Give people 100% of their wages if they're forced to close

[Marg33t]

How are people on nmw supposed to live on 66% of wages. All the council leaders in the north are rightly outraged at how unfair this is!

@RedSquirrelGreySquirrel
Many people seem to be totally unaware, even as they rent their 3rd or 4th homes out to people who own nothing, of the huge growth in inequality and that some people - well, own nothing, no matter how much they work. So as soon as the work goes, they have no food or home.

That’s largely been the case for decades, certainly since the 80s. Not just in the U.K. but the US and elsewhere. Things were better for a bit under New Labour, but what takes ten years to build can be dismantled in one year. Problem is that people keep voting for it. A hundred less well off people losing their home mean less to the Tory Party than a couple of billionaire donors enduring a year of zero profit. But people keep voting for it.

@LaurieFairyCake

I'd be very surprised if anyone is going to get much in the way of Universal Credit if they're getting 67% of furlough

It's utterly shit - people are going to STARVE/Freeze!

This doesn’t apply to me. To be 33% is a lot of money especially if you have children so UC definitely would foot the bill and rightly so I just did a rough calculation based on my own salary and I would be over £300 down a month!

@RedSquirrelGreySquirrel

There was plenty of money when it came to bailing out the banks. They printed more as needed.

I think it's time they recognised that the people of this country cannot live on thin air, and that this is a major challenge to the country as a whole akin to war. Either the government need to provide money as a means of exchange, either as replacement for wages or a citizen's Basic Income or they need to provide another means of living. Consider bringing in rationing of food, and some sort of solution for housing, for instance temporary suspension of rents or again direct distribution. Our normal way of living is currently not possible: and given the way it has been weakened for the last 40 years anyway, expecting people to have their own resources to fall back on is unacceptable.

I agree.

@RationalOne

So the areas where many people have been sloppy with SD, being careful, not mixing and so the virus has run rampant (not necessarily the ones who will be unable to work though) should be given full pay to sit at home ..... NO way!

Where's the incentive to actually bother to follow any guidelines? So let's all party, party and not social distance and then get the benefits of doing bugger all to contribute whilst on full pay. Meanwhile many jobs will have to work anyway - very divisive

Amazing.

You know, when the pandemic started, many commentators wondered if this experience would upend the 'benefit bashing' consensus that the poor bring it upon themselves and need to be starved out of their bad behaviour. Because nobody could spin a pandemic as all their fault.

Yet here we are. Your mental gymnastics are astounding. In a strange, sad way, I am impressed.

Odds on “Boris” will do one around Christmas citing “family reasons” before the economic fallout from Brexit. Next year is going to be horrific for those in the U.K.

“citizen's Basic Income or they need to provide another means of living. Consider bringing in rationing of food, and some sort of solution for housing, for instance temporary suspension of rents or again direct distribution. Our normal way of living is currently not possible: and given the way it has been weakened for the last 40 years anyway, expecting people to have their own resources to fall back on is unacceptable.

From a Tory government with an 80seat majority? Good luck with those!

No. The economy is already buggered and we can't afford it

By the amount of whinging on here this must be the first crisis many posters have lived through as independent adults. This shit happens. Unemployment surges, no jobs to be had and anyone in a job is taking a pay cut. Businesses folding. People losing homes, having to use up all savings, liquidate pension pots, run up credit cards all just to survive. Even riots and looting in the streets. Homeless dead bodies and elderly dying because they can’t pay for heat every winter. And so on.

I’m not saying that we should just do nothing, but this is not unprecedented and it will pass with better times to come. At least 66% is better than nothing and if it’s worse than UC, you’ll get topped up to UC levels. If you lose your home, and have to start over, it happens. Happened to me due to a car accident and being disabled/out of work for two years our income fell by 80% and we had to sell and live off the equity. Then start over in our thirties all over again saving to get back on property ladder. And in U.K. disability is lower than UC! Imagine how they’re surviving for a minute.

It’s just naive and entitled to think that your income will always be secure and never decrease and you’ll never face financial hardship. The government doesn’t owe you this.

I have friends self employed working in high end hairdresser and another (partner) owns a high end tattoo company.

I heard what an amazing amazing amount they received from lockdown from government. They also broke the rules and still had clients visit.

They were quids in.

Yet, my v close friend, a classical opera singer, freelance, is really struggling

I arrange weddings, concerts and events. I was laid off as there's no chance of restarting before spring. Support needs to be universal and if 2/3 is what the country can afford then it should be offered everywhere not just in the north.

The government is shutting down businesses and throwing people out of work.

If you throw this many people out of work and out of their homes, how long do you think your own work and your own homes will last? Do you really think half the country is just going to meekly starve while you sit in your houses ordering more tat from Amazon Prime? It's naive. Actually even the government are not this naive.

I think 66% is reasonable

Quietly observes how many people think the benefit system doesn't work now that it is their jobs / income under threat. And wondering where all those people who voted for this government to get tough on "benefit scroungers" are now? They seem to have disappeared entirely. Odd that.

And being self employed O got no help

@roarfeckingroarr

No. The economy is already buggered and we can't afford it

So everyone is just supposed to starve and be made homeless instead? How much do you think that will cost the taxpayer?

So what about the self employed who don’t get 100% what about those that have been made redundant that don’t get 100%? What about those who work in industries where hours have been cut and they don’t get 100% of their old wages

Surely that’s what UC is for?

This thread is full of I’m all right jacks. Wow.

Could someone kindly tell me what level of income should the government provide? We are all going to have to tighten our belts and those that have been 'living' on UC can't cut any further so what's the answer?

Apply for UC? Are you having a fucking laugh? They won't get it if they're getting 67% of their salary, even if that salary simply doesn't cover their basic outgoings - as it wouldn't for a great many families

I’m always confused by this.

We were on UC last year for a period. We were astonished at how generous it was - the top up to my wages (it was DH out of work) was far more than we’d expected and plenty to keep us (family of 5).

If wages topped up with UC doesn’t keep you in at least basics it’s probably time to review your outgoings IME.

It was like this when UC replaced the old system
I expect most of those that were saying UC was fine to live on are probably shiting themselves now they may have to claim it themselves
And if you have a mortgage and need to claim UC god help you as their is no help for mortgages until around 9months and then it’s interest only and I believe it needs to be payed back as some point

@RonaRossi

Apply for UC? Are you having a fucking laugh? They won't get it if they're getting 67% of their salary, even if that salary simply doesn't cover their basic outgoings - as it wouldn't for a great many families

I’m always confused by this.

We were on UC last year for a period. We were astonished at how generous it was - the top up to my wages (it was DH out of work) was far more than we’d expected and plenty to keep us (family of 5).

If wages topped up with UC doesn’t keep you in at least basics it’s probably time to review your outgoings IME.

So you're saying that everyone should basically be in a position to save 33% of their earnings? Because, as I and many others have pointed out, if you are getting 67% of salary you won't get UC.

Of all the ignorant statements.

Because, as I and many others have pointed out, if you are getting 67% of salary you won't get UC. Of all the ignorant statements.

Maybe I am ignorant - UC rules have changed then? Receiving 67% of your income prohibits you from applying for UC top ups - is that the case? If so I had no idea that UC rules had changed so drastically.

One of my DC, very early 20s, who lost her job, was denied UC. She has to depend on us, her parents, and is living with us.

Perhaps instead of giving out money for nothing, the government should offer 100% of earnings if you are willing to retrain to temporarily help out in the nhs/care sector/schools etc etc while waiting for your particular industry to reopen. I’m sure extra staffing in these areas to support other workers and cover winter pressures would be very welcome.

Those who do not wish to do this could be offered a nominal payment to cover basic expenses.

The furlough scheme was pretty generous, and was abused in many cases, like the eat out to help out.

How many people now complaining about the UC system were actively campaigning about the unfairness of it before it affected them?