Rishi Sunak no more bailouts

[Elpresidente29]

He said government cannot go on like this...

Reading about companies furloughing their staff - we should be so lucky. DH is new self employed after being PAYE for 44 years. Unfortunately 6 days too early to be “rehired “ and then forloughed by his old company. We are getting nothing. Savings just over UC limit. Yes, I appreciate we have savings to live on but at our age they were intended to be a supplement for our pensions. The system is skewed. You could have someone who’s only been working a short while, who has plenty of savings and they are furloughed whilst DH who has paid taxes (and we have only ever claimed child benefit) gets nothing. Appreciate there’s not a bottomless pit of money but there’s a group of approx 2 million who aren’t receiving any help.

About the armageddon some forecast if we dare to ease lockdown, I'll just mention Prof Karol Sikora's May 3rd tweet (with due apologies for introducing any unwelcome optimism)

"The Danes, Austrians and Czechs, countries that loosened their lockdowns first, have reported no surge in infections"

I think there may come a point where furlough will be reduced to UC level

That will force companies (Those who have opted to clam when they don't need too - B&Q for one) who can afford it to top up their staff wages or risk losing thier entire workforce

How exactly will it force employers to top up the wages of furlouged staff? The employer with pay the UC level furlough payments and if their employee doesnt like it they can take redundancy/quit and then what, claim UC? The employee ends up with no job and given the unemployment increase that is likely to follow this I'm sure the employer will have no problem filling any resulting vacancies as and when needed.

Are you seriously saying that as a supplier you offered cost savings? Hahaha!

@kwest yes and that is very unfair, the money spent on people who shouldn't have accessed the furlough scheme should have been spent on those who have fallen through the cracks, but deserve support. It's all a mess really, and not fair.

We should have been given a choice and followed Sweden. They are past their peak and the economy is still their. Ours is broken and when we eventually come out of hiding it the virus will start rising again whilst Sweden’s will continue to drop.

We’re fucked because people in U.K are so divided and untrusting of the government parties they only thing they would listen to was ‘stay in side’

What a fucking shit show.

There**

@sunglasses124 because the virus will start to spread between households again if everyone's mixing in the workplace, schools, public transport, leading to a second wave of infection. Multiple scientific papers to back that up which is "how I can possibly know" quick Google will confirm.

@Servers which industry are we talking about? Average private sector wages are below average public sector wages. Adjusting for age and experience there is now a 1% difference (because of pay freezes), which is dwarfed by higher pension payments, making real public sector pay far higher.

How exactly will it force employers to top up the wages of furlouged staff? The employer with pay the UC level furlough payments and if their employee doesnt like it they can take redundancy/quit and then what, claim UC? The employee ends up with no job and given the unemployment increase that is likely to follow this I'm sure the employer will have no problem filling any resulting vacancies as and when needed.

If you read the whole sentence I said it will force companies to top up the pay or risk losing their whole workforce.

It was in context of the wider post where I think there will come a point where the government will want to know just how many people are going to lose their jobs and end up on UC. Rather than them continuing to fund companies that are going to go to the wall indefinitely.

Plenty of people have for long enough said how benefits are far too generous. Let's see how they feel after having to live on them Poverty is a great equaliser

So true. I wouldn't wish it on anyone. But many are going to get a harsh wake-up call when they suddenly find they can't sustain their usual lifestyle and won't be able to hold onto their savings instead will have to use some or all to live on. & They'll be villified eventually too in 'Well just tighten your belt/my neighbour has lost their job & now on UC but STILL has a car & big tv/should people who were furloughed sat home on full pay' etc be really entitled to UC eventually.

Don't think people will change their mind about benefits at all. People will distinguish being paid because the government has forceably shut down the country with normal benefits claimants. They will note that it's not the same thing to adjust a £50k salary to fit into £25k as it is to live on £25k in the first place .

Not if we socially distance where possible, and follow any other guidelines.

That still precludes a huge number of industries. There are some that just won't be able to start up again until no social distancing is required.

@sunglasses123

Nothing stopping you working in a cushty job in a local authority, if it’s soooooo great. As for “job for life”, I’ve worked in a few local authorities and they all restructure every couple of years which includes risk of losing your job and/or being forced into a new role.

Without outing who I worked for... yes there were plenty of cost savings around. A local authority for example came to the end of their fixed price contract for services. If they didnt renew for say 1, 3 or 5 years then they would go onto standard pricing. They were always told formally their contract was coming to an end months beforehand.

We are talking about millions btw. Its not a mobile phone type contract!

Could a savings limit matching that of UC not be applied to furlough too?

Ie if you have over £16K in savings you aren’t eligible for the 80% anymore.

Well the most simplistic answer is if they can no longer pay furlough, lockdown needs to be lifted and people need to be allowed back to work.

You can't stop one whilst carrying on the other. It will not work. People will much sooner choose putting food on their kids tables over staying in for the 'greater good' once the money stops.

People find it easier to do their bit right now whilst their children are still getting food and bills being paid. Once that stops, you won't be able to carry on with this peaceful lockdown where everyone (for the most part) does as their told.

Surely the alternative, masses of redundancies and unemployment, would be the absolute worst case scenario? So I never understand what people want when they say we shouldn't be 'paying people to sit at home'. The alternative is really not better in any way shape or form, hence why the government have gone above and beyond to avoid it so far.

It's not as simple as just putting everyone on UC rates. Some of these people will have been working for 20 plus years in a job they assumed was stable and have therefore lived/built their lives within those means accordingly. Yes people can live on £1000 pm. But not overnight when their existing responsibilities account to more than that.

@sunflowery I think the biggest problem with that would be the time and cost of checking

The furlough scheme is pretty quick and easy to put in place. Companies apply, HMRC check records they already have and HMRC don't have to have direct contact with the millions on the scheme.

You'd have to have an application process that involved people's bank statements being checked. I can't imagine many are going to be happy to have their line managed seeing their financial information.

Plus you'd then have to decide on household income. Atm it's purely based on individual salaries so do all the savings belong to one person or half to them and half their partner? You could then have a situation similar to the child benefit issue where a couple with £1 less than the limit savings get two lots of furlough pay, but one person with £1 more not getting it (and also open up the prospect of the sliding scale that applies to UC).

Knowing government systems that would cost millions to apply

Well, how much longer do you think furlough can last for?

It can last for many months, its about 9bn per month, HS2 is 110bn and rising.
The point here is that people will not go out and spend in shops, bars, restaurants, car sales, holidays etc etc so long as there is a virus out there that may kill them, make them very ill or one that they can give to their parents and kill them.

This idea that we end lockdown and save the economy is nonsense, all that will happen is that CV infections will rocket, more fear, less spending.

The state only pays 1/2 of all workers if you inc those on furlough together with those who work for the state plus on any form of benefit.

We fucked up and should have introduced lockdown weeks earlier, Cv just wasn't taken seriously by us or the Govt.

If they can't afford furlough for much longer, then it's very simple, the furloughed workers need to be able to get back to work and the businesses that employ them allowed to reopen if they have been told to shut.

The government can't have it all their own way, even though they probably will.

It's time the country got back to work, it can't hide away forever.

I hope they don't cut State Pensions - I am nearly 66 and have just been awarded mine!!!

I agree that it is probably too soon to lift lockdown. But people have to accept that if they want furlough to end then lockdown, in its current form, has to go with it.

How are people possibly supposed to survive in this current lockdown, unable to work, with no funds?

You'll find people's goodwill in protecting the NHS, saving lives etc will go down the pan very quickly I think.

A local authority for example came to the end of their fixed price contract for services. If they didnt renew for say 1, 3 or 5 years then they would go onto standard pricing. They were always told formally their contract was coming to an end months beforehand.

If it was worth millions then it should have been recompeted rather than extended (unless there were options in the contract such as 3+1+1), rather than automatically going to you, unless there was absolutely no one else in the market who could deliver the work required, even then it should have gone through the process again albeit with an SSJ. Perhaps they were keen to get shot of it, some contacts are crap and it's a relief not to be tied in. And most roles which require a professional qualification would pay more elsewhere. I earn double after leaving CS on a Friday and starting there on a Monday, private healthcare, better pension and more annual leave included. Same story for lots of my ex colleagues.

The point here is that people will not go out and spend in shops, bars, restaurants, car sales, holidays etc etc so long as there is a virus out there that may kill them, make them very ill or one that they can give to their parents and kill them

Yes they would. Just look at all the people that were out enjoying the sun getting harassed by the police. People getting arrested.

We shouldn’t have gone in lockdown at all. Remember when Boris talked at herd immunity and people were screeching and wailing and demanding to be locked away? Some even calling for the army? Those that shouted loudest got heard.

Is no one following Sweden? They are out of the peak and declining - economy still intact and there will be no new spike!

UC...then it becomes 'UC is pennies, I couldnt live on that!!!!!' from the same people who months back were kicking off that UC is apparently far far too high and allows a luxurious lifestyle hmm

All this spending is utterly feckless, but surely if the government makes it illegal to work, it's a bit fascistic to cast those unemployed directly as a result off to the welfare state?