Taxi Driver Online :: View topic - Some comments on PHTM's analysis of Covid grants

But how many drivers have costs of £20k per year if they're not working? I suspect that for many £2k wouldn't be unrealistic - big difference.

StuartW wrote:

But how many drivers have costs of £20k per year if they're not working? I suspect that for many £2k wouldn't be unrealistic - big difference.

You are being to picky it's a Average

The Additional Restrictions Grant provides a one off £7,500 payment to eligible local businesses of the following business types:

• Businesses involved in the direct supply chain for businesses/sectors which have had to close due to local or national restrictions, able to show trade with closed businesses is a significant proportion of their income.

• Businesses trading from a commercial premises which is a local franchise and the parent company has previously received a coronavirus grant.

• Businesses involved in the events, arts or entertainment sectors.

• Businesses involved in the rural/agriculture sector.

• Home based businesses that are the only source of employment and business income.

I think most of the grant money issued has been to badge-holders rather than plate-holders, and for that I say yipeeeee.

Clearly most badge-holders are also plate-holders, so that really shouldn't have an effect on whatever grants they receive. But I personally have an issue with giving grant money to non licensed folk.

I think PHTM are confusing the issue, what a national trade mag should be doing is lobbying for a fixed fee like Scotland and Northern Ireland, and maybe Wales (can't work out what they are getting).

That said I think the ship has sailed on that in England due to the Gov giving money to local councils who want to spend money on cycle lanes and other fluffy schemes.

Saving drivers livelihoods isn't top of their priorities, and even councils that pretend otherwise aren't matching the £1,500 grants we see elsewhere.

I also would question where this comes from because according to their list SKDC have given a grant of £934 out :shock:

It also list Wolverhampton as a council who has not issued grants but as we know from the thread on here they have to locals... :-k

Melton don't get a mention in any of the lists

The other really noticeable thing is PHTM's point about some councils excluding SEISS claimants, which is a very fair criticism, as of course SEISS doesn't cover a driver's costs.

However, I think their numbers analysis is a wee bit extreme.

For a whole year they're saying, approximately:

Turnover £30,000
Costs (£20,000)
Profit £10,000

Looks a bit odd?

Then they say that (pro rata) a driver would only get £8,000 in SEISS, so how do they cover the £20,000 costs?

Fair point at first glance. But how many drivers have costs of £20k per year if they're not working? I suspect that for many £2k wouldn't be unrealistic - big difference.

And, of course, if they are doing a bit of work then there's a bit of income that's ignored in the analysis.

Of course, PHTM's basic point is very fair, but as is often the case when figures are bandied about, it maybe doesn't help if your numbers are way over the top.

Author:	StuartW [ Wed Feb 10, 2021 3:44 am ]
Post subject:	Some comments on PHTM's analysis of Covid grants
(Drafted this at the weekend. It was all originally one post, but because of the graphics etc I've split it up.) Interesting analysis in February's PHTM of the various council grants available, which I assume many on here have read (pages 50-55). Lots of good stuff in there, lots of information collated, and lots of talking points raised However, it's maybe a bit like some of PHTM's past analyses of fares, where in some regards there's far too much detail, but on the other hand important stuff is missed out. In particular, the tables of the grants give numbers for drivers, HCVs and PHVs. Not really sure the relevance of that, and maybe just clutters things up a bit. No matter, but the more important shortcoming is that the grant figures provided don't say if they're for badges, plates, or both. Maybe I'm missing something (and haven't read every word), but are we just supposed to assume that the figures provided are for badgeholders, and plates aren't included unless stated otherwise? See the graphic below, which shows a good proportion of the figures. Which are presumably for badgeholders only, unless otherwise stated?

Author:	StuartW [ Wed Feb 10, 2021 3:45 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Comments on PHTM's analysis of Covid grants
And a related matter is this, which is a very compelling point, and one made on this forum: But I can't actually see any in the list that specifically states that. Some do say that badges and plates are getting different amounts, but not that badges are getting grants but not plateholders, or vice versa. So I'm guessing the figures in the main are for badgeholders or plateholders, but there's no way of us knowing? To that extent it limits the value of the lists. And, in turn, makes the colours denoting the political make up of individual councils seem a bit irrelevant - no use comparing the councils' politics if the figures can't be compared.

Author:	StuartW [ Wed Feb 10, 2021 3:46 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Comments on PHTM's analysis of Covid grants
The other really noticeable thing is PHTM's point about some councils excluding SEISS claimants, which is a very fair criticism, as of course SEISS doesn't cover a driver's costs. However, I think their numbers analysis is a wee bit extreme. For a whole year they're saying, approximately: Turnover £30,000 Costs (£20,000) Profit £10,000 Looks a bit odd? Then they say that (pro rata) a driver would only get £8,000 in SEISS, so how do they cover the £20,000 costs? Fair point at first glance. But how many drivers have costs of £20k per year if they're not working? I suspect that for many £2k wouldn't be unrealistic - big difference. And, of course, if they are doing a bit of work then there's a bit of income that's ignored in the analysis. Of course, PHTM's basic point is very fair, but as is often the case when figures are bandied about, it maybe doesn't help if your numbers are way over the top.

Author:	StuartW [ Wed Feb 10, 2021 3:46 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Comments on PHTM's analysis of Covid grants
And after reading Mr Thurrock's post elsewhere about the grants there, I couldn't find it on the PHTM lists. But a rough count suggests that PHTM have only listed slightly more than 200, so maybe 100+ missing?

Author:	MR T [ Wed Feb 10, 2021 7:16 am ]
Post subject:	Re: Comments on PHTM's analysis of Covid grants
StuartW wrote: But how many drivers have costs of £20k per year if they're not working? I suspect that for many £2k wouldn't be unrealistic - big difference. You are being to picky it's a Average

Taxi Driver Online http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/

Some comments on PHTM's analysis of Covid grants http://www.taxi-driver.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=36619	Page 1 of 2

Author:	StuartW [ Wed Feb 10, 2021 6:01 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Comments on PHTM's analysis of Covid grants
MR T wrote: StuartW wrote: But how many drivers have costs of £20k per year if they're not working? I suspect that for many £2k wouldn't be unrealistic - big difference. You are being to picky it's a Average Drivers' costs are on average £20k per year when they're not working?

Author:	wannabeeahack [ Wed Feb 10, 2021 8:00 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Some comments on PHTM's analysis of Covid grants
The ARG here is £7500 With the SEISS grants that means a years tax allowances have been used up (and more) Quote: The Additional Restrictions Grant provides a one off £7,500 payment to eligible local businesses of the following business types: • Businesses involved in the direct supply chain for businesses/sectors which have had to close due to local or national restrictions, able to show trade with closed businesses is a significant proportion of their income. • Businesses trading from a commercial premises which is a local franchise and the parent company has previously received a coronavirus grant. • Businesses involved in the events, arts or entertainment sectors. • Businesses involved in the rural/agriculture sector. • Home based businesses that are the only source of employment and business income.

Author:	Sussex [ Wed Feb 10, 2021 10:32 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Some comments on PHTM's analysis of Covid grants
I think most of the grant money issued has been to badge-holders rather than plate-holders, and for that I say yipeeeee. Clearly most badge-holders are also plate-holders, so that really shouldn't have an effect on whatever grants they receive. But I personally have an issue with giving grant money to non licensed folk. I think PHTM are confusing the issue, what a national trade mag should be doing is lobbying for a fixed fee like Scotland and Northern Ireland, and maybe Wales (can't work out what they are getting). That said I think the ship has sailed on that in England due to the Gov giving money to local councils who want to spend money on cycle lanes and other fluffy schemes. Saving drivers livelihoods isn't top of their priorities, and even councils that pretend otherwise aren't matching the £1,500 grants we see elsewhere.

Author:	wannabeeahack [ Wed Feb 10, 2021 10:34 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Some comments on PHTM's analysis of Covid grants
Sussex wrote: I think most of the grant money issued has been to badge-holders rather than plate-holders, and for that I say yipeeeee. Clearly most badge-holders are also plate-holders, so that really shouldn't have an effect on whatever grants they receive. But I personally have an issue with giving grant money to non licensed folk. I think PHTM are confusing the issue, what a national trade mag should be doing is lobbying for a fixed fee like Scotland and Northern Ireland, and maybe Wales (can't work out what they are getting). That said I think the ship has sailed on that in England due to the Gov giving money to local councils who want to spend money on cycle lanes and other fluffy schemes. Saving drivers livelihoods isn't top of their priorities, and even councils that pretend otherwise aren't matching the £1,500 grants we see elsewhere. should be for any self employed

Author:	edders23 [ Tue Mar 02, 2021 6:47 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Some comments on PHTM's analysis of Covid grants
I also would question where this comes from because according to their list SKDC have given a grant of £934 out No driver that I am aware of has received it and we did approach them to be told that as we can trade we can't claim so where has this figure come from ? It also list Wolverhampton as a council who has not issued grants but as we know from the thread on here they have to locals... So have SKDC given grants to Grantham drivers but not those based in any of the other towns ? I think I need to email or write in and find out It also says Lincoln are subject to criteria so Jimbo have you had anything ? Melton don't get a mention in any of the lists

Author:	Sussex [ Tue Mar 02, 2021 7:00 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Some comments on PHTM's analysis of Covid grants
I must admit I questioned to myself some of the stuff, but kept quiet as I think the more councils read that other councils are doing stuff the more chance there is of more councils following suit. But making up this stuff, or merely guessing, isn't that professional IMO.

Author:	StuartW [ Wed Mar 03, 2021 12:35 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Some comments on PHTM's analysis of Covid grants
edders23 wrote: I also would question where this comes from because according to their list SKDC have given a grant of £934 out Noticed that when I was looking, but assumed you would comment, particularly given your scepticism of PHTM stats edders23 wrote: It also list Wolverhampton as a council who has not issued grants but as we know from the thread on here they have to locals... To be fair, PHTM was published a month ago, so maybe five weeks since info collated. And it's a 'fast moving environment' for that sort of thing in a monthly publication. The sort of info tailor made for live updates on a website, but I don't think they're doing that. Presumably the March edition is due out, so should be more up-to-date info in there. edders23 wrote: Melton don't get a mention in any of the lists Melton actually listed as: "£250 to £2,000 dependent on circumstances."

Author:	StuartW [ Wed Mar 03, 2021 12:36 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Some comments on PHTM's analysis of Covid grants
But love the entry for Wolverhampton in the 'No Support' list: Drivers: 18,110 HCVs: 167 PHVs: Not known

Author:	wannabeeahack [ Wed Mar 03, 2021 1:24 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: Comments on PHTM's analysis of Covid grants
StuartW wrote: The other really noticeable thing is PHTM's point about some councils excluding SEISS claimants, which is a very fair criticism, as of course SEISS doesn't cover a driver's costs. However, I think their numbers analysis is a wee bit extreme. For a whole year they're saying, approximately: Turnover £30,000 Costs (£20,000) Profit £10,000 Looks a bit odd? Then they say that (pro rata) a driver would only get £8,000 in SEISS, so how do they cover the £20,000 costs? Fair point at first glance. But how many drivers have costs of £20k per year if they're not working? I suspect that for many £2k wouldn't be unrealistic - big difference. And, of course, if they are doing a bit of work then there's a bit of income that's ignored in the analysis. Of course, PHTM's basic point is very fair, but as is often the case when figures are bandied about, it maybe doesn't help if your numbers are way over the top. If your overheads are that high, its time to jack in

Page 1 of 2	All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/