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..... ?

Ffs it's needed. Inflation is causing everything to cost more and wages hardly ever increase so yeah I'd say 80% of your monthly wage is needed.

But the employee does not get the Furlough money, the employer does.

Good point. A corporation tax increase for companies who took the money then.

The thing is OP the government are the reason the companies ante having to shut in its response to the pandemic.

If it was left to dog eat dog millions would be unemployed and repossession rates and poverty would increase massively.

As someone on a modest wage and was on furlough for 6 months it's not easy at all. I am thankful to be back at work but to now pull the rug out of people not as lucky and let them fend for themselves .....

Why do you think it's to generous ?
Is it ideological for you or do you have a specific reason

I love the OPs update... Quite clearly trying to make out they meant something different to what they actually said because they realised they weren't getting the responses they wanted.

I'm not sure why so many people are trying to point fingers at who should pay back what in the form of tax etc... As I've said already on this thread we have always paid tax for things as a whole country that don't always directly affect us. We've only just finished paying for a war that I'm assuming none of us were part of? In times of great need like this, the money is used where needed and we as a country pay it back through taxes. It's hardly surprising or unprecedented.

Any one of us could have been furloughed, no one had a choice, it could have been any of us. I was fortunate enough not to have been but I'm glad the back up was there should I have needed it and for that I will just have to accept the likely tax increase to pay for it as I have done for plenty of other things that dont affect me directly (and for things that happened before I was even born!).

I think furlough was too much of a blunt instrument and missed people out. It is unfair and that's why people are complaining about it.

My friend was made redundant in February, had applied for a few jobs and got to final interview stage. Lockdown happened and all the roles she was interviewing for went on hold indefinitely. She wasn't entitled to furlough, she could only claim contributions based JSA (about £75 a week) even though it was the government imposed lockdown stopping her from working. If she had been up for redundancy about four weeks later, she could have ended up on furlough for a few months. There are lots of stories like this and it just seems very unfair.