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..... ?

The solution when a significant portion of the population struggles isn't to make even more people struggle.

Without furlough we would have a lot more people on benefits, defaulting on mortgages,losing their homes etc.

[quote Scottishskifun]@1stV45 because its a furlough not a means tested benefit. Given the amount of time it takes for universal credit to be actioned it would not only be a logistical nightmare to means test everyone receiving furlough but would probably also take 6 months minimum.

I also don't believe in punishing people who have saved or who's partners have a better income. Furlough is to protect jobs and help people still have a income it's not meant as a benefit payment.[/quote]
It's not punishing people (or if it is everyone who's ever claimed benefits is punished) it's keeping the cost to the state down by only paying people in need. It would have been very easy to have a household savings and income criteria in order to claim.

If furlough is more generous aren’t we looking at larger tax hikes to pay for it?

If even a large chunk of people furloughed were put onto benefits then we'd have to hike benefits to cover mortgages better. We simply can't afford hundreds of thousands of people to default on their mortgage and become homeless.

If it was cheaper just to stick people on benefits then that's what would have happened. The government won't have picked an excessively expensive option if there was a lower cost alternative.

@Marcelduchamp

I think the support form the gov has been very uneven. So it should probably be on a sliding scale 100% for low income people and less for higher income people perhaps. But realistically how would this be administered in the time?

Som people will be better off on 80% with saving commuting and lunch coats etc and others not. So how would you assess this and pay out accordingly?

That's all well and good but higher income people living within their means may have a £1500 mortgage vs £500 rent for someone on lower income. The higher income may have a larger house so larger bills. All perfectly within their 100% salary means, the same as the bills of the lower income person might be within their own 100% means. I agree there should be a cap because people on higher incomes should have had the ability to put money away for a rainy day, unlike a lower income person who is living within their means but 5% spare equating to £10 a month saving vs £100 month savings for the higher income person.

But people cannot continue to live on less than 80%. My sibling works in the hospitality industry and the venue has closed down again. 3 kids, 2 cars (rural), 1 mortgage and a part time working partner but still 100% of bills EXCEPT commuting of course. But that doesn't make up for the 20% pay cut.

It would be good to see the government offering opportunities to diversify. There is still the need for people to work, it's just that the needs are different... so to qualify for furlough people should be willing to do other jobs like grocery deliveries, eg. Not just have 80% pay for a year whilst doing no work.

It's not punishing people (or if it is everyone who's ever claimed benefits is punished) it's keeping the cost to the state down by only paying people in need. It would have been very easy to have a household savings and income criteria in order to claim.

That would have involved the costs of means testing - a system would be needed, staffing would be needed and it would have taken time to check income and savings. It is often far more expensive to means test than to pay out a basic rate

I understand but when they took the commitments of larger bills on (car/mortgage/council tax) they did it based on their earnings, nobody could have predicted what was going to happen.
I have been working all through lockdown for £9.30 an hour, using public transport and i am happy to do so as i couldn’t afford to live off 80% wage. I support adults with learning disabilities within their own homes so no way I can WFH

I'm on furlough for the second time. Problem is once I returned to work I had my hours slashed due to lack of customers. So my pre covid wage has been cut to 60%. I will now be receiving 45% of my pre covid wage, and my job is not safe o return. You, dont get it at all, I want to work.
My siblings luckily for them are able to work from home and are quid due to expenses paid, tax rebates and no commuting costs (this is included I their salaries). The furloughed are NOT the lucky ones.

It’s capped at £2500 and it’s based on gross pay so the employee will still pay tax and NI on the furlough.

YABU. Get a clue.

You are right for some people but for others, your proposal would cause them desperate suffering. Its unfortunately case by case and they have to try and set it to catch the lowest common denominator.

I consider myself very lucky to have a secure job. I do lots of overtime. I couldn’t survive on 80% of my contracted hours.

@SheepandCow I agree that's unfair, but I don't think cutting the incomes of low income workers further is the way to level it. I personally suspect that one of the reasons there isn't widespread condemnation for disability and unemployment cuts is precisely because even pre covid, low income workers were struggling to make ends meet. (High private rents, cuts to working age benefits, unsecure low paid employment etc)

@1stV45 I agree people like me didn't need it. But then again lots of people don't need a state pension, but I don't see any call to cut that. And tbh, I've probably done more good with the £2.5k than the government would have done.

If someone is staying at home the only normal expense they’re not paying is transport. So they’re saving maybe £50 a week on travel but they’re probably spending that much extra by having the heating on at home. Minimum wage is barely enough to live on, so any reduction due to furlough is a huge problem. Imo people who earn min wage should get 100% of salary on furlough and there should be a sliding scale so higher earners receive a lesser proportion of their salary.

@AlwaysLatte

It would be good to see the government offering opportunities to diversify. There is still the need for people to work, it's just that the needs are different... so to qualify for furlough people should be willing to do other jobs like grocery deliveries, eg. Not just have 80% pay for a year whilst doing no work.

How many people were furloughed and how many jobs were available?

Not to mention that the jobs that were still going, a lot needed a certain amount of training. Do you think just any Joe Bloggs can drive a van/lorry, work in a care home,be a teacher,work in the NHS etc?

Do people even try to think logically before posting or are too busy frothing because someone is getting something for nothing?

@lyralalala

It's not punishing people (or if it is everyone who's ever claimed benefits is punished) it's keeping the cost to the state down by only paying people in need. It would have been very easy to have a household savings and income criteria in order to claim.

That would have involved the costs of means testing - a system would be needed, staffing would be needed and it would have taken time to check income and savings. It is often far more expensive to means test than to pay out a basic rate

Then they could've done universal basic income. So everyone who needed support gets it.

But of course people who needed support before the pandemic are 'the undeserving poor' and no one cares if they struggle to pay their rent or mortgage. Apparently.

They need help not because of 'a once in a lifetime pandemic' - but because of equally not their fault everyday redundancy or illness.

It would be better to add £175 a week to UC and remove the savings rule
so allowing companies to lay off staff
without putting them in poverty
and then let the economy restructure

Oh do get lostOP. Put yourself in their shoes. Unable to work due to government incompetence so you can only get part of you wages. Fuck all in comparison to the back handers Bojo and clown party have given all their mates.

I am really lucky that we have come thought his OK so far and I really worry about the kids going hungry tonight or parents worrying about Xmas, how to clothe their kids. We don't know the half of it.. I don't recall this much hand wringing for bailing out the banks.

People will starve this winter, in the UK. Hang your head in shame.

@ComeOnBabyHauntMyBubble

The solution when a significant portion of the population struggles isn't to make even more people struggle.

Without furlough we would have a lot more people on benefits, defaulting on mortgages,losing their homes etc.

Or alternatively, instead of only helping one portion, we could help both.

Universal basic income.

Most people who work in this town - which relies on tourism and hospitality when we're allowed to work - are on NMW and walk to work or have a weekly local bus pass costing around £11.

You haven't a fucking clue how a lot of people live. They struggle on their full wage but you want it taken off them?

Fuck you, Ms High and Mighty

@SheepandCow The Tories were never going to give a universal income

I'm not really sure why you are being so snippy to me, as someone with a severly disabled child I don't disagree with you on the levels of benefits.

I just don't think plunging hundreds of thousands more people into the same problem is remotely a solution.

Unless they put more controls in place, the self employed scheme is open to a lot of unnecessary claims. Lots of self employed people have managed to get their businesses back up and running but can still claim 80% of the previous years figures as well as their usual business revenue. Surely there should be some basic checks to determine whether the business involved is still financially damaged by Covid.

• Or alternatively, instead of only helping one portion, we could help both.

Universal basic income.*

Oh definitely, I completely agree.

I was just replying to the posters whose stance seems to be "people on benefits are suffering,let's make people on furlough suffer too!"

Forgetting that realistically, we'll just end up with even more people relying on benefits,losing their homes etc.

Do people think it's ok that all those made redundant or who got ill before Covid are left struggling on what's for some just £74 a week (plus some but often not all the rent paid if they're renters)?

Is it ok that they can't pay their mortgage or rent?

Should we not have ensured that no one was left struggling during this pandemic?

Do people - those speaking of struggles to survive financially during Covid related reduced income - support us having a better benefits system, so that everyone who needs support gets it?

I do hope that, this is all over - the concern for those struggling (through no fault of their own) will continue.

[quote EL8888]@MorganKitten was it really productive or things you deem to be productive?[/quote]
I think working at homeless shelters and food banks is very productive.

*when this is all over