Rishi Sunak no more bailouts

[Elpresidente29]

He said government cannot go on like this...

What The80sweregreat said. My politics have been left of centre since I became interested in politics when I was 14, and I've never voted Tory, but I've built up a business, and what they put in place meant I didn't have to make my staff redundant. Hopefully if it stays in operation until end June, I can bring them back and carry on

My partner is a keyworker and therefore paying taxes whilst furlough scroungers sunbathe in their gardens at our expense on 80% plus of wages.

Only your partner working? Not you?

I keep wondering in my head if a Universal Basic Income for 3 months, paid to everyone would have worked better than a complicated 80% scheme. An enforcement that mortgage/rent/personal loan/credit cards etc suspended. All businesses would have business rates suspended and a means tested loan scheme in place for costs that were not payroll? Contracts still in place.

Has this got lots of holes though?

We could always scrap Trident and bung £40 billion back in the coffers....

Has this got lots of holes though?

That’s what I thought they should have done. Like pressing the pause button on all economic activity.

DH pointed out that senior medical types would never have agreed to it. Which is probably true.

My partner is a keyworker and therefore paying taxes whilst furlough scroungers sunbathe in their gardens at our expense on 80% plus of wages.

Well depending on how much that 80% comes to, they may well be paying taxes on that as well as your partner. If they are on say £40k pa, then they will be paying taxes on 1/12 x £27,500k every month (40k - annual allowance), plus NI contributions. That adds up to around £550 pm.

@LaurieMarlow yes, exactly that, a pause. Take out the tool (economic model) that doesn’t work for this particular situation. I didn’t think about senior medical types? Do you mean they wouldn’t have accepted a reduction?

I have continued working through this but I would would have accepted UBI if it saved financial hardship for lots of people in the future. It’s not as if we have to cope with a lifestyle change. We don’t exactly needs disposable income at the moment as there’s nothing to use it on.

I didn’t think about senior medical types? Do you mean they wouldn’t have accepted a reduction?

Yes, that they wouldn’t give up their salaries for UBI for the period.

It may have been difficult to get people to understand the terrible economic implications at the time. I suspect people still don’t get it.

However, it’s a much more logical solution to the problem at hand. If we had to shut down great swathes of the economy, better to pause everything at once than sink some entirely and then try to haul them out again.

@Lauriemarlow

I don’t think people do get it. If you bottom out entire sections of economic models the knock on effect is going to be that we will all pay, top to bottom, for a long time so even if UBI hit your personal finances for an acute, specific period of time, it’s mitigating against future loss. I guess making plans in haste and under pressure ruins that black box thinking.

You mean nobody getting paid anything other than UBI? How would that work in non public sector jobs? Or have I misunderstood?

UBI is as well as a salary not instead of it.

UBI wouldn't have had to stop all other salaries. They could have done that and companies who have furloughed staffr just sent them home without pay or with less pay depending on the situation.

It would have meant people still working or still getting paid would have had bonus money, but it would have been a much less complicated scheme.

There would have been an outcry in some sectors about people on benefits getting "free" money though so it was never going to happen under a Tory Government, and unless it was completely universal it would have been complicated

You mean nobody getting paid anything other than UBI? How would that work in non public sector jobs? Or have I misunderstood?

Basically a halt on ALL economic activity.

Mortgages, rents, loans, salaries, pensions, all stopped for 3 months.

People are given a UBI equivalent to buy food and basic necessities during that time.

I guess making plans in haste and under pressure ruins that black box thinking.

Yeah, I just don’t think there was time to work out all the details, convince everyone who needed convincing. The legal implications are probably enormous in themselves.

"They already do, since the top 1% already pay 30% of tax receipts - something which certainly won't be lessened"

You know the 'top 1%'(of earners) don't 'earn' all their money themselves don't you? You do realise that the reason super-rich are so rich is because they exploit and underpay workers both in uk and abroad, overpay themselves, and take money directly from the taxpayer (us) by paying shitty low wages that need topping up with UC or tax credits. Wealth inequality has absolutely soared in the last 10 years. It doesn't have to be like this. It's pure greed. The man who started and owned ikea didn't take billions from his company because he knew he didn't need it. They don't need all these billions stored offshore. A global pandemic leading to global recession is the right time for them to admit this, put their hands in their pockets and give something back. They need us to consume their stuff anyway, so it's in their favour.

@Aryaneedle - and to add to your point, their used to be a social contract that employers would look after their employees, because it was mutually beneficial. It was realised that happy, healthy, secure employees would be more productive. Recent years, gig economy, insecure work contracts, poor or expensive housing etc. have broken this mutually beneficial relationship so it's now skewed in the employers favour, with very little in it for the employee.

To be in the top 1% of incomes, you need to earn £160,000 plus. It’s regional though and in London the salary figure would need to be 3 times this. So it’s not enough for vast wealth invested off shore and other myths.

The super wealthy (Times Rich list) is different. We need to top 1%. They also are a changeable group and 50% change over 5 years is normal. IFS has the stats and clearly says we need these taxes and of course the vast majority don’t avoid them!

It very much depends what type of business you are talking about when you say it’s in the employers favour. So many employers are small and often professional firms need and value their staff. The idea that everyone is poorly paid and there’s a huge queue of people wanting the jobs, or being qualified to do them, is just rubbish! There are labour shortages in lots of industries and areas of professional expertise.

I’ve worked full time for twelve years straight. I have always paid tax inc. quite a lot on tons of overtime earlier on, and then on a fairly high salary. I have never claimed any form of benefit or tax credit.

I am now on furlough which I am incredibly grateful for as lockdown has shut my industry down, but I have paid for it via taxation and I really resent the ‘furlough scroungers’ label.

It seems like some people just want to watch others suffer so that they can feel better with their own lot in life.

I work for a company of 1000 employees in an industry with an average salary of 45k that countries compete for. The furlough scheme means that they will continue to exists in this country so once this is other we can go back to work and paying higher then average levels of tax. And in the mean time we can despite the pay cut all pay our bills, defaulting in which would further harm the economy.

@Aryaneedle that would've been the best thing to do. Perhaps its not too late.

We could also save billions of our tax revenue if we scrapped the gisnt white elephant that is HS2. Billions on obselete technology to shave just 20 minutes off the journey time for a small minority.

UBI would be paid to everyone. The essential workers would be paid on top of it because they are still able and engaging in maintaining their part of their employment contract by providing essential services and goods. If you can’t maintain the employment or benefit contract due to the industry/government service being unable to operate (as an employee or employer, a pensioner, a universal credit user) you go on UBI.

If you pause the economic model of transactions for tangible services (so work, utilities, finance, travel, tax, NI, housing contracts etc) it means business aren’t losing money, they are essentially paused as their payroll, premises, costs and productions are paused. At the moment society only needs to fulfil the bottom level of Maslow. You meet the cost for shelter, food, safety, health for everyone for that acute period of time. We had enough money in the pot, as a country, to do that for 3 months if not more.

The economy is just a tool that we use as humans to innovate, improve and make our lives more comfortable and fulfilling and create opportunities. We can’t really use that tool effectively now due to being stuck in a short frame of time where the threat to life means our opportunities are limited. We have all managed to psychologically pause our normal way of living (even essential workers have less opportunity because everything is closed to them apart from work) I don’t know why it was unacceptable to pause a tool that we use.

I suspect it was legal and systemic reasons for being unable to use my idea @LaurieMarlow which is a shame as ego wins again haha! (Very reductive I know).

My understanding of the furlough scheme was that it was for people who would otherwise lose their jobs as a result of lockdown. But that's not how it's being used. Plenty of businesses - and I mean big businesses - are using it to reduce their operating costs during lockdown rather than find ways around that e.g. asking staff to all go part time to cover a reduced workload. It makes me very angry that everyone seems to be looking after themselves at a time when we should all be doing the polar opposite.

I'm aware that normal UBI methods don't require people to stop working and are paid on top of any wages, but that didn't appear to be what Laurie was describing.

Pubs it was a loose conversation based on an abstract idea I had so there wasn’t much describing going on, more a discussion. I think the hole or sticking point in my plan would be pensions tbh. I wonder if it would be accepted by those in a generous final, salary pension? I think they’d argue ‘well I paid for it and worked x amount of years’ so why should I only get UBI for x amount of time. No amount of ‘but you won’t actually need it’ can break the message that has been in the system for years: ‘more me, less we’. Asking or persuading l people to change that mindset would be, as Laurie pointed out, problematic.