Talk

Advanced search

Was furloughing worth the National debt

(214 Posts)
HMSSophie Fri 12-Jun-20 13:05:47

Government funding of furloughed employees has resulted in huge national debt. But massive redundancies are pending. Was it worth it? We seem to have arrived at the worst of all worlds: national debt plus massive unemployment.

I know three or four months of additional income will on an individual level would be very meaningful (my DD is furloughed) but job losses are coming none the less (my DD for one, again). Was it the right thing to do or has the Government made a balls up?

OP’s posts: |
Angeldust747 Fri 12-Jun-20 13:11:44

Nobody knows, honestly I'm glad they took action and did something to benefit the people. I'd be more concerned with their inaction around PPE etc than where they have actually tried to help

Kljnmw3459 Fri 12-Jun-20 13:13:14

I think it was the right thing to do.

Blankscreen Fri 12-Jun-20 13:14:47

Some redundancies are coming but lots of jobs have and will be saved through the furlough scheme.

The govt. Is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Mintjulia Fri 12-Jun-20 13:15:43

We'll find out in August when we can see how many/few people are made redundant.

Try to imagine if 10 million people had been laid off. All the people who couldn't pay mortgages, feed children, pay rent etc for months on end. And the thousands of companies that would have gone under.

If the furlough scheme has saved half of them, it will have been worth it.

LuckyMarmiteLover Fri 12-Jun-20 13:16:31

I think it was the right thing but maybe the scheme is too generous.

Oldsu Fri 12-Jun-20 13:17:57

And what would you have put in the place of furlough, don't say benefits like UC, many people like myself would not get it, the amount of extra people on UC at the moment is crippling the system and making it easier to scammers to operate imagine what it would b like if 1000s of extra people had to claim all at once imagine the howls of outrage if nothing was done to help people not entitled to other state help, there is already people complaining, they are on the wrong benefits for the extra £20 a week or don't qualify for SE payments, it seems that furloughed people are the new benefit scroungers, I am not furloughed any more, my DH is and its not his fault that he is

FrugiFan Fri 12-Jun-20 13:18:54

I think the furlough scheme was necessary but they should have been stricter with ensuring companies actually needed it, rather than just taking their word for it.

My husband was furloughed for 3 weeks. There is no way he would have been made redundant by his company, they were just trying to take advantage. Furlough should have been only for employees who would have been made redundant otherwise.

ivfgottostaypositive Fri 12-Jun-20 13:18:54

No because it's working age tax payers which were largely furloughed largely to protect non working age at risk groups eg over 65s

RaininSummer Fri 12-Jun-20 13:19:24

Without the furlough scheme I would have lost my job 3 months ago I expect but the company is still ticking over and can hopefully reboot soon Even then I am likely to lose a day of week of my work contract I should think as it's going to take a while to rebuild. I am glad they set it up.

flamingochill Fri 12-Jun-20 13:23:26

Without furlough I think there would have been a social cost- people would not stay in lockdown if they couldn't feed their families.

Mightymurphy Fri 12-Jun-20 13:28:19

Yes.

Mightymurphy Fri 12-Jun-20 13:28:39

The government can’t bail out the banks and airlines and not the tax payer.

Oldsu Fri 12-Jun-20 13:31:24

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines.

frozendaisy Fri 12-Jun-20 13:32:47

Very rarely is there an economic package aimed at working adults. I think people are forgetting how close the NHS came to being overwhelmed Easter weekend, without lockdown it would be chaos now, without furlough lockdown would not have worked as it seems to have, nothing was ideal, was it worth it? Time will tell, I hope most likely yes it was.

frozendaisy Fri 12-Jun-20 13:33:18

And we were never furloughed so didn't benefit directly.

lifestooshort123 Fri 12-Jun-20 13:37:28

The govt. Is damned if they do and damned if they don't.
This.
The pandemic has been an unknown quantity from day one and it is easy, with hindsight, to say we should/shouldn't have done something. The furlough scheme has been a lifeline for a lot of families and has given them some breathing space. The provision of PPE and should we have locked down earlier - again, with hindsight, should have been handled differently.

strugglingwithdeciding Fri 12-Jun-20 13:38:34

Yes needed but I wonder if some companies actually abused it

ohthegoats Fri 12-Jun-20 13:40:13

It wasn't hindsight. It was there at the time about locking down earlier and PPE. The scientists were saying it. Luckily there is evidence for this all over Twitter.

Waxonwaxoff0 Fri 12-Jun-20 13:40:46

Yes. I'm on furlough, it might not have saved my job personally (50/50 right now, I'm still waiting to hear from work) but it has saved the business I work for and some of the employees there. It's kept DS and I off Universal Credit for the moment. Happy to pay more tax when I get back to work to pay for it.

Saying that - some companies have taken the absolute piss though and furloughed staff just to save costs which should not be allowed. I think that businesses should have to prove a loss of income after this whole thing is over and those who furloughed staff needlessly should be made to pay back the money.

DanRadcliffeisME Fri 12-Jun-20 13:41:38

NO

The very vulnerable need to stay home (if they want to).

Tell the ones that are scare to also stay home but they are probably doing that anyway and twitching the curtains and screaming murder at anyone who dares walk outside. Some of them are loving the mass hysteria.

The rest of us can work/play and get on with living.

Lostmyshityear9 Fri 12-Jun-20 13:42:47

I guess it's a wait and see situation....I don't pretend to understand economics but I think if it's saved enough jobs, it will probably have been a financailly viable scheme (less people claiming benefits, more money circulating round businesses). I guess it's just how many jobs it has saved that matters.

Mumoblue Fri 12-Jun-20 13:43:57

Well, what else are they supposed to do? Claim benefits? Starve?

People moaning about furlough dont seem to have a good alternative.

Healthyandhappy Fri 12-Jun-20 13:57:10

Ye needed it as most companies like restaurants and shops keep their staff but couldn't pay for 3 months.

Sorryusernamealreadyexists Fri 12-Jun-20 14:07:09

I mean shoot me down but I feel as though it’s been absolutely wrung for everything it’s worth by some companies. Furloughing staff even though there is plenty of work, leaving the ones left resentful and exhausted.

I think some workplaces have used it so they don’t have to pay long notices to staff for redundancy, the government will be paying them so it’s an absolute bargain!

Join the discussion

Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Get started »