Pm press conference at 5pm.

[DonLewis]

Will it be a circuit breaker announcement?

@grenouilleescargot

Omg! It is not 20%! If one person loses 10% and another loses 10%, then together, they have lost 10%....

If a person receives 80% of their pay then they have lost 20% of their income. If a person works for a business which closes they will get 80% of their income due to universal credit. Nowhere does it say it's a couple who are losing 20%, it's one person.

If a couple are both working for a business which closes then 20% + 20% equal 40%. Did you pass any maths exams at all?

Oh dear, this is quite embarrassing for you. I don't know where you have got 20% from. The Chancellor has said that the furlough plus benefits support package will total an average of 90% of a worker's pay. As 100-10=90, this means they will lose ten percent of their salary.

So, if Jill is on 90% of her take home income, and John is on 90% of his take home income, then together this means... they are on 90% of their take home income.

GREATER MANCHESTER HAD RESTRICTIONS IN JULY

So did most of Lancashire and half of West Yorkshire

Unless of course there are ten of them in a family, then they all work for nothing

[quote Ecosse]@AlohaMolly

Wales can only act the way they are because they are not funding the measures they implement.[/quote]
The way I understand it is that devolved governments receive funding and then it’s up to them to decide how to use that funding inmost situations, is that not correct? (Genuine question.) If that’s the case, surely this is just the WG choosing to use the funding this way?

I listened to the press conference today and a journalist asked the minister why the WG didn’t fund the difference and boost the incomes of the people affected by the drop in income between the furlough and job saving scheme (could have the terminology wrong.) the minister said thats exactly what they were trying to do but the U.K. government need to give them access to the HMRC records, as the WG don’t have access to tax accounts to get the info needed. Once they’re given the info they will use the WG funds to boost people’s incomes.

That’s how I understood it/what I heard. I’m always willing to learn and be told I’m wrong though!

But this is a thread about GM - did it really only get £22million?

By the time they lock us down in the North there will be no money left

Also, I keep seeing the thing about ‘once you apply for UC it’s actually 90% of their wages’ but do we not all remember how SHIT UC is? How, under normal circumstances, there is at least a 6 week delay and that is without thousands of people being forced onto it when thrown into tier 3 measures.

...if both benefits and the 67% are government funded, surely it makes sense to cut out the middle man (UC) and a minimum six week delay that will see children go hungry, people side into poverty and mental health go to shit, as well as the double whammy on the economy because people can’t/won’t spend... and just pay the 90% from the get go?

Also, I keep seeing the thing about ‘once you apply for UC it’s actually 90% of their wages’ but do we not all remember how SHIT UC is? How, under normal circumstances, there is at least a 6 week delay and that is without thousands of people being forced onto it when thrown into tier 3 measures

Thats what i thought

Oh arse

Bold fail

@Flaxmeadow

GREATER MANCHESTER HAD RESTRICTIONS IN JULY

So did most of Lancashire and half of West Yorkshire

Given you are clearly illiterate I'll give up arguing with you.

@AlohaMolly

Also, I keep seeing the thing about ‘once you apply for UC it’s actually 90% of their wages’ but do we not all remember how SHIT UC is? How, under normal circumstances, there is at least a 6 week delay and that is without thousands of people being forced onto it when thrown into tier 3 measures.

...if both benefits and the 67% are government funded, surely it makes sense to cut out the middle man (UC) and a minimum six week delay that will see children go hungry, people side into poverty and mental health go to shit, as well as the double whammy on the economy because people can’t/won’t spend... and just pay the 90% from the get go?

It's not six weeks. 5 weeks maximum and people can take an advance payment a few days after applying.

One more time for those at the back not listening

GREATER MANCHESTER HAS HAD RESTRICTIONS BEFORE EVERYWHERE

YOU ARE WRONG

Is that better redtoothbrush?

Babyroobs is that not five weeks maximum under normal circumstances though? And is the advance payment not something that needs paying back?

All genuine questions, not being facetious.

Everyone squawking about what percentage of income couples will lose - lots of people don't earn exactly the same as their partner.

I work part time, DH full time.
If DH was on 80% of his salary, that would mean us losing 16% of our total household income.
If I was on 80% of my salary, that would only be a loss of 4% of our total income.

If both DH and I were affected, it would be a loss of 20% of total. household income.

I just don't get how this isn't going to destroy the whole economy?
How can we pay 80-90% of people's wages to stay home for 12 months plus?
I don't earn enough to hold up this kind of financially responsibility.
Can't areas just lock down properly when needed?
Surely that would help slow the spread of the virus more efficiently?
I'm way more scared of not having a welfare state for myself and my dc when this is over and a bankrupt country.

@CinnamonStar

Everyone squawking about what percentage of income couples will lose - lots of people don't earn exactly the same as their partner.

I work part time, DH full time.
If DH was on 80% of his salary, that would mean us losing 16% of our total household income.
If I was on 80% of my salary, that would only be a loss of 4% of our total income.

If both DH and I were affected, it would be a loss of 20% of total. household income.

What is happening with maths education in this country?

I'm starting to think some posters are joking. Surely it is the only answer.

You are correct that people don't earn the same as their partner. But one person losing 10% of £20,000 is the same proportion as another person losing 10% of £10,000. It's a 10% loss.

Some posters upthread think that if Jenny loses 10% of £20,000 and John loses 10% of £10,000, then together they have lost 20%. They haven't. They have lost 10% of £30,000!

Hawaypet, yes, but if only one of you loses your income, then it is quite relevant if one person earns a lot more than the other.

Obviously if both members of the couple lose their income, then my point isn't relevant.

I was just saying (badly, clearly), that if only one member of a couple loses 20% of their income, that doesn't necessarily equate to a 10% loss in their household income.

Obviously if both lose 20%, it is a 20% total loss (as I said above).

A quick Google would have answered your question.

How many more of these pointless threads must we endure?

None. There is no expectation you will engage. Some of us are perfectly happy to so why not leave us to it?

Not sure how helpful Google would have been for that mind

No, he's going public on his love for Handcock cos Cummings is going to the press with the photo's......what else can he have on BJ the buffoon?

@FelicisNox, if you'd have read my posts, you'd have seen that I did indeed Google, but couldn't find the answer.

But thanks for bumping my pointless thread, gave me a giggle!

Hilary4: Handcock.

Love it! So appropriate :-). BJ, Handcock and Cummins......
We know where they all keep their brains.