What did Rishi mean when he said they can't protect all households?

[TopBitchoftheWitches]

Doesn't sound good imo.

So long as its the wealthy that bare the brunt of these taxes, then fine, the rich have done extremely well since 2008.

Well it's too hard to target the 0.1% as that requires global strategies.

Furloughing has been overused and I agree with a PP that businesses have used this as a cash flow situation.
Where I work, the vast majority of staff are essential workers but some head office roles such as admin, PAs, sales have been furloughed for cash flow benefit.

I don't think this is what furlough was set up for, it should have been restricted to those industries where they had to shut overnight eg retail, hospitality, travel.

Both jobs that are perfectly possible to do at home (in fact the solicitor works from home all of the time)

If you're any kind of solicitor related to property or business transactions there won't be any work to do. Even a criminal solicitor is going to be short of work with crime rates vastly reduced.

If you are a solicitor for property for eg, or an estate agent you’re not essential or in the initial closed businesses. You might gave found big drop in demand.

Usually there’d be redundancies but in this case furlough so it is working to keep people in the employment cycle - which was Sinai’s point. Keep them tied to the business.

What happens next is the hard one as I don’t think we can lockdown again.

Have and Sunak - typing quickly

I think definitely some business could have stayed open and helped their staff social distance.

Yes, but that has been made very difficult here in London when TFL reduced their services and made it impossible for people to go to work safely.

I don't think this is what furlough was set up for, it should have been restricted to those industries where they had to shut overnight eg retail, hospitality, travel.

Businesses with drop in demand would have made redundancies instead.

Yes of course this will impact many after the 12 weeks 80% and also the mortgage holiday ends, when those both change at once i think many will find things very difficult and some I know don't seem to be thinking of that at the moment.

We are fortunate in a way as mortgage is paid off anyway in a few months so that will coincide with this (have not taken a mortgage break either) so for us it will fit in well with this time but I do worry for others in that position.

I am amazed people didn't see this coming from the start, you only had to look at Italy in late Feb to see the impact unfolding, it was obvious there would be a huge financial crash, no Government could stop it, or even financially help everyone .......

Vast amounts of people will be unemployed, many will lose their homes and many more will struggle with debt, any who survive will be faced with bigger tax bills for decades.

This is why l am so shocked by some people who are posting on SM about enjoying the weather and being at home, if l was not working , l would me madly trying to find any other source of income, not sitting around....we have become to complacent in this country, always expecting things to be good, or someone to bail us out, few people l know seriously save even when they can.
Even fewer have contingency funds for emergencies as holidays and new cars take precedence..( l am not talking about those on lower incomes who don't have the option of saving)

Other than Bill Gates and a couple of scientists who predicted a likely Pandemic, no one knew this was coming, but those who prudently overpaid mortgages, minimised their costs of living, are multiskilled will fare best in the coming years.

Well it's too hard to target the 0.1% as that requires global strategies

Not really, the argument that "they will flee" is nonsense, where too? every country will be looking to claw back the expense of this pandemic.

A 45% tax rate for those earning millions is hardly orrenous, especially as they can end up paying far less.

I wonder how many FTSE100 directors pay that 45% in full?

After the war and until the 1970s we had certain tax rates on unearned income in the 90% bracket, atm it is between 10 and 28%.

Because so many shut down and then claimed the bill is billions more than expected. There is no magic money tree or endless pot of money, it’s taxes that are being spent to pay for it. They are borrowing heavily to fund it.

Theresa May is that you?

Business shut down in many cases because the country went into lockdown and government told them to shut down. Many jobs cannot be done from home and even if they can - WFH only works if the infrastructure is in place and there is actual work to do.

We are not even out of lockdown (or showing real signs of CV coming under control) and already blame is being piled onto businesses and ignoring the shambolic government response which lost us precious weeks' head start we had to respond in a more structured manner.

Nor do we have the capacity in the NHS to cope with repeated surges. There is already a huge backlog of "non essential" treatment for conditions which stop people being economically active.

The group who will be most hard hit by this are, as ever, the lower paid. They are also most likely to be in those key roles we are all applauding. The people whose incomes have been rendered insecure and ever lower by the aggressive promotion of the gig economy and deregulating of the workplace. After ten years of the poor getting poorer and less secure, its time more of the burden was borne by the middle and upper incomes

Octopus did you have to apply or was it automatic?
It does sound crazy not to have some criteria where you show you need it and usually earn more.

There are so many businesses that could work (we are in construction) but can’t because our suppliers closed down when they didn’t need too, but manufacturing closed down when they didn’t have too...

It’s pretty clear to me that my generation and younger have got used to a life without any hardship whatsoever. post war we have had a very good run as a society. I’m hoping this isn’t a paradigm shift but it might be and I am bracing myself for it. I’m a natural pessimist and have always wondered when it was going to fall apart.

@jasjas1974 I meant the worlds 0.1%. how do you target the likes of Philip Green who's fortune is in his wife's name & she's a resident of Monaco?

There are so many businesses that could work (we are in construction) but can’t because our suppliers closed down when they didn’t need too, but manufacturing closed down when they didn’t have too...

Supply chains have been a problem across all sectors - they can't function with a high percentage of staff in isolation or sick. Even in essential areas practising social distancing is very difficult and it only takes one cog in a supply chain to stop the chain. Its interesting that the complexity of supply chains is rarely considered properly in business continuity plans - maybe that will change.

From the three people I know (including me) who are self employed or run our own business, none of us will qualify for a penny, for various reasons.

There have been various threads on here vilifying self employed people, particularly those with one or two person limited companies, so Rishi and HMRC have got the politics right - there's no sympathy for us and no-one gives a shit because they think we're all wealthy tax-dodgers. I didn't vote Tory and never have so I can't take my vote away from them next time.

Employed people who have just changed jobs are missing out on any assistance too.

So what he means is "we've had a think about who we can help and carefully targeted it at the people who we think might vote for us"

From the three people I know (including me) who are self employed or run our own business, none of us will qualify for a penny, for various reason That's sad, if wholly true. I only know one SE person who won't get anything and that is because she only set up in January.. She is claiming UC etc and keeping her fingers crossed.

Sorry my point about solicitors etc was typed when the conversation was at an earlier stage when people were discussing businesses overusing furlough. I appreciate that the alternative may have been redundancy but in a ‘normal’ recession I am sure both employers would have accepted the downturn and kept them on at least initially. I’m a solicitor myself and I remember in 2008 our firm being very creative to avoid redundancies eg sabbaticals on 50% pay, 4 day weeks etc. And this was in a time where it was very unclear when, if ever, the economy would bounce back. This time around companies have jumped straight to the furlough option because it was cheaper for them.

I don’t think it’s who’d vote - SE who miss out either set up after required date or earn over threshold. Typical Cons voters might be in latter group.

It’s pretty clear to me that my generation and younger have got used to a life without any hardship whatsoever.

Really?

SE business that run from home and not a separate business address

don't be daft. If your self employment is run legally and meets the requirements for assistance the address you work from is inconsequential.

Bet there are 1000s now though who wish they hadn't been as generous with their deductables to keep their income down and reduce VAT

So what he means is "we've had a think about who we can help and carefully targeted it at the people who we think might vote for us"

I had barely heard of Rushi before this started and only know now what I've seen in the press conferences but I very much doubt that anyone could have designed a system in next to no time that would target one set of voters rather than another, that kind of remark doesn't bear any kind of scrutiny.

Does everyone who was between jobs on 1 March vote the same way? Every self employed person who has fallen between the cracks? Every small business person who works from home. It's a stupid mindset.

Deanatta that is good, the sector I’m in is fairly superfluous and contracts easily in recessions. I’ve seen lots of redundancies in those times but there haven’t been creative solutions. It’s very competitive though and supply outstrips demand, they know they can easily pick up staff again. They’d keep the big names although not always even,

I don’t think it’s who’d vote - SE who miss out either set up after required date or earn over threshold. Typical Cons voters might be in latter group.

I agree