Aibu to think the new Sunak scheme is woeful

[Marg33t]

New scheme is going to make lots of people lose their homes and starve.

Employers to pay 1/3rd of wages is way too high. They will cut viable jobs that will bounce back otherwise.

I'm happy to pay my taxes for all that need it to continue to receive furlough as this scheme will keep people in poverty.

Aibu to think it's a mistep?

The lack of critical thinking of some posters is truly shocking.

A common theme throughout this whole shitshow, frankly.

@Rosehip10 that's actually a really good point ,and as it turns out it was a policy of absolute devastation. The closure of the heavy industries lead to decades, generations of poverty, loss of aspiration and social problems that areas are still wrestling with today.

@MaxNormal I'm on side with everyone that is affected too, but I'm worried that those that had better jobs are seen as deserving better benefits.

So what?! I'm saying that if only half the population read a book last year, how many fewer must go to the theatre or learn a musical instrument. That explains why so few people are concerned about funding for the arts per se, even if there are knock-on effects for the economy. Some posters seem to think everyone engages in the arts in one way or another, but very many people only watch tv.

I'm on side with everyone that is affected too, but I'm worried that those that had better jobs are seen as deserving better benefits.

Not my experience at all tbh. My experience is that only those with "worthy" jobs such as teachers, NHS workers etc are seen as worthy of sympathy and support.

"The lack of critical thinking of some posters is truly shocking.

A common theme throughout this whole shitshow, frankly."

@ChromaBook but your solution to this shitshow is to tax what you deem to be "high earners" even further. That shows an absolute lack of critical thinking. It wouldn't create the revenue needed.

Also, you said you and your H have a combined income of £120k in London and you consider yourself high earners so feel you should be taxed more.

If you weren't lacking in critical thinking you'd realise that placing more tax on some households with an average 60k per adult income would cripple them. Particularly in London. You speak of people losing their homes and children suffering, yet your plan wouldn't save the arts industry but would plunge even more people into the dire situation you are describing.

Your plan would make it worse!!

Not my experience at all tbh. My experience is that only those with "worthy" jobs such as teachers, NHS workers etc are seen as worthy of sympathy and support.

And if you don't even have that? Waiting staff, taxi drivers etc? Why don't they deserve to have their mortgages paid?

@WinterIsGone yes, but it looks like the research you quoted could well be inaccurate.

@Cadent definitely not just viewing those with better jobs as more deserving. I think UC is woeful anyway, I've certainly never voted Tory or supported it.

I keep hearing people saying that non-viable jobs need to go. My point that I keep trying to make is that whole sectors, normally perfectly viable and highly profitable, have been prevented from functioning.
Their loss will have huge long-term implications economically, far more so than a few additional months of support.

The choices should be allowing them to operate or granting assistance to keep them from closing their doors permanetly. What has happened instead is neither. Not legally allowed to trade and no appropriate support offered. Never mind falling through the cracks, those have now widens to chasm proportions.

@ChromaBook

disabled person being told by you and your ilk that I'm not worth protecting.

That isn't what I said.

My point was - who has decided that one group is more important than the other?

But surely you are deciding this by saying that higher taxes should pay for the arts, and ignoring many many other sectors and many vulnerable groups desperate for funding? The answer isn't to prop up one sector. It's to have a proper safety net for any one from any sector who runs into difficulty. You can't save the sectors through funding wages and the like in this way, but you can give people security knowing they will not end up destitute when they fall on hard times. It will be up to us when this is over to rebuild the society we want to see and a lot of sectors will look different - some will shrink and some will grow but that is for the future and for today, we need to ensure that people don't end up on the streets or starving. They need a basic standard of living across the board.

Let's be honest here - the government we currently have would no see many votes in supporting the arts - indeed many of the "new" conservative voters would, sadly, be anti any support.

What do you honestly think the results of a mass public poll on the question: "Should we give more money to the NHS or the arts?" or "Should we support the nurse or the artist/musician?"

I know the Government are not doing sod all for the NHS either, but I think, like many things on here, there is a "MN view" of the topic/issue which may, like it or not be very different to mass opinion

And if you don't even have that? Waiting staff, taxi drivers etc? Why don't they deserve to have their mortgages paid?

When have I said they don't? I think you must be confusing me with someone else.

@MaxNormal it just feels like those who can organise (the Arts) get more help (the £1.5b grant to the Arts in July). There was no grant to taxi drivers, no furlough, nothing.

Disclaimer here i work in management within the music industry -both live and recorded. Certain industries require far more concentrated effort particularly the arts and live events industry be that theatre, live music, festivals, conferences etc. There are far more freelancers in these sectors than most industries be it camera crew, roadies, sound and light , audio visual supply etc. Strangely enough these 'are' the industries that will 'bounce back well at some point' once the covid issue dies down , the problem is 'venues' cannot get away with paying no rent as things standno rent means these businesses will have to cease its not like a shop where at some point you can just shut up and set up somewhere else when conditions are better. These buildings cost hundreds of thousands to develop and often millions to buy you cant just 'rent' one . I fail to see why the freelancers often with large skill sets cant be supported , yet someone part time at a local café can and there is very little in these new proposals for freelancers/self employed .Admittedly self employed in lots of sectors can now work even with reduced demand but in the arts/live events industrythere is very little going on of course, so its not possible to work. My own personal feeling is that the government don't really give a shit about these kind of people because to be frank the vast majority of them don't vote Tory. They aren't their voter base and for people talking about arts industries a 'hobby' is it that you don't think its a real job if its actually quite fun and someone enjoys it?? Of course its a real job, jobs have changed I know roadies with families who have worked solid for over 35 years and supported a family on it too i know people who usually make good livings creating audio visual experiences for large bands on tour etc. These new proposals aren't targeted enough at sectors with the real issues. Ok retail and hospitality is down too well get some legislation in with regards to rent payments and then less footfall wouldn't be such a big issue for many.

@Cadent believe me the live events industry wasn't overly enamoured with how that particular money was dished out either.
Taxi drivers have indeed also been hit hard, and as most of them are self-employed but without premises, the help the recieved will have been pitiful.

When have I said they don't? I think you must be confusing me with someone else.

I think because you quoted that quote saying UC won't pay mortgages of those in the Arts. If we pay for mortgages for people in the Arts then surely we should pay for everyone to have a mortgage? (taking it to the extreme?)

But surely you are deciding this by saying that higher taxes should pay for the arts, and ignoring many many other sectors and many vulnerable groups desperate for funding?

But that isn't what I said; I was responding to someone earlier on in the thread who said what should we do to support this particular industry. When I gave my answer I wasn't meaning help should only be given to that particular industry.

My posts on this thread have been in response to Rishi Sunak saying today that theatre jobs were unviable. Not as a response to what I think as a wider society we should do to protect job losses, the vulnerable and disabled, which is a much bigger discussion. Though, frankly, one I would also answer with raising taxes.

[quote MaxNormal]@Cadent believe me the live events industry wasn't overly enamoured with how that particular money was dished out either.
Taxi drivers have indeed also been hit hard, and as most of them are self-employed but without premises, the help the recieved will have been pitiful.[/quote]
Was it unfairly dished out?

I think because you quoted that quote saying UC won't pay mortgages of those in the Arts. If we pay for mortgages for people in the Arts then surely we should pay for everyone to have a mortgage? (taking it to the extreme?)

I don't think it's extreme to say that no one should have to have their house repossessed because their job hasn't been safeguarded when it easily could have been.

That applies whether they're an opera singer or a taxi driver, frankly.

I just saw on another thread Sunak’s scheme is £300m a month already.

It’s horrible to be facing this but the arts will come back, some parts are still limping along.

We’re all going to value it when they do I reckon.

The government is at fault by stopping viable businesses from running. Instead of keeping theatres etc closed they should open everything with the best safety measures possible in place. If venues cannot be filled due to social distancing the government should subsidise the empty seats which would mean that people could return to their jobs, people could enjoy the arts and the cost of subsidising some seats would I assume be less than furlough.

it just feels like those who can organise (the Arts) get more help (the £1.5b grant to the Arts in July)

That money did not go to the artists, nor to the box office staff, nor to the backstage crew, you do realise that don't you?

We’re all going to value it when they do I reckon.

I highly doubt it given sme of the responses on this thread.

Was it unfairly dished out?

The impression was that it was to support the arts and live events sectors but it seemed to mostly go to arts venues that already get some council/government funding, commercial live events companies (that pay huge amounts in tax ordinarily) and the army of freelancers they support, didn't see any of it.

The government is at fault by stopping viable businesses from running. Instead of keeping theatres etc closed they should open everything with the best safety measures possible in place. If venues cannot be filled due to social distancing the government should subsidise the empty seats which would mean that people could return to their jobs, people could enjoy the arts and the cost of subsidising some seats would I assume be less than furlough.

Exactly.