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..... ?

[quote SheepandCow]@YarToTheNar
Increasing benefits and/or implementating universal basic income would've be as quick a fix as furlough.

Who's blaming furloughed workers?
It's obviously the government that decided how to spend tax money. Some of the furloughed are justifying furlough (instead of increased benefits) saying they need to pay rent, bills, etc. Pointing out to them that so do people on benefits isn't blame.[/quote]
Increasing benefits would not have been an equally quick fix.

The benefits system is barely able to cope with the number of people who have moved onto it during the pandemic. People are waiting huge lengths of time for their first payments. In some places 11/12 weeks was not unheard of. Increasing the number of claimants by millions would have increased those delays massively and caused more problems. The system would not have coped

Ubi would have been a better options. Many people, including me, said that right at the start.

Putting everyone through the benefits system would have been a disaster. Passing the bulk of the admin to employers, and adding the delays of payment onto the employers in a lot of cases, was the only way to not plunge millions of people into poverty

Tell that to my friend who's just lost 20% of her £190 a week wages.

As a single woman she gets no extra help. Everything has to come out of that. Myself and a few others are chipping in so she can at least eat half decent food. That small lost has taken her from just about scraping by to utterly fucked.

I can't reply individually to everybody lyralalala!

My general point was made.

They managed to pretty quickly add the paltry (but definitely better than nothing) £20 to UC claims (but for pre pandemic claimants).

Why didn't they give a proper increase - enough to pay rents and bills?

Ok so you're saying people who need to claim now can't afford to wait weeks for benefits. People never could. The 5 week wait for UC should be scrapped. Should never have been implemented.

As for addition delays due to so many claiming in one go. If employing lots of extra staff isn't a quick possibility (from the pool of newly and longer-term unemployed), then the solution is universal basic income. I, like you, was calling for it from the start.

So moving forwards, should we:

a) Increase benefits to liveable amounts for those already claiming + furlough for Covid related job loss

OR

Universal Basic Income.

What isn't ok is to continue as we are. Leaving many thousands (those who lost jobs or got ill before Covid) to struggle is not ok.

Surely the point of the furlough system rather than simply increasing benefits was that people could remain in employment which they'd hopefully go back to within a (relatively) short time?

In what way would it have been better to let those thousands of furloughed, get made redundant and go onto benefits instead?

That's not the same as suggesting benefits shouldn't be increased for those that are on them and were so before the pandemic. But its surely not helpful to anyone to have huge numbers, bigger than we've already seen, becoming unemployed.

Furlough was a way of keeping people in work so that they wouldn't have to rely on the benefit system once this was over because it wouldn't have coped. It's better to try and keep people in the jobs they already had than suddenly scrambling for employment amongst millions of others when this is over?

Leaving many thousands (those who lost jobs or got ill before Covid) to struggle is not ok

Point me to who has said it's okay?

You're conflating two separate issues imo. The OP was clearly trying to have a pop at people on furlough which we've seen time and time again since the start of this, saying they've had it easy, saved money, one big holiday and so on... Obviously that makes people defensive.

I don't see what the OP has to do with benefits. People can agree that the benefit system needs change and also not agree with OPs thinking.

@WhatWouldYouDoWhatWouldJesusDo

Tell that to my friend who's just lost 20% of her £190 a week wages.

As a single woman she gets no extra help. Everything has to come out of that. Myself and a few others are chipping in so she can at least eat half decent food. That small lost has taken her from just about scraping by to utterly fucked.

Yes single claimants have been left in dire straits over the last decade or so.

Many - even now, whilst others have furlough - have been left to struggle on just £74 a week (plus rent support that's often lower than the rent due). Hen e the increase in recent years in rough sleeping.

We should've ensured that everybody who needed support to pay for housing, food, and bills, had enough. We still should - and could. If we wanted to.

Ok so you're saying people who need to claim now can't afford to wait weeks for benefits. People never could. The 5 week wait for UC should be scrapped. Should never have been implemented.

This is why it’s pointless debating this with you. You continually extrapolate what people say.

Despite the fact I’ve said repeatedly that I don’t agree with UC levels you’ve decided that me saying we simply can’t have people waiting longer than 11/12 weeks means I was ok with people waiting 5.

@StuffedRabbit
Furlough has everything to do with benefits.

If the benefits system was fit for purpose - if it still provided a safety net - there wouldn't be any furlough. There'd be no need.

Furlough is an acknowledgement that benefits are not enough to survive on.

Unless you're suggesting that the furloughed are the 'deserving' claimants, and that those made redundant or ill before Covid (not their fault as much as being furloughed is not anybody's fault) the 'undeserving'?

I don't really understand what this has to do with the subject of the thread, which was furlough not UC.

If you want to start a thread about the unfairness of UC levels, why don't you?

You're acting as though anyone who thinks the furlough scheme was a good thing (generally) must be totally okay with the current benefit system. They are two separate things. You can agree with one whilst disagreeing with the other.

Unless you're suggesting that the furloughed are the 'deserving' claimants, and that those made redundant or ill before Covid (not their fault as much as being furloughed is not anybody's fault) the 'undeserving'?

Oh stop it. That's not what I've suggested at all.

I've said the furlough system was a means to keep people in their current employment rather than huge swathes of people being made redundant all at once and likely relying on benefits for longer than they would have been on furlough.

That's not the same as saying I think the current benefit system is adequate, I've joined many threads in the past about the subject way before Covid, or that people made redundant or ill before this are undeserving. Why is it so one or the other with you?

You're consistently exaggerating what posters are saying in order to paint them to fit your argument.

Furlough is an acknowledgement that benefits are not enough to survive on

So none of the countries in the world that have furlough schemes have decent benefits systems?

There are reasons this kind of scheme was used by so many

And whether or not benefits were adequate to begin with is irrelevant to the point I was making. It would still be better to try and keep people in their current employment during a situation like this where there is a risk of huge numbers being unemployed all at once, than it would have been to allow them all to enter the benefit system in one go.

I'm not sure why you think that's the same as saying everyone on benefits already is undeserving?

You seem to be extrapolating what I'm saying @lyralalala

I asked you whether my interpretation of what you were saying was correct. Hence the question mark when I asked.

We seem to be in agreement. I think?

I wasn't suggesting it was you who doesn't support an improved benefits system - a proper safety net. Unfortunately, you support this but many other people don't seem bothered.

You might get it but lots don't.

It's important to keep on highlighting the issue. For the sake of the people currently struggling badly on insufficient benefit amounts.

Furlough acknowledges that our benefits system does not give people enough to live on.

You know and care about this. Others don't. If they did know and (crucially) care, it wouldn't be how it was.

Many people are not questioning the need for furlough - but do seem to see it as different or separate from The 'undeserving' Others aka people left struggling on benefits. Rishi definitely does.

Yeah my furlough wages of approx £500 4 weekly are keeping me in good stead this close to Christmas

@lyralalala

Furlough is an acknowledgement that benefits are not enough to survive on

So none of the countries in the world that have furlough schemes have decent benefits systems?

There are reasons this kind of scheme was used by so many

I'd say not.

If benefits were enough, no furlough would be needed.

Any business support could've been provided by the way of reduced rates, rents, utility bills, etc.

But then even cheaper would've been to have shut the borders at the start and given the travel industry a financial support package.

The benefits system could not have coped with the millions of people who have been furloughed going onto it

That’s why countries pushed the bulk of the admin to companies

If benefits were enough, no furlough would be needed

I disagree. As I've said, furlough was a means to keep people in their current employment precisely to avoid them having to enter the benefit system all in one go. That would have been the better approach whether or not current benefits were adequate imo.

This is unprecedented, it's not usual for millions to lose their job in one swoop. It would not have been better for that to have happened and as I've said, the likelihood is people would be on benefits for longer than they'd be on furlough given how many people would be job hunting at the same time.

Regardless of the current benefit system, it still would have been better for people to remain employed.

@lyralalala

The benefits system could not have coped with the millions of people who have been furloughed going onto it

That’s why countries pushed the bulk of the admin to companies

Ok (if it's somehow too difficult to employ extra staff to process claims) why, having acknowledged that benefits are not enough to live on, did they not (as well as furlough) increase benefits to a liveable amount?

Or they could've opted for universal basic income.

They'd better buck up their ideas and sort out the benefits system quick. It's likely going to see many people needing to claim at the same time regardless of furlough.

Long Covid is estimated to affect at least 10% of patients.

That's a sizeable proportion of the working age population needing to claim sickness benefits.

We'd better get the benefits system working and quick.

if it's somehow too difficult to employ extra staff to process claims

You do realise there would have needed to be hundreds of thousands of people employed to process millions of claims?

They’d need to be interviewed, hired and trained (which would have pulled trained and experienced staff away from claims process easing). Even if you magically do interview-hire-train quickly you’d still be talking at least 4 weeks...

Workspaces would have to be found to accommodate all of those staff. Even if they worked from home once trained they still need to be trained onsite with other staff. That’s going to take weeks

The system capacity struggled to cope with the number of claims being entered into it and caused problems and glitches. Add millions more the problems would have been worse.

[quote SlightlyJaded]@Chuggington2. Thank you.

It's terrifying. And I know lots of people are struggling on 80%, but there are also people, like my DH and I , who have gone from 'doing ok/getting by' to zero overnight. And it's now been eight months since our household earned or were given a single penny of income/support/anything. We are still having to find £2k a month in mortgage and council tax alone and that's before gas/water/electricity/petrol/food/DC anything else and when you are earning nothing and eligible for zero, it's quite hard to sleep at night. So 80% of anything sounds like a dream from where I"m standing.

I don't resent anyone getting anything, but there are swathes of people who have fallen through the cracks and it's really hard to not feel bitter.[/quote]
 I hope things improve for you @SlightlyJaded

@lyralalala

if it's somehow too difficult to employ extra staff to process claims

You do realise there would have needed to be hundreds of thousands of people employed to process millions of claims?

They’d need to be interviewed, hired and trained (which would have pulled trained and experienced staff away from claims process easing). Even if you magically do interview-hire-train quickly you’d still be talking at least 4 weeks...

Workspaces would have to be found to accommodate all of those staff. Even if they worked from home once trained they still need to be trained onsite with other staff. That’s going to take weeks

The system capacity struggled to cope with the number of claims being entered into it and caused problems and glitches. Add millions more the problems would have been worse.

So what do you suggest? Doing nothing, temporary furlough - whilst leaving many others struggling (and possibly some of the furloughed joining them in the future)?

Or, start doing something about the problem. As you say it takes time. So the sooner we start on it the better. Reinstating the safety net.

In the meantime, why not increase current benefits to a liveable amount?

Or universal basic income.

hundreds of thousands of people employed to process millions of claims
So hundreds of thousands less unemployed out of those millions.

You'd still be talking at least 4 weeks...
It's been over 6 months since furlough started.

The system capacity struggled to cope
Resolving this needs to be an urgent priority. For the sake of current claimants and future ones - including Long Covid sufferers. Also, furlough won't last forever. Likely we will sadly see quite a lot of redundancies.

We need to get the benefits system back to being fit for purpose.

Are you Dominic Cummings OP?
Trying out a few policy ideas?

You are conflating two separate issues.

Benefit levels and the current furlough system.

The furlough system was needed, as shown by it being used in so many countries, as a temporary measure to deal with the pandemic.

The systematic attack on benefit claimants over the past years is a separate issue that needs to be dealt with a different way. One of the few good things about this pandemic is that millions more people who were under the impression the welfare system was still there and adequate realise it’s not. Which will help when it comes to stopping the decimation of it.

I hope you're right lyralalala
Unfortunately I suspect many won't see it that way. They see it as the 'two separate issues' you describe it as - because they think of the furloughed as 'deserving' claimants vs 'undeserving' pre Covid claimants.

It's not two separate issues. It's very interconnected.

We're likely going to see an increase in demand over the next year. Furlough can't last forever, and there's also the Long Covid sickness claims.

We urgently need to reinstate the benefits safety net. Or universal basic income.

To add to everything lyra has said, I think people are missing the point when it comes to the generosity, or in sheeps case, the welfare system.

You're mad if you think it was about the quality of life of anyone on furlough. It was about the economy, people on £70 a week only buy absolute essentials, and we needed people to be spending where they could unless we wanted a Wall Street style crash. Secondly, I think even Boris had the sense to know that insisting large swathes of the population should be reduced to poverty overnight was going to result in unrest at the least, if not outright rebellion.

Same applies to benefits sheep. A smaller group on them doesn't harm the economy, or lead to population level unrest. Forcing whole industries en masse does have that result. It has fuck all to do with anyone being more deserving.