To think they MUST extend furlough in line with other European Countries

[LaurieFairyCake]

Most of the centrist countries are doing 12-24 months.

If they don't do it here for those industries that are hugely affected then we're looking at MASS unemployment, repossessions, huge housing benefit claims...

@UntilYourNextHairBrainedScheme

That's the way the economy is structured at the moment. It doesn't need to be. Luxury industries should be subject to market forces while essential services are subsidised by tax surely.

Currently people working all hours doing essential work for not especially high pay are subsidising the people (not currently working) in the wedding and airline industry and in industries dedicated only to channelling wealth towards the already wealthy.

If the ‘luxury’ sectors are not permitted to run at full throttle then don’t be surprised when they go under as furlough unwinds.

Why would essential services need to be subsidised?

The dreamy socialists who perceive c19 as a reset moment are probably in for a shock.

There is another assumption on an industry you don’t know about and assume.
I should know about being underpaid for the value of my work as an NHS healthcare worker. But I’m not going to demonise other industries for it. The government have had plenty of opportunity to increase our wages but choose to invest in other areas over the years COVID or not.
The SEISS received by many in weddings (if they were lucky enough to get it) will be lost to refunds to clients (all income essentially), tax bills and business running costs. Most have, like my husband, have found second temporary jobs as key workers (4 hours a week). They can’t commit to new permanent work because they are contracted to next year if weddings in the clients eyes can go ahead due to restrictive government guidelines.
Most in weddings are very much average earners.
I have no issue with people thinking furlough should not be continued we all have our own circumstances and opinions on state involvement. What I do is saying some have more value than others without any basis in fact. At the end of the day these industries are taxpayers themselves.

[quote LakieLady]@smilingthroughgrittedteeth, you might be entitled to a reduction in council tax. Councils all have their own scheme these days, and some are surprisingly generous (not mine - I checked it out and we'd get £6 per week reduction if our total income was only £1,000 a month!).

You can apply online a lot of councils, so it's a doddle to find out.[/quote]
We tried we arent entitled to anything because our council use last years income to make their decision which is not helpful in the slightest

Well I think we can all think of industries we don't want to survive

Nothing makes me happier than the idea there may be less porn about - who can feel sorry for the wankers ?

And travel - it's fucking terrible for the people who work in the sector - but no one should be allowed to fly to Majorca for 1p

The problem is of course our country and it's ridiculous over reliance on the 'service' sector - a sector propped up and lauded by successive governments

At the expense of finding a dynamic future where people are taken care of properly through possibly UBI or niche manufacturing or technology

@Notfeelinggreattoday, the problem with your friend's son isn't that he gets too much JSA, but that he gets spoilt by his parents, who aren't doing him any favours. They should be making him pay a contribution towards rent, bills and food.

But on paper, he's no different from an unemployed 21-year old who lives with a parent on benefits and has to pay his way because they can't afford to subsidise him, or who lives in a houseshare and has to cover the shortfall between his rent and what UC give him towards it, plus his share of bills, and feed and clothe himself. So he gets the same as they would, which isn't enough for them but is more than he happens to need.

I think the blank statement that "centre" European countries will extend their schemes for 24 months is wrong.

Not all schemes were the same, some were targeted, some had contidions, which means you aren't comparing like with like.

Maybe the UK's mistake was being to generous, meaning much more money was spent initially.

I think furlough has to come to an end because we can't afford it. Also it is unfair, you may have one person who is conventionally unemployed, and another who is also unemployed, but because they were in a job when Covid started now has a "super benefit", that the other conventionally unemployed person doesn't have.

@smilingthroughgrittedteeth, that's bizarre! I give advice to clients in 12 council areas and not one of them uses previous year's income.

You could be on megabucks still get a reduction because you were skint last year. Most unhelpful.

@TeddyIsaHe

They’ll end furlough, everyone will kick up a stink, Boris will do his 50th u-turn in the space of a few months and people will be happy.

Seems likely.

We either pay furlough or benefits. But there needs to be much tighter control on who gets furlough pay.

[quote LakieLady]@smilingthroughgrittedteeth, that's bizarre! I give advice to clients in 12 council areas and not one of them uses previous year's income.

You could be on megabucks still get a reduction because you were skint last year. Most unhelpful.[/quote]
Our council arent known for their common sense

@Lakielady exactly parents aren't helping him long term and poor others really struggling

There was a lot of abuse in the furlough scheme. I think it should have ended at end of July. We can't afford it and it is unfair to pass on massive debts to our kids because that is what will happen. I think each generation should pay its own way and not pass on massive debts to next generation. They will have to work until about 75 years old. I feel sorry for our kids.

YANBU. Certainly if there are short term local lockdowns furlough will be needed for otherwise perfectly viable businesses that are affected by lockdown rules.

No. No reason to - and never has been.

If the business can't operate, the people should be made redundant. Good businesses can then hibernate, and poor businesses (who are leveraged in debt) will go bust - and that';s the way it should be.

There are very few barriers to opening businesses if demand picks up.

A pandemic is simply a business risk. People who haven't saved for a rainy day need to understand their situation is their own got manage.

Everyone who has been on furlough should pay back every penny as a furlough tax.

@Badbadbunny

I'd rather see something along the lines of Student Loans, where people can borrow a certain amount each year will they will have to pay back over a period of time based on their future incomes. Those that go on to get jobs paying more than average wage have to pay a percentage of their income over the average, and those who don't go on to earning more than average don't repay. If it's good enough for Uni students then it's good enough for those affected by covid. It's time those who benefited from furlough/support were the ones having to dip into their pockets in the future to pay some of it back.

I like this idea in principle. Though the many people pushed into furlough in order that the companies they worked for could save money may have an issue.

It's so easy to say the furloughed workers benefited and should burden the responsibility of paying it back, but really it was the company owners/shareholders that really got bailed out (if anyone did at all).

On balance I think it should be extended but only to those businesses that cannot operate due to government rules. I would also like to see a 1% increase in corporation tax and dividend tax on GP from companies that have partaken in the furlough scheme.

I think it’s done it’s job, it has given the viable businesses a chance, but it can’t go on indefinitely. The world is changing and we need to change with it, however I do feel for those that have left their jobs through no fault of their own.

No. It can't go on, the amount we've borrowed is already terrifying.

The only people who should continue to get furlough are those who have been affected by the stupid 6 person rule,eg children's entertainers, people involved in weddings etc.

@Noconceptofnormal

No. It can't go on, the amount we've borrowed is already terrifying.

The only people who should continue to get furlough are those who have been affected by the stupid 6 person rule,eg children's entertainers, people involved in weddings etc.

Weddings are exempt

Children’s entertainers a tough time, will have to adapt

If the business can't operate, the people should be made redundant

I can't find the article now, but some economist said, about the furlough scheme, that we now have around 7m people unemployed "but they just don't know it yet".

A lot of those furloughed people are going to be in for a massive shock when they find they have live on £94 a week instead of £2k a month. What I really object to is that those working in jobs where they could only dream of earning £2.5k a month are going to have to pay towards keeping middle and high earners much better off than they will ever be.

And a lot of those low earners will be performing essential roles: cleaners, hospital porters, retail workers, carers etc - the very workers who've played a big part in keeping other people safe and fed since lockdown started.

If the business can't operate, the people should be made redundant

Yes, I agree and am furloughed myself, from my own business.
We've lost 70% of our work and it won't be back much time soon, due to the nature.
The taxpayer shouldn't have to continue to support my failed business.
It's over, a shame, and 30 years hard work, but it's not other peoples responsibility.
My last earning was £250 and this is where furlough was set, so I'm not getting tons, but stil, it's time to stop.

I do wonder how Germany will pay for its generous furlough scheme, as I think they will also be back rolling many other European countries at the same time.

It's over, a shame, and 30 years hard work

It's a bloody shame :(

@stairway

I do wonder how Germany will pay for its generous furlough scheme, as I think they will also be back rolling many other European countries at the same time.

Germans realise higher taxes are worth paying. It's why their healthcare system is so good.

@caringcarer

There was a lot of abuse in the furlough scheme. I think it should have ended at end of July. We can't afford it and it is unfair to pass on massive debts to our kids because that is what will happen. I think each generation should pay its own way and not pass on massive debts to next generation. They will have to work until about 75 years old. I feel sorry for our kids.

It’s ridiculous to try and avoid passing debts to the “next generation” - national finances don’t work like individual households despite Thatcher and other politicians attempts to infantilise us all into thinking they do. We are victims of the political system the nation has elected - we could make things much easier for us and our children if we chose to.

I think there has been so much abuse of the furlough scheme to continue it. If certain companies hadn't been so greedy in the first place then we could support a longer term for companies that were genuinely affected by it. As it stands, I don't think the economy can stand much more.

@cyclemania this is incorrect. The Irish PUP payment does not have to be paid back in full. Any individual claiming the €350/week (and the new reduced rates going forward) do not have to ever pay that money back, it operates just as benefits such as job seekers. However, it is subject to income tax - so depending on how long someone claims for, and their personal tax threshold, they may have to pay income tax on it which Revenue have said will be spread out over at least a year from the time they go back into employment.