Was furloughing worth the National debt

[HMSSophie]

Government funding of furloughed employees has resulted in huge national debt. But massive redundancies are pending. Was it worth it? We seem to have arrived at the worst of all worlds: national debt plus massive unemployment.

I know three or four months of additional income will on an individual level would be very meaningful (my DD is furloughed) but job losses are coming none the less (my DD for one, again). Was it the right thing to do or has the Government made a balls up?

Nobody knows, honestly I'm glad they took action and did something to benefit the people. I'd be more concerned with their inaction around PPE etc than where they have actually tried to help

I think it was the right thing to do.

Some redundancies are coming but lots of jobs have and will be saved through the furlough scheme.

The govt. Is damned if they do and damned if they don't.

We'll find out in August when we can see how many/few people are made redundant.

Try to imagine if 10 million people had been laid off. All the people who couldn't pay mortgages, feed children, pay rent etc for months on end. And the thousands of companies that would have gone under.

If the furlough scheme has saved half of them, it will have been worth it.

I think it was the right thing but maybe the scheme is too generous.

And what would you have put in the place of furlough, don't say benefits like UC, many people like myself would not get it, the amount of extra people on UC at the moment is crippling the system and making it easier to scammers to operate imagine what it would b like if 1000s of extra people had to claim all at once imagine the howls of outrage if nothing was done to help people not entitled to other state help, there is already people complaining, they are on the wrong benefits for the extra £20 a week or don't qualify for SE payments, it seems that furloughed people are the new benefit scroungers, I am not furloughed any more, my DH is and its not his fault that he is

I think the furlough scheme was necessary but they should have been stricter with ensuring companies actually needed it, rather than just taking their word for it.

My husband was furloughed for 3 weeks. There is no way he would have been made redundant by his company, they were just trying to take advantage. Furlough should have been only for employees who would have been made redundant otherwise.

No because it's working age tax payers which were largely furloughed largely to protect non working age at risk groups eg over 65s

Without the furlough scheme I would have lost my job 3 months ago I expect but the company is still ticking over and can hopefully reboot soon Even then I am likely to lose a day of week of my work contract I should think as it's going to take a while to rebuild. I am glad they set it up.

Without furlough I think there would have been a social cost- people would not stay in lockdown if they couldn't feed their families.

Yes.

The government can’t bail out the banks and airlines and not the tax payer.

Very rarely is there an economic package aimed at working adults. I think people are forgetting how close the NHS came to being overwhelmed Easter weekend, without lockdown it would be chaos now, without furlough lockdown would not have worked as it seems to have, nothing was ideal, was it worth it? Time will tell, I hope most likely yes it was.

And we were never furloughed so didn't benefit directly.

The govt. Is damned if they do and damned if they don't.
This.
The pandemic has been an unknown quantity from day one and it is easy, with hindsight, to say we should/shouldn't have done something. The furlough scheme has been a lifeline for a lot of families and has given them some breathing space. The provision of PPE and should we have locked down earlier - again, with hindsight, should have been handled differently.

Yes needed but I wonder if some companies actually abused it

It wasn't hindsight. It was there at the time about locking down earlier and PPE. The scientists were saying it. Luckily there is evidence for this all over Twitter.

Yes. I'm on furlough, it might not have saved my job personally (50/50 right now, I'm still waiting to hear from work) but it has saved the business I work for and some of the employees there. It's kept DS and I off Universal Credit for the moment. Happy to pay more tax when I get back to work to pay for it.

Saying that - some companies have taken the absolute piss though and furloughed staff just to save costs which should not be allowed. I think that businesses should have to prove a loss of income after this whole thing is over and those who furloughed staff needlessly should be made to pay back the money.

NO

The very vulnerable need to stay home (if they want to).

Tell the ones that are scare to also stay home but they are probably doing that anyway and twitching the curtains and screaming murder at anyone who dares walk outside. Some of them are loving the mass hysteria.

The rest of us can work/play and get on with living.

I guess it's a wait and see situation....I don't pretend to understand economics but I think if it's saved enough jobs, it will probably have been a financailly viable scheme (less people claiming benefits, more money circulating round businesses). I guess it's just how many jobs it has saved that matters.

Well, what else are they supposed to do? Claim benefits? Starve?

People moaning about furlough dont seem to have a good alternative.

Ye needed it as most companies like restaurants and shops keep their staff but couldn't pay for 3 months.

I mean shoot me down but I feel as though it’s been absolutely wrung for everything it’s worth by some companies. Furloughing staff even though there is plenty of work, leaving the ones left resentful and exhausted.

I think some workplaces have used it so they don’t have to pay long notices to staff for redundancy, the government will be paying them so it’s an absolute bargain!

^ and that’s exactly why redundancies are happening now and not in October