To think that furlough at 80% is FAR too generous.....

[loveyouradvice]

I'm just interested about what others think... I think fine to do this for first three months but really do feel it should be down to 60% or 70% maximum by now....

People on 80% of salary, with no travel or expenses related to working away from home, are really not doing badly .... especially since so much less to spend your money on

It is everyone else I think is having a tough time - whether its kids not getting Free School Meals in holidays, or freelancers or those who've lost their jobs....

I would prefer the "pain" to be shared.... so if on furlough, yes lots of free time and yes, having to tighten your belt a bit....

Would it not be better to pay LESS in furlough - I'm thinking around 65% - and MORE to those who don't qualify but are having a very tough time financially..... ?

Personally I think employers will still make staff redundant as they have to make some contribution.
I think its fair to say that if someone has been furloughed since March and not worked since, they most likely don't/won't have a job to go back to. With a small exception.

I am another one who is worried about how we will be paying all this back.

A large percentage of companies aren’t topping to to full pay. Someone on minimum wage or just over might manage to pay all their bills and feed their families on their full salary, but chop that by 20% (or more as you’re suggesting) would be devastating.
Yes there are benefits available, but none of this “support” the government is offering is available immediately.

@SheepandCow in an ideal world ,yes everyone would get enough. However, that's not the reality we live in. Everyone would choose for enough for everyone , but that will never happen ,especially not under this government.

We already know most of the people on benefits do not get enough. We also know that a lot of people on furlough do not get enough.

Let's put this in real numbers. My furlough pay would be £864. OP thinks that is too much. Ok fair enough.

How much should be cut from that and given to someone else that gets nothing/very little to allow both of us to afford the basics(not even live comfortably)?

For those on minimum wage and those in hospitality and retail etc where their workplace has been forced to close it’s a life saver. You can’t shut businesses and tell people we will only help you with 60% of your low salary.

The only way I do think it’s generous is for those companies who are taking advantage of the scheme, furloughing staff when they are still fully operational and actually very profitable but are using the scheme to their advantage. In these instances staff that are working are being run ragged trying to cover for those who have been placed on furlough. That is plainly very wrong.

It is a worry for the future as to how this is all going to be paid for, but these are desperate times. There are also many not eligible for anything and I really feel for them.

I was furloughed for 4 months in march and received 80% pay.. i earn just above national minimum wage and personally i would have been fine staying on 80% pay and enjoyed those 4 months free from work not going to lie! .. i found that i saved petrol money.. money from eating out and days out etc so i understand what OP is saying... but maybe i would be classed as 'privileged' then.. not sure? I live in a 1 bed flat earn just above national minimum wage and dont really have any savings so i wouldnt say im 'well off' but i suppose everyone's circumstances are very different... personally i have no loans, or debt etc as i never pay monthy for expensive items like cars or fancy tvs etc ..so i believe that helps

NRTFT but if the situation re the virus hasn't improved come March, do we think furlough would continue?
How could this be sustained indefinitely?

I agree OP, I thinkaling sure people can afford to keep a roof over their head and food on the table is over rated!
I mean no one got furloughed during the War did they, just got on with it.

Like a pp pointed out on a different post, most people could cope without having much to eat for 4 weeks.
Maybe some mandatory provision of loo roll and pasta and we can cut it down to 50%>

@Kolo

"yes they are people not on furlough are net givers to the government at least those in the private sector like me people on furlough take every penny from the government whats so hard to understand."

Workers aren't allowed to claim furlough. They just get paid a percentage of their wage. Their employer claims from the government. So its businesses who are getting support in paying wage bills.

This. People seem to think the government is paying individuals, like benefits do. The government is supporting businesses, partly of course so that people aren't made redundant at a scale that would have catastrophic consequences, but also in order to keep those businesses going, because they are part of the economy.

It may still not be enough for many businesses, as furlough pays wages but it doesn't help with other costs so how long can they can keep going with no profits? Large businesses will make some cuts at the end of furlough to make up for the loss and pick themselves up again. Others will simply fold and the employees will all end up jobless. I imagine most people on furlough are painfully aware of this fact.

Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be an alternative (most of Europe is doing something similar, after all) and doing nothing at all isn't an option. The worst thing is, I doubt the lock downs will prove to be worth it in the end and as a PP said, this won't be the last pandemic in our lifetime.

all SheepandCow@ not at all I think they should introduce a basic income for everyone. The benefits system is grossly inadequate, but if some people can keep their jobs surely that’s a good thing.

I walked to work and went home at lunchtime, what "expenses" did I have that I'm saving???

@middleager

NRTFT but if the situation re the virus hasn't improved come March, do we think furlough would continue? How could this be sustained indefinitely?

It's probably even at this late stage cheaper to do one proper lockdown now - stricter, with restricted borders (to continue after lockdown), and an improved test, track, and trace.

Even if we start rolling out the vaccine soon, it's going to take a long time to get it to enough people to have a real impact.

Unfortunately we're not doing a proper lockdown and I suspect this whole mess will keep dragging out. It's a false economy but the government seem incapable of doing foresight.

You seem to be working under the illusion that everyone can afford to tighten their belts. For many people a drop in income doesn't mean less treats... it means losing their home, spiralling into debt, and/or visiting a food bank.

Of course everyone who has suffered financially because of lockdown should be helped, but why argue in favour of a race to the bottom?

@cadburyegg

YABVVVVVU

and I say that as someone who’s DH was unemployed from July until 10 days ago due to covid. He got nothing other than JSA. Did we resent people on furlough, did we fuck. Just because he lost his job, doesn’t mean we felt everyone else should struggle too!

I can’t believe you actually thought that posting this thread was a good idea

But no one is saying they resent people on furlough. The debate is about other people only being given £70ish a week to live on in the same circumstances. I'm sorry for your husband but he is lucky to have a partner to bring in some income. For single people living on that much lower amount and unable to pay the mortgage, bills and food etc at all, it is very, very difficult. So the issue is that there should not be such a huge difference in benefits (or the now emerging two-tier benefits system) that different people get. No one should be classed as more deserving than other people through no fault of their own.

@Pixxie7

all SheepandCow@ not at all I think they should introduce a basic income for everyone. The benefits system is grossly inadequate, but if some people can keep their jobs surely that’s a good thing.

Yes definitely you're right.

Most of the people getting furlough Ed are already on nmw or thereabouts. Don't be such a tit.

YABU.

I think the amount is fair. But I think it should be restricted to businesses that are forced to cease or restrict trading or otherwise clearly affected.

Last time a lot of companies frankly took the piss by furloughing most of their staff and retaining an overworked skeleton. They obviously had plenty of work to do (because the remaining employees were overworked!), they just saw an easy way to save money at the taxpayer's expense.

@Emmelina

A large percentage of companies aren’t topping to to full pay. Someone on minimum wage or just over might manage to pay all their bills and feed their families on their full salary, but chop that by 20% (or more as you’re suggesting) would be devastating. Yes there are benefits available, but none of this “support” the government is offering is available immediately.

We need to sort out the benefits system then.

And it's not going to work indefinitely for many employers forced to close as wages are not their only bill.

@middleager

NRTFT but if the situation re the virus hasn't improved come March, do we think furlough would continue? How could this be sustained indefinitely?

If they aren't being paid furlough, they'll then be paid universal credit with all the cost that come with administering it. You have to employ civil servants to do this rather than the businesses sorting it. Cut furlough and you aren't necessarily saving much money.

Suggesting people survive on 60%-70% of their salary means you assume 30%-40% of most people’s salaries are just disposable income that they could easily do without.
Do you really think that OP?! Come on think about it.

The drop in income is devastating, people won't be able to survive, pay their mortgage, rent, bills, etc... For a long time campaigners said this about the benefit 'reforms' aka cuts that were started by the Blair and Brown governments and continued by their successors. Too few cared. People made redundant or disabled suffered and still do.

I hope after all this is over we'll see a reversal of the benefits cuts. So that future people who are made redundant or get ill can pay their rents and mortgages.

@BrummyMum1

Suggesting people survive on 60%-70% of their salary means you assume 30%-40% of most people’s salaries are just disposable income that they could easily do without. Do you really think that OP?! Come on think about it.

So instead, some get nothing? How do we choose who gets something and who gets nothing? Who do you deem deserving and who not?

Very few voices have called for everyone who's struggling to get enough. Since March there's been largely acceptance that benefits aren't enough to survive on - but instead of calling for better support, we had furlongh for the 'deserving' and nothing for others - with many falling through the gaps.

Just to clarify. It isn't 80% until March. It us 80% until January and then a review. The £1000 bonus for job retention will not be paid. Some small companies will be worse off under this scheme and not better off I imagine.

The government is extending the CJRS to support individuals and businesses who are impacted by disruption caused by coronavirus (COVID-19) this winter. This is an extension of the CJRS and the scheme rules will remain the same except where we say otherwise.

The CJRS (also known as the furlough scheme) will remain open until 31 March 2021. For claim periods running to January 2021, employees will receive 80% of their usual salary for hours not worked, up to a maximum of £2,500 per month. The £2,500 cap is proportional to the hours not worked.

The government will review the policy in January to decide whether economic circumstances are improving enough to ask employers to contribute more.

You use a lot more on everything being stuck in the house, electricity, gas, food etc. plus ur car, mortgage and council tax don't get reduced. Your obviously financially well off even with only 60% of your wages or you don't have much responsibilities.

Basically furlough highlights the fact that our benefits system no longer provides a safety net. Else we wouldn't need furlough.

We should reinstate the safety net.