Put on Wage Subsidy Scheme - Will this affect mortgage application?

brisan

Londyn Hallowed Duet wrote: »

As I have said plenty of people on the scheme are 100% safe in their jobs and know it and/or they are in a joint mortgage application where the second salary (not in the scheme) could easily meet the repayment but obviously this would not meet the 3.5 rule.

How can they be 100% safe in their job if the state has to pay part of their wages
How many people on EWSS from today would be laid off if the EWSS was stopped immediately.

Sonrisa

brisan wrote: »

How can they be 100% safe in their job if the state has to pay part of their wages
How many people on EWSS from today would be laid off if the EWSS was stopped immediately.

Nobody knows.

Just like if a businesses creditors all called in their debts, or business premises went on fire, or was flooded, etc etc.

Absolutely no job is 100% safe.

You seem to be very emotionally invested in this. Are you the head of a bank or something?

brisan

Sonrisa wrote: »

Nobody knows.

Just like if a businesses creditors all called in their debts, or business premises went on fire, or was flooded, etc etc.

Absolutely no job is 100% safe.

You seem to be very emotionally invested in this. Are you the head of a bank or something?

No but as a tax payer I am still paying for the mistakes the banks made in the lead up 08 crash and I do not want to see a repeat,as I hope you do not either.

Sonrisa

brisan wrote: »

No but as a tax payer I am still paying for the mistakes the banks made in the lead up 08 crash and I do not want to see a repeat,as I hope you do not either.

Nope but I'd also like to buy a house some time reasonably soon.

The rent I pay would easily pay the mortgage on a three bedroom house.

Lots of other people here are in the same situation. Have a bit of empathy.

brisan

Sonrisa wrote: »

Nope but I'd also like to buy a house some time reasonably soon.

The rent I pay would easily pay the mortgage on a three bedroom house.

Lots of other people here are in the same situation. Have a bit of empathy.

Oh I have empathy
I have 3 kids who struggled to get a deposit together to buy a house
They got there eventually but it was not easy.
I know how hard it is for FTBs
I was one 38 years ago.
However that does not mean I agree with banks taking unnecessary risks with taxpayers money.
If your employer is accepting EWSS then they have admitted there is a downturn in business,and by default that means without EWSS he would have to let a certain numbers of employees go ie make them redundant as thern is not enough work.
No one knows if that downturn will correct itself by the time the EWSS is discontinued

Dav010

brisan wrote: »

Have you read what you posted
You contradicted yourself and proved my point

Eh no, I didn’t, and you didn’t.

The Government were very clear that applying for TWSS was not an indication of insolvency. A company could have huge cash reserves, but if income/orders were reduced as a result of Covid, the business was entitled to apply for TWSS and now EWSS. You are absolutely incorrect that it is a statement that an employer is unable to pay wages.

Please stop spouting this BS.

Moreover, I think you mentioned on another thread that you are an electrician, if you are a contractor and take on 20 electricians to wire a development and the development closes unexpectedly, but you still have some smaller jobs which don’t require as many electricians, do you keep all electricians on your books even though you have no work for them? Does that mean you are unable to pay your remaining employees wages? This is what businesses were faced with in March when the country closed down and no one knew it would reopen, TWSS was to help stop people being laid off and having to claim PUP.

Sonrisa

brisan wrote: »

Oh I have empathy
I have 3 kids who struggled to get a deposit together to buy a house
They got there eventually but it was not easy.
I know how hard it is for FTBs
I was one 38 years ago.
However that does not mean I agree with banks taking unnecessary risks with taxpayers money.
If your employer is accepting EWSS then they have admitted there is a downturn in business,and by default that means without EWSS he would have to let a certain numbers of employees go ie make them redundant as thern is not enough work.
No one knows if that downturn will correct itself by the time the EWSS is discontinued

Not really hearing the empathy, buddy. You really don't need to be constantly returning to this thread to tell people that their concerns are ridiculous, their jobs are doomed and sure they should just give up completely. I hope you were more encouraging to your kids when they were trying to buy.

" by default that means without EWSS he would have to let a certain numbers of employees go ie make them redundant as thern is not enough work."

This is patently not true and you've been told this a number of times, but you clearly don't care or understand. What about businesses that have already let people go? They've made the necessary cuts but still qualify for the scheme.

brisan

Dav010 wrote: »

Eh no, I didn’t, and you didn’t.

The Government were very clear that applying for TWSS was not an indication of insolvency. A company could have huge cash reserves, but if income/orders were reduced as a result of Covid, the business was entitled to apply for TWSS and now EWSS. You are absolutely incorrect that it is a statement that an employer is unable to pay wages.

Please stop spouting this BS.

Moreover, I think you mentioned on another thread that you are an electrician, if you are a contractor and take on 20 electricians to wire a development and the development closes unexpectedly, but you still have some smaller jobs which don’t require as many electricians, do you keep all electricians on your books even though you have no work for them? Does that mean you are unable to pay your remaining employees wages? This is what businesses were faced with in March when the country closed down and no one knew it would reopen, TWSS was to help stop people being laid off and having to claim PUP.

Exactly TWSS was to stop people being laid off and when EWSS is stopped if busines has not come back to previous levels then people will be laid off.
Its not BS its common sense.
i feel for those who cannot get a mortgage because of EWSS , but which would you prefer , a mortgage or a job
PS I never mentioned insolvency I mentioned the fact that an employer could not pay his wage bill in full

brisan

brisan wrote: »

PS I never mentioned insolvency I mentioned the fact that an employer could not pay his wage bill in full

But that’s not correct, an employer could very well pay their wage bill in full but of course they will take the free money on offer if they can get it.

brisan

Sonrisa wrote: »

Not really hearing the empathy, buddy. You really don't need to be constantly returning to this thread to tell people that their concerns are ridiculous, their jobs are doomed and sure they should just give up completely. I hope you were more encouraging to your kids when they were trying to buy.

" by default that means without EWSS he would have to let a certain numbers of employees go ie make them redundant as thern is not enough work."

This is patently not true and you've been told this a number of times, but you clearly don't care or understand. What about businesses that have already let people go? They've made the necessary cuts but still qualify for the scheme.

Less of the buddy please ,if you cannot be civil please do not respond to my posts .
Any business who suffers a sudden downturn in orders has 2 options
Use cash reserves to weather the storm
Let enough employees go so their workforce matches their orders or income
By accepting TWSS and now EWSS they did not have to use either of their options
When EWSS stops IF business has not returned to previous levels they will be left with those 2 options again
Most employers will go the redundancy route.
Do you think the banks are taking the course of action that they are just to annoy and mess people about.
There are economic and business reasons behind their decisions a

brisan

Londyn Hallowed Duet wrote: »

But that’s not correct, an employer could very well pay their wage bill in full but of course they will take the free money on offer if they can get it.

Agreed some could and some would not have the reserves to do so and would have to let employees go
IBEC have sated that redundancies would be inevitable if a government subsidy was not put in place
Banks unfortunately do not know which businesses would struggle to pay wages and which would not

Dav010

brisan wrote: »

Exactly TWSS was to stop people being laid off and when EWSS is stopped if busines has not come back to previous levels then people will be laid off.
Its not BS its common sense.
i feel for those who cannot get a mortgage because of EWSS , but which would you prefer , a mortgage or a job
PS I never mentioned insolvency I mentioned the fact that an employer could not pay his wage bill in full

Brisan, again, I’m not sure if I can make this any simpler for you, a business is required only to show that income/orders have fallen as a result of Covid, they are NOT required to show that they are unable to pay wages, nor is it an indication that they are unable to do so.

Why are you continuing to post this rubbish?

javaboy

Dav010 wrote: »

Brisan, again, I’m not sure if I can make this any simpler for you, a business is required only to show that income/orders have fallen as a result of Covid, they are NOT required to show that they are unable to pay wages, nor is it an indication that they are unable to do so.

Why are you continuing to post this rubbish?

Would you agree that it's at least an indication that their current level of turnover is not proportional to their current staffing level/wage bill?

brisan

Dav010 wrote: »

Brisan, again, I’m not sure if I can make this any simpler for you, a business is required only to show that income/orders have fallen as a result of Covid, they are NOT required to show that they are unable to pay wages, nor is it an indication that they are unable to do so.

Why are you continuing to post this rubbish?

Because its common sense
Any business that has a 30% downturn in orders income will struggle to pay all their employees their full wages ,unless they are prepared to use up cash reserves
A lot of companies will not have those reserves and those that have may not be prepared to use them when they lay off staff to prevent them doing so
Its a basic premise that all businesses work to.
You only have enough staff to carry out the necessary work

Dav010

brisan wrote: »

Because its common sense
Any business that has a 30% downturn in orders income will struggle to pay all their employees their full wages ,unless they are prepared to use up cash reserves
A lot of companies will not have those reserves and those that have may not be prepared to use them when they lay off staff to prevent them doing so
Its a basic premise that all businesses work to.
You only have enough staff to carry out the necessary work

You are speculating, in your earlier post you posted that an employer is stating that they cannot pay their staff. Please show me where the application for TWSS required that an employer state they are unable to pay their staff.

Dav010

javaboy wrote: »

Would you agree that it's at least an indication that their current level of turnover is not proportional to their current staffing level/wage bill?

It is an indication that the employer has met the required reduction in income/orders as a result of Covid to qualify for the scheme. Anything else is speculation and most certainly not a “statement” that an employer is unable to pay staff.

brisan

Dav010 wrote: »

It is an indication that the employer has met the required reduction in income/orders as a result of Covid to qualify for the scheme. Anything else is speculation and most certainly not a “statement” that an employer is unable to pay staff.

Says it all
if your income reduces your costs have to reduce or you go out of business

brisan

brisan wrote: »

Because its common sense
Any business that has a 30% downturn in orders income will struggle to pay all their employees their full wages ,unless they are prepared to use up cash reserves
A lot of companies will not have those reserves and those that have may not be prepared to use them when they lay off staff to prevent them doing so
Its a basic premise that all businesses work to.
You only have enough staff to carry out the necessary work

You would need to take profitability into account too. The drop of 30% is likely the cream taken off the top they may be well able to operate at 70% or so while still covering all costs, wages etc.

I’m actually surprised people are seeing 30% as such a detrimental drop, I would have expected most business to be able to still break even or close to it at 70% or else things are really on a knife edge.

brisan

Londyn Hallowed Duet wrote: »

You would need to take profitability into account too. The drop of 30% is likely the cream taken off the top they may be well able to operate at 70% or so while still covering all costs, wages etc.

I’m actually surprised people are 30% as such a huge drop, I would have expected most business to be able to still break even or close to it at 70% or else things are really on a knife edge.

Do you think an employer is going to forsake his cream so his employees will not be affected

brisan

brisan wrote: »

Do you think an employer is going to forsake his cream so his employees will not be affected

The work still has to get done.

If we dropped 30%* of projects it would just give us a chance to catch up on everything to be honest we would still need every member of staff.

I’d expect once they are able to pay their own salaries etc that business owners would forgo company profits if needed to keep a team intact etc but maybe that just the area of work I’m in where good people are hard to get and keep.

*we were not impacted by covid at all.

brisan

Londyn Hallowed Duet wrote: »

The work still has to get done.

If we dropped 30%* of projects it would just give us a chance to catch up on everything to be honest we would still need every member of staff.

I’d expect once they are able to pay their own salaries etc that business owners would forgo company profits if needed to keep a team intact etc but maybe that just the area of work I’m in where good people are hard to get and keep.

*we were not impacted by covid at all.

Thats your business and thats good
Take a manufacturer making 1000 units a week with 10 employees
If he only has orders for 500 units a week what does he do
Forsake all his profits
Use up his cash reserves
Lay off 5 employees
Accept State assistance
The first 2 will be the last resort of any business
granted he may swallow the pain if he thinks by laying off staff he may not get suitably qualified staff if and when the upturn returns,
However one thing I have learned in 38 years working in a multinational is that no one is irreplaceable

brisan

brisan wrote: »

Thats your business and thats good
Take a manufacturer making 1000 units a week with 10 employees
If he only has orders for 500 units a week what does he do
Forsake all his profits
Use up his cash reserves
Lay off 5 employees
Accept State assistance
The first 2 will be the last resort of any business
granted he may swallow the pain if he thinks by laying off staff he may not get suitably qualified staff if and when the upturn returns,
However one thing I have learned in 38 years working in a multinational is that no one is irreplaceable

What if most of the 10 employees have different skill sets needed for different parts of the manufacturing process?

brisan

Londyn Hallowed Duet wrote: »

What if most of the 10 employees have different skill sets needed for different parts of the manufacturing process?

Well then the employer should have made certain of cross skilling
Fairly standard in most modern industries today
I mean what do you do to cover holidays ,sickness etc,

Dav010

brisan wrote: »

Well then the employer should have made certain of cross skilling
Fairly standard in most modern industries today
I mean what do you do to cover holidays ,sickness etc,

You seem to make a whole lot of assumptions.

brisan

Dav010 wrote: »

You seem to make a whole lot of assumptions.

Cross skilling is fairly standard across all industry nowadays

https://outsourceinstitute.com.au/cross-skilling-trades/

Sonrisa

brisan wrote: »

Cross skilling is fairly standard across all industry nowadays

https://outsourceinstitute.com.au/cross-skilling-trades/

This is all speculation, and doesn't relate to the purpose of the thread at all. Your input is unhelpful and largely irrelevant.

Dubs1990

My wife is now getting the EWSS scheme , shes in childcare ( montessori) , they are automatically getting the scheme.

The employer is still getting in the cash flow ( for the extra half an hour each day ) , getting the ECCE scheme for each child , and has added an extra class this year.

They said the business has never been stronger. And no where near a 30% decline.

I could still be in a pickle on drawing down a mortgage now with the childcare setting receiving this but yet the business is thriving.

brisan

Sonrisa wrote: »

This is all speculation, and doesn't relate to the purpose of the thread at all. Your input is unhelpful and largely irrelevant.

My reply was in answer to a question posed
Your input seems to be mainly complaining with no meaningful contribution
The banks attitude to TWSS/EWSS is what it is and for good business reasons .
No amount of complaining or debate will alter that fact.

Sonrisa

brisan wrote: »

My reply was in answer to a question posed
Your input seems to be mainly complaining with no meaningful contribution
The banks attitude to TWSS/EWSS is what it is and for good business reasons .
No amount of complaining or debate will alter that fact.

Well that put me back in my box. Such good insight. Really helpful for anyone applying for a mortgage. You should set up as a mortgage broker. In fact I'm surprised the banks haven't hired you to do their comms.

Kh1993

Dubs1990 wrote: »

My wife is now getting the EWSS scheme , shes in childcare ( montessori) , they are automatically getting the scheme.

The employer is still getting in the cash flow ( for the extra half an hour each day ) , getting the ECCE scheme for each child , and has added an extra class this year.

They said the business has never been stronger. And no where near a 30% decline.

I could still be in a pickle on drawing down a mortgage now with the childcare setting receiving this but yet the business is thriving.

It’s scandalous really. The whole sector of workers put on it without a choice because the government wanted to pump money into it and did it in this ridiculous way.

Let’s be clear, no childcare job is under threat anytime soon. Why banks won’t consider this is beyond me, particular as the revenue make clear that childcare has an exemption and does not have to have lost money.