Jump to content
Wanderers Ways - passion not fashion

Recommended Posts

  • Site Supporter
2 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Not all in the vulnerable group want to shield, if they don’t then they shouldn’t be forced to. 

Then sign a waiver excluding them from Covid treatment.

They're the ones clogging up the hospitals because they can’t handle it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 32.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Escobarp

    2472

  • Spider

    1892

  • Tonge moor green jacket

    1777

  • Mr Grey

    1701

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

My uncle lost his battle to this in Royal Bolton this morning, so he will be one of today’s numbers.  last rites over the phone held by a nurse with no family there. made an exception yester

That was one of the loveliest things to ever happen. Stood in my garden sobbing like a baby! Proud to work for the NHS 👏👏👏👏❤️

I’ve sat with my mum who is slipping away, literally breathing her last today. She idolises the Queen, and whilst she didn’t in all likelihood hear that, I know she would have loved every single

Posted Images

2 hours ago, Escobarp said:

Thank Boby. Hopefully someone can give us the opposing view and let us know what they know that we don’t that makes lockdown financially more viable for all these business impacted by tier 3 cos I haven’t seen anything to back up that view point as yet 

 

The opposing view is simple I think - there isn't a scientist in the country who believes that the Tier 3 restrictions will be sufficient in getting the R rate below one. Therefore the epidemic in those places will only ever level off, and the restrictions will be permanently in place until there's a vaccine.

The idea with a short lockdown is to reset the clock to August and try again to keep the virus down with contact tracing and better border controls.

Jury might be out on the latter, but given no-one expects Plan A to work - I'd say persuing it is just wasting time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Farrelli said:

Nonsense. He said in PMQ's that the Tier 3 restrictions are ineffective and cause economic harm without getting the virus under control.  Hard to argue with that on the evidence so far.  The whole principle of a short circuit breaker is to allow the NHS to re-group and reduce the R rate.

That’s a quote from WHO, so go argue with them

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Not all in the vulnerable group want to shield, if they don’t then they shouldn’t be forced to. 

For someone who claims to care about democracy you can not then say it is a free for all when it suits. 
We live in a society that has rules for the good of all. You do not get to choose which rules you follow. 
You can not sit in your local pub drinking the beer without paying whilst smoking indoors and then drive home without a seatbelt on especially when pissed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ani said:

For someone who claims to care about democracy you can not then say it is a free for all when it suits. 
We live in a society that has rules for the good of all. You do not get to choose which rules you follow. 
You can not sit in your local pub drinking the beer without paying whilst smoking indoors and then drive home without a seatbelt on especially when pissed. 

Mounts can vote to leave the EU and then decide to go and retire there. I don't think cognitive dissonance is his thing! 😁

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

Not all in the vulnerable group want to shield, if they don’t then they shouldn’t be forced to. 

Indeed.

Ask anyone in a care home if they want to see their last days out isolation without family. 

Reckon most would take their chances.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

Anyway, Martin Lewis

WFH; google update

It might just be me......but the above doesn't make any sense. What are you asking us (or Martin Lewis) to do?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Supporter
4 minutes ago, Sweep said:

It might just be me......but the above doesn't make any sense. What are you asking us (or Martin Lewis) to do?

You can claim up to £150 tax relief if you’ve been working from home. Goes onto your tax code rather than cash I think

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Spider said:

You can claim up to £150 tax relief if you’ve been working from home. Goes onto your tax code rather than cash I think

Thanks - it might have been easier if he had just said that though 🙂

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sweep said:

It might just be me......but the above doesn't make any sense. What are you asking us (or Martin Lewis) to do?

You can claim a bit of tax relief for the full year, no matter how long you have been WFH

Worth having 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, boltondiver said:

You can claim a bit of tax relief for the full year, no matter how long you have been WFH

Worth having 

 

Indeed, both myself and Mrs Sweep had already claimed anyway. It's not a lot of money, but better than a poke in the eye 👍

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, birch-chorley said:

 

So, can public finances take that sort of cost for the next couple of years? 

Can we swap Dido for the cost of her shit tracking system?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Site Supporter

A question:

My son has been WFH since mid-March. Is this tax relief for him, bearing in mind he doesn’t actually own a home? The only reason I ask is that I don’t want him to get to the end of the application and then find out you need to be a home owner.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sweep said:

Indeed, both myself and Mrs Sweep had already claimed anyway. It's not a lot of money, but better than a poke in the eye 👍

That you can claim for the full year seems to be the change.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MickyD said:

A question:

My son has been WFH since mid-March. Is this tax relief for him, bearing in mind he doesn’t actually own a home? The only reason I ask is that I don’t want him to get to the end of the application and then find out you need to be a home owner.

Yes, it is. 

Pretty sure

@Biggish Dave

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, boltondiver said:

That you can claim for the full year seems to be the change.

I'm guessing most people working from home are net winners in terms of money and time

The countries skint

Here, have some tax back

Ah, well

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Tombwfc said:

 

The opposing view is simple I think - there isn't a scientist in the country who believes that the Tier 3 restrictions will be sufficient in getting the R rate below one. Therefore the epidemic in those places will only ever level off, and the restrictions will be permanently in place until there's a vaccine.

The idea with a short lockdown is to reset the clock to August and try again to keep the virus down with contact tracing and better border controls.

Jury might be out on the latter, but given no-one expects Plan A to work - I'd say persuing it is just wasting time.

That doesn’t answer my question. 
 

Let me simplify 

tier 3 businesses get x from government. They continue to “trade” and get y income. So total x plus y

 

lockdown they still get x. No “trade” so no y. So they now have x income. 
 

yet that’s more financially viable than tier 3? People wrongly believe lockdown comes with the same level of support we saw previously. My point is as far as all available information suggests that isn’t going to be the case. What they get now is what they get. 
 

so I shall ask again. What do people think makes lockdown more financially viable for the businesses affected by tier 3 restrictions currently? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MickyD said:

To which bit?

To whether he can claim

 

if you go to the HMRC website, I haven’t been all the way through, but the qualifications haven’t included being a homeowner. Takes about 10 minutes to set up a gateway ID

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

That doesn’t answer my question. 
 

Let me simplify 

tier 3 businesses get x from government. They continue to “trade” and get y income. So total x plus y

 

lockdown they still get x. No “trade” so no y. So they now have x income. 
 

yet that’s more financially viable than tier 3? People wrongly believe lockdown comes with the same level of support we saw previously. My point is as far as all available information suggests that isn’t going to be the case. What they get now is what they get. 
 

so I shall ask again. What do people think makes lockdown more financially viable for the businesses affected by tier 3 restrictions currently? 

They are making it up?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.