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?

sasha
But the point that I've made again and again and again on this thread and others
is that the Furlough money is taxable
so Sunak will get a chunk of it back in a few months
and greedy gits who claim more than they need will pay up to 49% of it back in the first year snigger

If Coogan is a lefty that means he pays himself and his staff through the UK tax system.
THe fact that he is well paid is nothing to be ashamed of.

@ListeningQuietly

sasha But the point that I've made again and again and again on this thread and others is that the Furlough money is taxable so Sunak will get a chunk of it back in a few months and greedy gits who claim more than they need will pay up to 49% of it back in the first year snigger

If Coogan is a lefty that means he pays himself and his staff through the UK tax system.
THe fact that he is well paid is nothing to be ashamed of.

He shouldn't have furloughed his domestic staff. There is no excuse i can see for him doing that even if rishi gets back 100%. And why do it at all if you have to pay most back. Makes even less sense and makes me think he is even more greedy. It is absolutely morally wrong for multimillionaires to get the british tax payer to pay for their cleaner and gardener. There is no justification for that even if it is in the rules.

I'm on the fence. It could have been structured differently, too many profitable businesses will have furloughed staff that they would never make redundant.

My company's accountants advised us to take advantage and furlough any staff that had no work to do from home even though the business has been making money and could easily cover all wages. I wonder how many other businesses in the same position?

sasha
The furlough rules were

• and I've filled in the HMRC form
• staff at risk of redundancy

If Coogan's income does not come back, his staff are at risk of redundancy. The fact that you have heard of him seems to colour your perception. The Caudwells have furloughed off loads of staff because their driven shoots are closed as in thousands of birds have NOT been shot but that does not make it into the tabloids

It was always too generous for me and companies should have had to contribute something, Particularly FTSE size companies. They had to move quickly though.

A set amount of money would have made more sense dependant on circumstances with a maximum payment. Additional measures to give people the help they needed such as with mortgages and rent could then be used in addition to this.

I am hearing stories of people who still live with parents being able to save £1000 a month or more in some cases whilst on furlough. That is wrong. Nobody should have been able to save money whilst on furlough.

@ListeningQuietly

sasha The furlough rules were

• and I've filled in the HMRC form
• staff at risk of redundancy

If Coogan's income does not come back, his staff are at risk of redundancy. The fact that you have heard of him seems to colour your perception. The Caudwells have furloughed off loads of staff because their driven shoots are closed as in thousands of birds have NOT been shot but that does not make it into the tabloids

Lol! I doubt coogan will make his cleaner redundant any time soon. He'd have to do his own cleaning! Come on guys, you can't seriously defend this position. It is ludicrous.

The caudwells are wrong too as was Branson

seelow
Sunak's method WORKED
yours would been tangled in means testing for years

and yes, I know that means some are better off
ah well
they will pay it back in tax / VAT etc

sasha
then Coogan will pay tax on the furlough money
so what is the problem ?

Yes, the company I work for could only have lasted 2-3 weeks. Because of furlough we have survived. Things will take time to build up again but we’ve all still got jobs.

Without furlough me, DH and our 4 month old would probably have lost our home.

why not? The government took away people's jobs by making it illegal to work - the government has to cover the loss of income in the short term & tax payers will no doubt pick up the cost in the long term.

No furlough here (hours have doubled & income remains the same - we are eternally grateful for work) but my dd, brother, sister & sister in law all had their workplaces closed. They were willing & able to work. The government decreed they were not allowed to ... why should they lose their homes & savings?

@ListeningQuietly

sasha then Coogan will pay tax on the furlough money so what is the problem ?

Why are you so invested in defending coogan? Do you work for hmrc or are you a gardener? I bet if you asked 100 people if rich celebrities should be asking the british tax payer to pay for their cleaners or gardeners 100 people would say hell no! It is not a moral dilemma for me or an issue where i can see both sides. It is crystal clear.

sasha
I'm not defending Coogan
I'm just pointing out that he played inside the rules
so deserves no more opprobrium than thousands of rich people the Tabloids have never heard of.

I'm a tax accountant BTW

I've read today that HMRC have received 1800 reports of employers claiming furlough money illegally. Presumably their staff have reported them.

It’s not just the furloughing is it OP? The financial implications are exorbitant, when you think of the grants, self employed, gov backed bounce back loans etc. Furloughed staff may be the tip of the iceberg, of course it was the right decision to protect jobs and businesses though. I hope the Gov follow Germany & reduce VAT to help the economy & kick start business.

@ListeningQuietly

sasha I'm not defending Coogan I'm just pointing out that he played inside the rules so deserves no more opprobrium than thousands of rich people the Tabloids have never heard of.

I'm a tax accountant BTW

But you say that one of the rules is that staff must be at risk of redunancy? So quite possibly he hasn't played by the rules if that isn't really the case? So if his cleaner starts hoovering again or his gardener is back trimming the hedge (as is always likely to be the case with celebrity multi millionaires) it could be argued by hmrc that he has broken the rules? Wonder if rishi will look at that in the cases of domestic staff. Let's hope so!

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

That would have taken far too long. Furlough was put in place for a fast movment into lockdown. And I fully agree with it.
How would you decide who is worthy of financial help?

I've read today that HMRC have received 1800 reports of employers claiming furlough money illegally. Presumably their staff have reported them.
Whoopee doos with bells round
how many companies ?
how many employees ?

On the whole I agree with it but having not benefitted from it I can't comment about the ins and outs of it.
Certain industries, hospitality etc should be supported for as long as necessary.

I would also like some support for homeschooling. There has been nothing for that

It has saved us. DH was furloughed and now back at work. No talk of redundancies yet. So on a personal level it has been fantastic but Im hoping the economy will rebound to make it worhwhile overall.

it’s been absolutely wrung for everything it’s worth by some companies

Absolutely. I work for a large private sector manufacturing company and I suspect our company has done this. Up until Lockdown we couldn’t keep up with orders and was making a fortune, lockdown came and as we are linked to the construction industry orders stopped but we have very large warehousing facilities and could have used this time to stock up.

Instead with lightning speed half the production team were furloughed, output was reduced and any staff that had to self isolate and could not work from home were told ‘unlucky - you’ll now have SSP for those 2 weeks’. All employees able to WFH were told to take half of their annual leave up to 30th June to stop leave building up.

They have made the situation into an advantage as much as possible. Orders are now back flooding in but they’ve taken their time as much as possible in unfurloughing staff to wring every penny out of the situation.

DH’s firm on the other hand kept as many people in work as they possibly could by deciding to make face visors instead, anyone furloughed had their pay topped up so they didn’t lose out and reassured everyone that if they needed to self isolate it would be on full pay.

There needs to be an anonymous place to name and shame these companies who have used the situation to their advantage and they should be boycotted.

The furlough scheme was the right thing to do and I believe it will have been worth it overall but it has been abused. I don't see how that would have been avoided unfortunately.

Someone I know was entitled to a self-employment payment and used it to buy a new car. She has been working and earning the same throughout.

Companies have been furloughing staff unnecessarily in many instances. All of which will need to be paid back. Some have been furloughing for three weeks then working for one with a far heavier workload on repeat.

And on another note sooo many people I know have taken mortgage holidays that they didn't need. But at least the money they've saved is going back into the economy I suppose. Most seem to be buying things for the house and garden with the money.

“Someone I know was entitled to a self-employment payment and used it to buy a new car. She has been working and earning the same throughout.”

Well in fairness - that’s just fraud, you had to declare your business had been affected when you claimed it...

I mean, I don’t know if it’ll be treated like that when people who have done that put this years income through, but it’ll be pretty obvious.

Well in fairness - that’s just fraud, you had to declare your business had been affected when you claimed it...
But not HOW it had been impacted.
If she bought a car for £7500 that is her choice
she still has to pay 29% or 49% of that money back in tax next January.