip after a healthy debate, ive had to pull back and just not engage with her at all when politics or anything vaguely related to it comes up.
Really has been an eye opener though, like a lot of Irish Americans of her vintage there has always been an underlying racist element but the Donald has just let them kick on and spout this crap without fear of judgment. My mother finds it all very upsetting when speaking to her, the latest was that the Chinese released this designer virus from a lab in Wuhan to allow China take over the world.
"Worldly wisdom teaches that it is better for reputation to fail conventionally than to succeed unconventionally." - John Maynard Keynes
Comment
-
Originally posted by LuckyLloyd View Post
Comment
-
Matt Hancock testing positive too is a good example of how easily the virus spreads, regardless of who had it first etc.
The nursing home in Tipp is a good example too.Last edited by TheJiggaman; 27-03-20, 13:13.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Solksjaer! View PostThe US are now number 1. Will Trump hold up his finger in celebration?Happiness is not a goal; it is a by-product. ~Eleanor Roosevelt
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hectorjelly View PostFootball clubs could start by paying their staff a living wage, trying to not run massive unsustainable losses every year and not paying players multiples of the average annual salary every week.
Edit: And not getting in bed with Murderous regimes. One can dream.
Can't have it all m8.
Comment
-
Guest
Week 2 of lockdown after flying in
Had a bad chest cold so nailed to the bed for the first week (actual cold not the virus),chest feels bloody weak though
One thing I was worried about was having the chest cold and carrying the virus as well and the cold masking it.
Will see over next few days
Not missing sport on telly at all, quite the opposite, the lengths people are going to to fill the void is scary.
I do need to start doing stuff now that I no longer feel like I'm being drugged in my sleepLast edited by Guest; 27-03-20, 13:42.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Elshambles View PostWeek 2 of lockdown after flying in
Had a bad chest cold so nailed to the bed for the first week (actual cold not the virus),chest feels bloody weak though
One thing I was worried about was having the chest cold and carrying the virus as well and the cold masking it.
Will see over next few days
Not missing sport on telly at all, quite the opposite, the lengths people are going to to fill the void is scary.
I do need to start doing stuff now that I no longer feel like I'm being drugged in my sleep
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hitchhiker's Guide To... View PostSo - Animal Crossing: New Horizons. If its as stupid as it looks why is everyone so obsessed with it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRWjpjNVOCM
Comment
-
Originally posted by Keane View PostI played one on the Gamecube years ago and remember thinking it was pretty stupid but also kind of addictive. I wasted hours upon hours on Stardew Valley on the Switch a while back which is essentially a fucking farming simulator.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Keane View PostWhere's the best place to stream ESPN's 30 for 30 documentaries? They don't seem to be on Netflix or Prime, and I don't seem to be able to sign up to ESPN's own service due to region blocking.
Is there a legit place to watch them or hope for the best on Kodi?airport, lol
Comment
-
For anyone looking at the Government Income Subsidy Scheme for Covid-19...
SPOILEREmployment law solicitor Richard Grogan of Richard Grogan & Associates argues that Irish employers should not take advantage of the new temporary wage subsidy scheme introduced in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
The Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Bill 2020 was introduced with a considerable amount of fanfare that it would be a lifeline for employers and employees whereby employees could be maintained in employment.
Because of the way the bill has been drafted, this is not a scheme which many employers will be able to avail of. It is our view that both employment law specialists and insolvency practitioners will not be advising employers to go into this scheme.
I think it is important that this would be explained.
The scheme which is set out in section 26 of the bill, in subsection 2 provides that the scheme is only available to business of an employer who has been adversely affected (which in subsection 3 is a reduction of at least 25 per cent in turnover) to the extent that an employer is unable to pay the wages or salaries of the employees which would be normally paid.
The employer will be required to make a declaration to this effect. The effect of this is that the employer is effectively making a declaration that the employer is insolvent. In the case of a limited company, this means that the employer will now be trading when they are insolvent. This then creates the issue of fraudulent trading. For companies it is hard to see how any professional advisor could advise and employer to make a declaration that they are effectively insolvent and continue to trade.
The bill also provides that the employer must have an intention of continuing to employ the employee. This is to a date which will be specified by the minister in due course, but as yet no such date has been specified. Further, the employer will have to be able to show that they are making their best efforts to pay the employee their full or at least an additional portion of their wages or salary over the €410.
If it subsequently transpires that the employer would have been able to pay the full wages or at least an additional amount of those, then the entire sum paid by the State to the employer will be refundable plus interest and penalties. Take for example a situation, where an employer has monies specifically set aside for an urgent investment into the business which will be needed for that business to continue, it is an argument that those monies will have to be used to pay the employees their full wages or salary.
The next issue is that the bill is unclear as to the period in which the employer’s turnover is to be impacted to go into the Scheme. Many businesses will have completed work in February and in the start of March which monies will be paid in April or May. However, because of the downturn, their ability to create turnover in June, July and August may be significantly impacted. The bill does not specify what the turnover period is for the reduction nor how do you prove there was a reduction in turnover. Is it a reduction in turnover in the first two months of 2020 or is it a reduction in turnover for the equivalent period in 2019? The bill is silent on this. Therefore, it is going to be unclear as to what the reference period is.
The bill clearly, in subsection 5(d), envisages that the employer is going to be paying some sums extra.
The issue of the additional payment which the employer is obliged to try and do has a sting in the tail in respect of section 26(5) (I). This provides that where the employer makes the top up, which the employer is obliged to attempt to if they have the funds and must do to avoid having a clawback of the benefit and being hit with an interest and penalty charge, then any additional payment will not be treated as an expense of the business.
Normally all wages are an expense of the business and are deductible in calculating the profits. In respect of the additional payment, which will be made, the employer will pay employer’s PRSI on those sums. The tax paid on same and the amount of the uplift will not be allowed to be used in calculating the profits of the business. This is irrespective as to whether the employer is a company or a non-incorporated entity. This means that the employer who attempts to do the right thing and pay the full wages and salaries is going to be penalised for doing so, but must do so to avail of the scheme.
The scheme will not cover employees who have been paid in excess of €76,000 per annum gross. However, the legislation is set on the basis of a net, gross, weekly wage. Therefore, you could have two employees, both on the same salary. One may have a mortgage, and a pension scheme which brings their net wages below €960 per week. The other may not. One will be eligible to go under the scheme, the other employee will not. This is a significant defect in the bill.
Even where an employer will go into the scheme, if the Revenue Commissioners make a determination that there is other outstanding tax due by the employer, then the Revenue will be entitled to deduct from the monies which would be paid to the employer to pay these wages or salaries such amount as the Revenue shall determine, but the employer will still be liable to pay that €410 per week to the relevant employee.
There is going to be a cost for employers as regards a payroll cost in setting out their payslip. Section 26 (15) specifically provides that statement setting out the relevant payments as to what element is coming from the State and what element is coming from the employer. If not done, will result in the provisions of section 987 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 applying such as in those circumstances the employer shall be liable to a penalty.
There is a very worrying provision in section 26 subsection (8) which provides that the names and address of all of employers to whom the temporary wage subsidy has been paid shall be published on the website of the Revenue Commissioners. There are certainly significant GDPR concerns about this but this has a significant issue for employers. It means that there is effectively a publication to the general public that the particular employer has declared that their business is insolvent and unable to pay their debts as they are become due. We would have significant concerns that such publication will ruin the credit rating on employers going into that scheme.
There is a solution. The solution is quite simple. The payment should be made on the basis of a best estimate as to whether there will be a 25 per cent reduction in turnover in a specified period. The wage subsidy should be paid to all employee who are kept in employment. There should be no wage cap.
The intentions of the bill are laudable. However, as this bill is drafted, it would appear that prudent employers will not go into the scheme but instead go for lay-off. We would estimate the cost of actually complying with the provisions of the bill for the average SME will be significant. Legal and accountancy advice is going to be needed. That is going to be a cost. Employers who go into the scheme without that advice, may find themselves, later this year, seeing significant claims going against them for interest and penalties.
The Revenue will have six years in which to pursue employers. Interest will be running at compound rates on a daily basis. The cost of an employer, making sure that they are compliant with the scheme, is going to be substantial and may wipe out the benefit of the scheme for most SMEs.
There is a final anomaly. We are all been asked to physically distance at the present time, yet the employer is going to have to make a statutory declaration. This means being physically present and close to another person who can see them sign and can then witness their signature. This will either be a solicitor or a peace commissioner.
Finally, we would say, that while the scheme is laudable, the way the scheme has been written would appear to be one which has been drafted in such way that, effectively, a lot of employers who avail of the scheme could ultimately find themselves having to repay the entire sum plus interest and penalties.
The scheme is complex. There are anomalies. Unless there is a clear and simple scheme, employers will not buy into the scheme.
Some may say that they have looked at the Revenue guidelines. The law in relation to guidelines is very clear. The guidelines are simply guidelines. If a dispute arises, the decision will be made on the basis of what the legislation says, and to a significant extend, the bill provides for an opinion being made by a state official, and on that basis an assessment being raised. To challenge such in assessment, the employer will have to pay that tax and interest first.
As the bill is drafted, we certainly will not be recommending the scheme.
Comment
-
In a bit of good news I received approval for the Medical Card today.
Have to admit it was becoming a bit challenging to pay €124 a month to the pharmacy, and the GPs €65 a pop, when in receipt of €203 a week Job Seekers. I was probably foolish to even try, but I've always been a little bit, ahem, eccentric.Gone full 'Glinner' since June 2022.
Comment
-
Hven't time today to follow up on this but there was some sort on an announcement from Revenue this morning to say that this crucial point is not true
The effect of this is that the employer is effectively making a declaration that the employer is insolvent.
Given that his interpretation is the detail on what seemed obvious to the lads I was talking to about this the other day it will be interesting to get some clarification on what exactly they mean.
I can't see how it works at all unless they drop the line about inability to pay.
Originally posted by Dice75 View PostFor anyone looking at the Government Income Subsidy Scheme for Covid-19...
SPOILEREmployment law solicitor Richard Grogan of Richard Grogan & Associates argues that Irish employers should not take advantage of the new temporary wage subsidy scheme introduced in response to the coronavirus pandemic.
The Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Bill 2020 was introduced with a considerable amount of fanfare that it would be a lifeline for employers and employees whereby employees could be maintained in employment.
Because of the way the bill has been drafted, this is not a scheme which many employers will be able to avail of. It is our view that both employment law specialists and insolvency practitioners will not be advising employers to go into this scheme.
I think it is important that this would be explained.
The scheme which is set out in section 26 of the bill, in subsection 2 provides that the scheme is only available to business of an employer who has been adversely affected (which in subsection 3 is a reduction of at least 25 per cent in turnover) to the extent that an employer is unable to pay the wages or salaries of the employees which would be normally paid.
The employer will be required to make a declaration to this effect. The effect of this is that the employer is effectively making a declaration that the employer is insolvent. In the case of a limited company, this means that the employer will now be trading when they are insolvent. This then creates the issue of fraudulent trading. For companies it is hard to see how any professional advisor could advise and employer to make a declaration that they are effectively insolvent and continue to trade.
The bill also provides that the employer must have an intention of continuing to employ the employee. This is to a date which will be specified by the minister in due course, but as yet no such date has been specified. Further, the employer will have to be able to show that they are making their best efforts to pay the employee their full or at least an additional portion of their wages or salary over the €410.
If it subsequently transpires that the employer would have been able to pay the full wages or at least an additional amount of those, then the entire sum paid by the State to the employer will be refundable plus interest and penalties. Take for example a situation, where an employer has monies specifically set aside for an urgent investment into the business which will be needed for that business to continue, it is an argument that those monies will have to be used to pay the employees their full wages or salary.
The next issue is that the bill is unclear as to the period in which the employer’s turnover is to be impacted to go into the Scheme. Many businesses will have completed work in February and in the start of March which monies will be paid in April or May. However, because of the downturn, their ability to create turnover in June, July and August may be significantly impacted. The bill does not specify what the turnover period is for the reduction nor how do you prove there was a reduction in turnover. Is it a reduction in turnover in the first two months of 2020 or is it a reduction in turnover for the equivalent period in 2019? The bill is silent on this. Therefore, it is going to be unclear as to what the reference period is.
The bill clearly, in subsection 5(d), envisages that the employer is going to be paying some sums extra.
The issue of the additional payment which the employer is obliged to try and do has a sting in the tail in respect of section 26(5) (I). This provides that where the employer makes the top up, which the employer is obliged to attempt to if they have the funds and must do to avoid having a clawback of the benefit and being hit with an interest and penalty charge, then any additional payment will not be treated as an expense of the business.
Normally all wages are an expense of the business and are deductible in calculating the profits. In respect of the additional payment, which will be made, the employer will pay employer’s PRSI on those sums. The tax paid on same and the amount of the uplift will not be allowed to be used in calculating the profits of the business. This is irrespective as to whether the employer is a company or a non-incorporated entity. This means that the employer who attempts to do the right thing and pay the full wages and salaries is going to be penalised for doing so, but must do so to avail of the scheme.
The scheme will not cover employees who have been paid in excess of €76,000 per annum gross. However, the legislation is set on the basis of a net, gross, weekly wage. Therefore, you could have two employees, both on the same salary. One may have a mortgage, and a pension scheme which brings their net wages below €960 per week. The other may not. One will be eligible to go under the scheme, the other employee will not. This is a significant defect in the bill.
Even where an employer will go into the scheme, if the Revenue Commissioners make a determination that there is other outstanding tax due by the employer, then the Revenue will be entitled to deduct from the monies which would be paid to the employer to pay these wages or salaries such amount as the Revenue shall determine, but the employer will still be liable to pay that €410 per week to the relevant employee.
There is going to be a cost for employers as regards a payroll cost in setting out their payslip. Section 26 (15) specifically provides that statement setting out the relevant payments as to what element is coming from the State and what element is coming from the employer. If not done, will result in the provisions of section 987 of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 applying such as in those circumstances the employer shall be liable to a penalty.
There is a very worrying provision in section 26 subsection (8) which provides that the names and address of all of employers to whom the temporary wage subsidy has been paid shall be published on the website of the Revenue Commissioners. There are certainly significant GDPR concerns about this but this has a significant issue for employers. It means that there is effectively a publication to the general public that the particular employer has declared that their business is insolvent and unable to pay their debts as they are become due. We would have significant concerns that such publication will ruin the credit rating on employers going into that scheme.
There is a solution. The solution is quite simple. The payment should be made on the basis of a best estimate as to whether there will be a 25 per cent reduction in turnover in a specified period. The wage subsidy should be paid to all employee who are kept in employment. There should be no wage cap.
The intentions of the bill are laudable. However, as this bill is drafted, it would appear that prudent employers will not go into the scheme but instead go for lay-off. We would estimate the cost of actually complying with the provisions of the bill for the average SME will be significant. Legal and accountancy advice is going to be needed. That is going to be a cost. Employers who go into the scheme without that advice, may find themselves, later this year, seeing significant claims going against them for interest and penalties.
The Revenue will have six years in which to pursue employers. Interest will be running at compound rates on a daily basis. The cost of an employer, making sure that they are compliant with the scheme, is going to be substantial and may wipe out the benefit of the scheme for most SMEs.
There is a final anomaly. We are all been asked to physically distance at the present time, yet the employer is going to have to make a statutory declaration. This means being physically present and close to another person who can see them sign and can then witness their signature. This will either be a solicitor or a peace commissioner.
Finally, we would say, that while the scheme is laudable, the way the scheme has been written would appear to be one which has been drafted in such way that, effectively, a lot of employers who avail of the scheme could ultimately find themselves having to repay the entire sum plus interest and penalties.
The scheme is complex. There are anomalies. Unless there is a clear and simple scheme, employers will not buy into the scheme.
Some may say that they have looked at the Revenue guidelines. The law in relation to guidelines is very clear. The guidelines are simply guidelines. If a dispute arises, the decision will be made on the basis of what the legislation says, and to a significant extend, the bill provides for an opinion being made by a state official, and on that basis an assessment being raised. To challenge such in assessment, the employer will have to pay that tax and interest first.
As the bill is drafted, we certainly will not be recommending the scheme.Turning millions into thousands
Comment
-
Originally posted by ComradeCollie View PostIn a bit of good news I received approval for the Medical Card today.
Have to admit it was becoming a bit challenging to pay €124 a month to the pharmacy, and the GPs €65 a pop, when in receipt of €203 a week Job Seekers. I was probably foolish to even try, but I've always been a little bit, ahem, eccentric.
or indeed the horse"We are not Europeans. Those people on the continent are freaks."
Comment
-
Originally posted by Raoul Duke III View PostSolid hour of Kenny Rogers tribute there.
Sleep well sir.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xz0bwQr5xWYHis rival it seems, had broken his dreams,By stealing the girl of his fancy.Her name was Magill, and she called herself Lil,But everyone knew her as Nancy.
Comment
-
Last edited by ComradeCollie; 27-03-20, 15:34.Gone full 'Glinner' since June 2022.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Raoul Duke III View PostIs there any chance you ever get back on the bike CC?
or indeed the horse
When you say horse, I hope you don't mean heroin. That was the brother.Gone full 'Glinner' since June 2022.
Comment
-
Originally posted by ComradeCollie View PostThat clip of Dominic Cummings running away from Downing St would have been even better if he had tripped up, cracked his skull and the NHS refused to treat him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdCbJrR7UYAA 17-year-old boy in Los Angeles County who became the first teen believed to have died from complications with covid-19 in the U.S. was denied treatment at an urgent care clinic because he didn’t have health insurance, according to R. Rex Parris, the mayor of Lancaster, California. Roughly 27.5 million Americans—8.5…
Comment
-
Originally posted by Strewelpeter View PostHven't time today to follow up on this but there was some sort on an announcement from Revenue this morning to say that this crucial point is not true
Given that his interpretation is the detail on what seemed obvious to the lads I was talking to about this the other day it will be interesting to get some clarification on what exactly they mean.
I can't see how it works at all unless they drop the line about inability to pay.
SPOILERCOVID-19 Temporary Wage Subsidy Scheme - Employer Eligibility and Supporting Proofs Context
On 24 March 2020, the Government announced measures to provide financial support to workers affected by the COVID-19 crisis. As part of these measures and building on the functionality developed through PAYE Modernisation, Revenue will operate the Wage Subsidy Scheme.
This note sets out the Revenue approach to confirming employer eligibility and examination of supporting proofs. The scheme is a significant investment by Government in supporting both employers and employees through a subsidy that will be paid in real-time.
Key Principle
Revenue’s general approach to businesses experiencing cashflow and consequent tax payment difficulties is to work towards agreeing mutually acceptable solutions that assist a return to viability as soon as possible. In any such engagement, Revenue expects businesses to be able to produce relevant supporting documentation when requested to do so and to fully engage with Revenue on any follow up discussions or checks.
Revenue’s administration of the COVID-19 Temporary Wage Subsidy Scheme will operate on a similar basis – eligibility will initially be determined, largely on the basis of self-assessment and declaration by the employer concerned, combined with a risk focused follow up verification by Revenue involving an examination of relevant business records where that is considered necessary.
COVID-19 Temporary Wage Subsidy Scheme Eligibility
The COVID-19 Temporary Wage Subsidy Scheme is available to employers across all sectors excluding the Public Service and Non-Commercial Semi-State Sector. To qualify for the scheme a business must be experiencing a significant negative economic disruption due to the Covid-19 pandemic.
In general, this will be readily apparent, some businesses and some sectors have had to close their premises, the impact of public health advice on individual businesses in terms of restrictions on trade, physical distancing, the nature of essential and non-essential businesses, will be obvious. It will also be obvious that some businesses will continue trading and, in some cases, have an increase in business.
Our purpose is to support businesses through the scheme, our approach will be based on a presumption of honesty and we expect businesses to approach the scheme in a similar manner.
Application for the scheme is based on self-assessment principles, a qualifying employer declares that it is significantly impacted by the crisis. Key indicators are that the employer’s turnover is likely to decrease by 25% for quarter 2, 2020; that the business is unable to meet normal wages or normal outputs and any other indicators set out in our guidelines.
In relation to the likely reduction in turnover of 25% or more, this is a reduction in expected turnover for Q2, 2020. The employer is best placed to determine that and may base this judgement on the decline in orders in March 2020, in comparison to February 2020, or the likely turnover for the quarter compared to Q1 or if appropriate Q2, 2019, or on any other basis that is reasonable.
In Revenue’s administration of this scheme, the key focus will be on the fact of significant negative economic disruption on the employer due to Covid-19.
Regarding retention of employees, the scheme is confined to employees who were on the employer’s payroll at 29 February 2020, and for whom a payroll submission has already been made to Revenue in the period from 1 February 2020 to 15 March 2020. Employees who were laid off after 29 February 2020 may be taken back onto the payroll for the purposes of this scheme
Revenue will not be looking for proof of qualification at this stage. We may in future, based on risk criteria review eligibility. In this context employers should retain their evidence/basis for entering the scheme. It will, of course, be very clear to us from our normal relationship with businesses and our normal interaction with businesses that there was no doubt about their qualification and most importantly it will be very clear that the businesses were so impacted.
Eligibility Supporting Proofs
In any check, Revenue will focus on the types of business records, having regard to the nature and scale of the business, that should normally be readily available for such a business. Where, for example, a business has negotiated forbearance measures with a financial institution, Revenue will not seek to duplicate the relevant information and the documentation from the financial institution will generally be adequate for verification purposes as evidence of financial disruption.
As stated already, the critical requirement is to be able to show significant negative economic disruption due to COVID-19. The evidence in that regard will contribute in large part to demonstration of compliance with the other criteria.
The proofs mentioned below are intended to be illustrative rather than exhaustive and Revenue is open to considering other relevant evidence as a reasonable demonstration of eligibility for the COVID-19 Temporary Wage Subsidy Scheme and as examples are brought to our attention we will update our Guidelines accordingly.
• If for some reason the decline in turnover was less than 25% the business should retain documentation supporting its rationale for believing that it would suffer such a decline.
• Copies of documentation submitted to a financial institution as part of the negotiation of forbearance measures with the financial institution.
• Copies of notifications or communications to employees or Trade Unions or staff representative bodies of salary/wage cuts implemented as a direct result of the COVID-19 pandemic.
• Copies of documentation that show that any cash reserves in the business that are required to fund debt that is equal or greater than the reserve amount.
• Evidence of reliance on the Government Credit Guarantee Scheme or overdraft facilities or other borrowings for capital purposes.
• In the case of start-up businesses, for example, evidence of a decline in investment by at least 25% arising from the COVID-19 crisis.
An employer that has been hit by a significant decline in business but has strong cash reserves, that are not required to fund debt, will still qualify for the Scheme but the Government would expect the employer to continue to pay a significant proportion of the employees’ wages.
To emphasise, the examples listed are illustrative only and Revenue is open to considering other relevant evidence as a reasonable demonstration of eligibility for the COVID-19 Wage Subsidy Scheme.
Conclusion
In operating the scheme, Revenue’s priority is to ensure that all employers experiencing significant negative economic disruption from COVID-19 can register for and start to receive payment as quickly as possible.
The declaration by the employer is not a declaration of insolvency. The declaration is simply a declaration which states that, based on reasonable projections, there will be, as a result of disruption to the business caused or to be caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, a decline of at least 25% in the future turnover of, or customer orders for, the business for the duration of the pandemic and that as a result the employer cannot pay normal wages and outgoings fully but nonetheless wants to retain its employees on the payroll.
Revenue does not consider that any employer will require professional advice or assistance in being able to prove to the satisfaction of Revenue that these criteria are met. Should Revenue seek to validate employer eligibility for the scheme, it will adopt a reasonable, fair and pragmatic approach in considering whether the criteria have been met
Comment
Comment