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?

A combined household income of 120k in many parts of the country isn't much at all. People base their lives around their wages. They take loans and mortgages and aren't left with much at all.....you want those people taxed even more despite the fact that they wouldn't be eligible for any help with those outgoings. Despite the fact that raising the taxes of those people wouldn't generate anything.

But playing devil's advocate here, lots of people have said that the arts is inherently risky so people in that industry should have planned for something like this. What about people on higher incomes, should they not have planned for something like this to happen in case taxes were raised? To be frank, that's exactly what DH and I did.

Also a lot of people in the arts WERE already poor. It isn't renowned for paying well!

It is not "your taxes" that pay for this. "Your taxes" ran out a long time ago - it is a national debt, already standing at £2trillion, that your children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren will still be paying off.

Exactly. Taxes won’t do it. But if you have spare cash donate to arts orgs and encourage others to.

Have you seen the amount of wasted money the government have given to private companied during this crisis? Perhaps if they stopped bunging their mates cash, they could help the sectors that THEY are closing down

This is so true.

If a council was behaving the way the government have they'd have stepped in and suspended the councillors and senior officers.

"But playing devil's advocate here, lots of people have said that the arts is inherently risky so people in that industry should have planned for something like this. What about people on higher incomes, should they not have planned for something like this to happen in case taxes were raised? To be frank, that's exactly what DH and I did"

You're making massive leaps here. How do you suggest a couple, in their 20s and 30s, living in central London, earning 120k combined, paying a mortgage that they spent 10/15 years saving for the deposit, now with a couple of kids "plan for something like this"? How?

It's impossible. You think they should've always planned for their taxes to be raised to protect certain industries through a pandemic? Because you and your husband did? They haven't had the opportunity to do so.

@ChromaBook

I am interested in what constitutes a high earner

DH and I have a joint income of about 120k in London and I would classify us as a high earning household.

So the solution for your family member is to support them using your high income. I don’t earn anywhere near that but would help a family member or close friend if they needed it in this situation without even having to think about it. The government can’t protect all jobs, we don’t know how long this will go on for so they can only help viable jobs. People need to rethink what they do in the medium term.

People base their lives around their wages. They take loans and mortgages and aren't left with much at all

Quite, which makes the suggestion that millions just suck it up on UC so ludicrous.

So the solution for your family member is to support them using your high income

That is exactly what I'll do but do you think everyone is lucky enough to have that support?

You're making massive leaps here. How do you suggest a couple, in their 20s and 30s, living in central London, earning 120k combined, paying a mortgage that they spent 10/15 years saving for the deposit, now with a couple of kids "plan for something like this"? How?

You've literally just described my DH and I.

The government realise that a huge amount of companies are not going to be viable for a number of years so there is effectively no point in them keeping people in jobs if the cost is more than jobseekers.

Effectively all industries have been thrown to the wolves , not just arts.

"Quite, which makes the suggestion that millions just suck it up on UC so ludicrous."

I agree. I just don't think the solution is to tax people further. It'll add to the swathes of people just expected to "suck it up". It is not the answer.

The example I gave of a couple in London have also been furloughed since March and are struggling to meet commitments as it is, there are many many more like them.

"You've literally just described my DH and I."

Ok, so you think that couple could've saved enough to "prepare for this"? Enough to support a family member financially?

How? How could they have done that?

Chromabook I'm self employed and work in an industry linked to the arts. My diary was full for this year. It has been empty since March and will likely remain empty next year. I have no work.

To say people in the arts should have money put aside for this situation is disingenuous. As a self employed person I put money away to pay my tax bill, to cover me in the event of illness, a sudden incident etc. Rainy day money. I've planned sensibly. But none of us could have predicted this. I'm living off my savings, but they will run out eventually. And government funds will not last forever - I, and thousands of others, will have no earnings this year and will therefore pay no tax for this year.

Effectively all industries have been thrown to the wolves , not just arts.

I'm starting to see that now. Today is not a good day.
I suppose letting whole sectors go to the wall will feed nicely into the Brexit chaos. Cummings really is getting his way in terms of tearing the whole country apart at the seams.

Ok, so you think that couple could've saved enough to "prepare for this"? Enough to support a family member financially?

I think you kind of misunderstood my original point, which was that it was equally as ridiculous for me to say what I did as it was for other posters to say that those working in the arts should have been prepared for this as it's an inherently risky industry.

There’s no other way through. The mounting debt is astronomical.

PimlicoJo

I'm with you!!

Possibly I misunderstood.

But you said that you and your DH are the "literal" couple I described. You said that you have "planned for this" so much so that you can afford to support a family member financially.

If you are that couple I described then I'm asking how? Because they had no money aside for meaningful savings and certainly none for higher taxes. So how did you do that?

If you are that couple I described then I'm askinghow? Because they had no money aside for meaningful savings and certainly none for higher taxes. So how did you do that?

Well for us personally we didn't take out the maximum mortgage, we chose a smaller place for a cheaper mortgage. So we have enough disposable income that we can afford either extra taxes or to support a family member.

But I wasn't saying everyone should do that, my point was that you can't say that we shouldn't raise taxes if you're also saying that the arts is inherently risky and people who work in that sector should have planned for this.

"But I wasn't saying everyone should do that, my point was that you can't say that we shouldn't raise taxes if you're also saying that the arts is inherently risky and people who work in that sector should have planned for this."

Erm, I didn't say that. I don't think they could've or should've planned for this.

It was a long time before anyone mentioned inherent risk that you said you'd put up taxes as a solution.

You can't say people lack critical thinking when that is exactly what you're lacking here. I'm sorry for your relative, but you're being very blinkered and clearly don't understand the tax system.

One problem I can see is that when people who have mortgages have to claim UC as it won’t pay a mortgage
They will either have to sell up which could mean a load of property coming on to the market at the same time which in turn could force house prices down
Or repossession
Or the goverment make changes to UC to include support to mortgages but ensuring that they get the money back when it’s sold

I think that sectors that are still banned from being open or having audiences like nightclubs and theatres should still have furlough available as people can't work part time if the business is banned from being open

hopefully furlough will still be extended to specific sectors that are still banned from opening in october

@Dawnlassie

Raising the tax of high earners will not come close to covering the cost of the furlough scheme. Some simple maths.

It cost £14 BILLION per month.

TOTAL tax rexceipts for ALL uk earners was approx £650 million last financial year. Which equates to about £54 billion a month.

Unless you are suggesting doubling the higher rate of taxation from 45 to 95%

It really didn’t cost £14 billion a month. In June it cost £8.6 billion and in July it cost £6.9 billion. The total cost of the furlough scheme by the 8th September was £35.4 billion, roughly a fifth of the £150 billion borrowing the U.K. has done since the beginning of the financial year in April.

There is an incredibly unpleasant narrative that all you diligent workers have been paying your taxes to support feckless furloughed people. It’s A FIFTH of the money that the government has borrowed, and 10% of that can (or should) be reclaimed through investigation, as it has been fraudulently claimed OR wrongly issued.

Stop with the hyperbole and read actual facts.

Also, the £150 billion borrowed is total borrowing, not just borrowed for Covid. I wonder how much of that has gone towards brexit?

Or the woeful English track and trace system?