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?

Of course they were right to furlough, imagine what would have happened if they didn't?

No one would have stayed in lockdown, businesses would have stayed working and thousands and thousands more people would have died.

They could not have imposed lockdown without it.

However I think maybe they could have looked at a universal basic income instead as I know so many people who are ineligible to claim UC (myself included) even if that was temporary. I don't know though I'm not an economist or politician.

Another one here who agrees it was necessary, but drawn too widely (thus inviting abuse) and for too long

I'm also surprised nobody's mentioned the many employed directly by Local Authorities who've been furloughed - I thought on the whole that wasn't supposed to happen since it amounts to double dipping?

Puzzled
I'm also surprised nobody's mentioned the many employed directly by Local Authorities who've been furloughed

Everything I've read from the LGA and NALC is that only those staff in entirely non precept funded roles can be furloughed
and that councils WILL have to pay the money back if they have abused the scheme.

Same as councils are not allowed to claim the business rates grant.

I think they probably would have been better off extending and improving UC. Not everyone who received money from furloughing schemes really needed it and those that did need it could have been supported by a better funded UC

UBI would have be best

Not everyone who received money from furloughing schemes really needed it and those that did need it could have been supported by a better funded UC
But anything means tested would have been overly complicated
The beauty of what Sunak did is that the administration was minimal
and the employers will owe up to 33% of it back shortly ....

UBI would have be best
To make a UBI high enough to cover city housing costs would have cost many many times what Sunak paid out

it’s been absolutely wrung for everything it’s worth by some companies
they will have expected that, people will try to game the system to get an advantage, people in politics know that, it's the water they swim in

Everything I've read from the LGA and NALC is that only those staff in entirely non precept funded roles can be furloughed

So I understand, but that's certainly not the way it's being used round here; according to several in a position to know it's being used as an outright ruse to grab more funding

Whether they'll have to pay it back remains to be seen, but given the glacial pace at which such things work I'm frankly not confident

been better off extending and improving UC
maybe but then people with good jobs would have to exist on the poverty line (like the poor people) and it would have been harder to make them comply with anti-transmission measures
they had to keep people sweet

Whether they'll have to pay it back remains to be seen, but given the glacial pace at which such things work I'm frankly not confident
If the NAO include checking for Furlough money in their 2020/21 guidance to external auditors
then it will be done and dusted PDQ
grant checking is a standard part of the external audit after all
a swift threat of PIR and newspaper headlines will do the trick

• a bit like clamping down on abuse of the ERS NI allowance last year

Not everyone who received money from furloughing schemes really needed it
was money given according to need, or according to the need to keep people sweet/make them compliant?

Not everyone who received money from furloughing schemes really needed it
Then they will pay significant tax on it
and Sunak gets his money back.

The furlough money went to the employer - WHO PAYS TAX
The SEIS money went to the proprietor - WHO PAYS TAX
The Loan money comes with dividend and bonus strings

Imagine what would have happened had furlough not happened and all those redundancies happened at the start of lockdown - how that would have impacted on people mentallyknowing there isn't a chance in hell of you being able to even apply for another job for the next x many months because everything has closed down. At least with furlough it gave people a light at the end of the tunnel even if some it was only short lived. I honestly don't think people would have complied with lockdown if mass redundancies had happened at the start - there would have been too much anger.

Our accountant advised that the my are probably going to pick up the bill for the redundancies aswell.
You can't just stop the furlough scheme end of October.
Where will all the firms find the money for all the redundancy payments?

Has it been worth it? Yes. No one would have stayed home if they hadn't of been paid.

Of course It was right to furlough. Ok not every business or job has been saved but it will have saved more businesses and jobs than its lost. I wouldn't like to think where we would have been without any of it.
I think the money to people and businesses thats been made available is actually 1 of the good things the government has achieved throughout all this. I know there has been a few circumstances In which people have fallen through the net but on the whole i feel money in peoples pockets has been protected as best they could.

I know of three people who have recently been made redundant and none of them were furloughed during lockdown, all worked full time throughout and all have been completely shocked by the redundancy. Very sad.

Oblomov
Our accountant advised that the my are probably going to pick up the bill for the redundancies as well.
Redundancy is a preferential creditor.
The only way a company can bunk out of it is by going into liquidation.
And stat min is a legal entitlement so directors who lay off staff will just have to pay themselves less.
I am so glad that Cummings' goons appear to have been sidelined at the TReasury

I think it was the right decision
A. To ensure people/ businesses would comply with lockdown. Arguably this worked too well as businesses that could have stayed open, closed
B. To keep all the other plates spinning e.g people could pay their rent/ mortgage/ food bills/ other bills etc.
Mass non payment of all these things would have been a disaster

So on balance good but some companies are 100% taking the piss e.g steve coogan furloughing his gardener plus my 16 yr old daughters friends were furloughed from their saturday waitressing jobs. That is definately not necessary at all. They live with their parents!!

@sasha why shouldn't Steve coogan furlough his gardener?

Because he should pay his gardener himself! He is a multi millionaire. How much would it have cost him? Very little.
Not sure how anyone could support the tax payer paying for rich people's gardeners. That's me and you.
I recall he furloughed his cleaner too. I do my own cleaning and gardening.
Come on, the brass neck of him!

If Coogan furloughed his staff
and did his own gardening and cleaning
while he debated whether the live entertainment industry would ever come back
he is well within his rights

if he did it while still taking zoom work
he's a greedy git

It’s one of the few things they have done that’s right IMO...

Businesses needed to be protected, which they wouldn’t have been in loads of ways if everyone was made redundant and claiming benefits instead.

Considering the entertainment industry is currently on its arse I think he made a wise choice!

What else could they have done? People had to eat, and sending every company out of business wouldn't be very sensible would it.

@ListeningQuietly

If Coogan furloughed his staff and did his own gardening and cleaning while he debated whether the live entertainment industry would ever come back he is well within his rights

if he did it while still taking zoom work
he's a greedy git

Maybe legally he is in the right ( although i would imagine when rishi drew up the scheme he never for one moment imagined multi millionaire celebrities would use it to furlough their own domestic staff) But morally, nope And he is a lefty!!