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

[TopBitchoftheWitches]

Doesn't sound good imo.

@Bluntness100 I have to agree with you to some extent but DH had no choice as we are in Scotland and Nicola sturgeon forced the closure of all building sites. DH is a structural engineer for agricultural buildings and they worked up until the very last that they could (the Wednesday of the week lockdown was announced) but had to close as many of the suppliers for concrete and other supplies had closed as well. He has been furloughed but I know the company is looking at ways of getting back to work soon as they have loads of contracts that need fulfilled for sheds for lambing/milking etc and as others have said the company won’t survive if closed for too long they said that themselves so I’m hoping he goes back soon, he can socially distance very well as he works alone

So long as its the wealthy that bare[sic] the brunt of these taxes, then fine, the rich have done extremely well since 2008.
Not a chance - this is a Tory government and the nation keeps rejecting even mildly Socialist policies.

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?

You are not going to catch everyone but that doesn't mean that you stick the burden on the low and middle income earners either.

I ve a nr neighbour, who 3 years ago bought 18 houses in and around West Devon, owns 9 houses in Cornwall, property in Yorkshire and London.
He doesn't even make it onto any UK rich list and once told me he made more in bonuses in ONE year then i would earn in a life time and i am not poor.
His main residence is in the highest CT band, yet despite being a multi million pound property, his CT is about 1k more than my modest band D house.

There is plenty of money in the UK to pay for this crisis

This is why I also cannot fathom why some are frothing at the mouth at the thought of us all sitting at home until August/September! The longer this goes on the more damage being caused which will be far worse than the virus itself.

I think he means that people need to take responsibility for their health. The government cannot be held responsible for every single household in Britain.

@jasjas1973 I'm not disagreeing with you & saying your thinking is wrong, I'm just not sure there is the will for it.

There's been a lot of people who don't qualify for the assistance schemes and I think he's saying that he's not going to announce any more schemes to help those groups.

I think he's also managing expectations if we are still on lockdown when the initial furlough period ends. Probably not 80% next time

He means that Boris's letter stating that 'The Government will do whatever it takes to help you make ends meet and put food on the table' was a load of old rubbish. I'd love to say I'm shocked.

Each week more and more sectors gave said we’ll fold unless you give us cash. At some point he had to say that’s it.

I actually think he’s a good economist first over a bending to will politician. So he comes across as direct when it’s honesty.

I think that RS has been pretty responsible - has tried to support as many people as possible without the scheme being open to fraud. You can't give away money to those who operate limited companies easily because it is hard to tell, via the tax system, who is an owner/operator and who is an investor - obviously you want to support those who are running companies but you might not want to give public money to prop up people's share portfolios, so guaranteeing a dividend stream is hard without auditing the individual arrangements of a lot of companies, which is very difficult and cumbersome. And it isn't unfair to point out the lower tax burden on those people who operate through a limited company both historically and likely into the future (contrast the self employed people who don't incorporate who RS has already warned that the price of supporting them now is more tax later).

But RS has been surprised by the uptake - under government guidance people who are not key workers should largely be going to work if they can't wfh but this has been ignored. The number of threads on MN with people basically wanting to sit at home and/or mad keyboard warriors telling people that their bosses were wrong to ask them to come in was amazing, but what do you expect when the BBC reported that you could only leave the house for essential work on the news immediately after Bojo's announcement of something completely different!!

In three/four weeks' time, I fully expect that we will be told that, work from home if you can, but everyone should be going to work. And we will see some businesses being told they can open in a measured way again. Because we can't afford otherwise. Like on the schools thread, you will see people say "how is it fair that the government are forcing us to go to work/school when we could catch this killer virus", completely missing the point that no country is deploying a strategy that entirely prevents their population from getting the virus before a vaccine is available. That would be nuts. Everyone, everyone, is trying to balance their healthcare capacity so that those who get it can be treated properly and resources are not rationed so that people die who should have lived - entirely different. Look at Denmark - schools back open again.

He isn't going to step in to cover people who have set themselves up as a company who pay themselves a "salary" of the personal tax allowance and then large amount of money as dividends.

My grandparents’ generation went hungry, walked miles to school (if they weren’t forced to leave at 11 because their parents needed them to work) and lost siblings in infancy and older relatives early. Outdoor toilets and a bath once a week in front of the fire. No washing machine.

So yes, I stand by my statement. It’s nowhere near what it was for the vast majority of us. There will always be outliers, of course, but overall, we are not used to hardship. Especially illness and death.

'The Government will do whatever it takes to help you make ends meet and put food on the table'

They have never said they will do the putting!

Anyone who cannot bring themselves to see past party politics at this time is blowing smoke up their own fundament!

I believe he meant that he cannot provide individual financial assistance for all.
There is the furlough scheme 80% up to £2500 for employees
The self employed scheme which pays x% based on profits
Help for some businesses - grants
Mortgage deferrals
Universal Credit for people with no or low income and not a lot of savings
Tax credits still continue for lots of households and if income drops then tax credit payments rise

So lots covered but not all

"He isn't going to step in to cover people who have set themselves up as a company who pay themselves a "salary" of the personal tax allowance and then large amount of money as dividends."

Fair enough. You would imagine/expect these individuals to put aside some savings. You cannot expect the government to cover for all eventualities.

@fascinated your post said any hardship whatsoever. I agree that previous generations had much less in the way of material comforts but I disagree that hardship comprises just the factors you mention.

Plus plenty young people go hungry today

But RS has been surprised by the uptake - under government guidance people who are not key workers should largely be going to work if they can't wfh but this has been ignored. The number of threads on MN with people basically wanting to sit at home and/or mad keyboard warriors telling people that their bosses were wrong to ask them to come in was amazing, but what do you expect when the BBC reported that you could only leave the house for essential work on the news immediately after Bojo's announcement of something completely different!!

Exactly this - there has been a lot of public shaming of people who could safely carry on working as not deemed as essential when this wasn't the governments message. For example a local windowcleaner who can still work safely and at a distance has been roundly jumped on as he is not an "essential" worker. He has calmly pointed out the actual guidelines and that in his case he is not taking money from the tax payers purse when he could, and like all of us will be paying out more in tax the long run. I think that maybe the government should have been clearer with the message that if you can safely carry on work you absolutely should.

we are not used to hardship. Especially illness and death
I agree with this. On the whole the thought of losing your house or income, never mind the death of a relative to an untreatable/unpreventable disease sweeping through the population is so totally unheard of that the thought of it is hard to accept.
Previous generations have had to deal with this, at 39 I am of a generation that really hasn't.
My parents lost a business and we moved to a rented house in the 90s, but as a child I didn't really notice. We had food and clothes and a roof over our heads. My parents got work and eventually re built. But they had to rebuild from scratch as did many others.
Doesn't make it right or easy, but we have on the whole had it easy for a long time.

I'm the child of immigrants & all my grandparents were dead before I was born so perhaps that's why I think differently.

@userxx The business rates support grants ARE taxable, as are the 80% furlough and sole trader support. None have been granted any tax exemptions.

People are just waking up to how crappy all this is for the economy, society and daily life in the medium to long term. Overall it might be better to lift lockdown and take our chances frankly.

Exactly this - there has been a lot of public shaming of people who could safely carry on working as not deemed as essential when this wasn't the governments message.

The confusion is because of the term "essential worker" for children continuing to go to school. That term has been jumped on and wrongly used in many ways.

Essential workers kids can go to school to allow the essential worker to work.

Other workers should work from home if they can or go to a workplace if they can do so safely.

I think the first big announcement towards a weakening of the lockdown will be a very strong message that work places need to open and workers should work unless the workplace is prohibited from opening (i.e. pubs, cafes, large gatherings etc), or unless the worker is one from a household that's shielding one of the most vulnerable.

We need to get those who can work safely back to work (that is currently permitted under current rules) as the most urgent matter. Then we can start thinking about re-opening other workplaces (currently closed due to rules) on a staged basis.

tontie
It's not that noone has it tough now. Not at all. But I think it demonstrates naivety about the fact that life is hard and nothing is certain, to be shocked that a government can't promise to help everyone keep their homes, their businesses and their jobs. They can't promise to save peoples lives. No one has that power. Everything we have can be lost, noone is protected from that.

I think that maybe the government should have been clearer with the message that if you can safely carry on work you absolutely should.

Yes, I get the distinct impression they're regretting that one now.