Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Gov Under Massive Pressure to Extend Furlough - Face the Music or Kick the Can ?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 127
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

They have the power to where they divert the valuable created money.....what assets of storage choice or directly to the grass roots....those that will actually spend it into the economy, liquidity and turnover.;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose they will do a compromise and support half the cost of wages, can’t see them pulling the rug.  On a separate note you have to love the media, rather than acknowledging the scheme worked and now people need to come off it for the long term good they act like the nasty government is taking it away rather than proceeding as was agreed.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, satsuma said:

I suppose they will do a compromise and support half the cost of wages, can’t see them pulling the rug.  On a separate note you have to love the media, rather than acknowledging the scheme worked and now people need to come off it for the long term good they act like the nasty government is taking it away rather than proceeding as was agreed.  

+1

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a Unionist and a Socialist and even I absolutely disagree that the furlough scheme should be extended. It is hampering structural change that needs to take place. 

The government should forget the notion of 'returning to normal' and look toward the future, and how to encourage the new jobs of the future, jobs in renewable energy, technology, environment etc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, satsuma said:

I suppose they will do a compromise and support half the cost of wages, can’t see them pulling the rug.  On a separate note you have to love the media, rather than acknowledging the scheme worked and now people need to come off it for the long term good they act like the nasty government is taking it away rather than proceeding as was agreed.  

How do you judge the scheme worked ? (i'm not saying it has not worked , I just wonder how you judge)

Arguably, the Furlough scheme could have been the cause of one of the biggest frauds on the tax payers finances in history, which would judge it a massive failure imo. Has anyone worked out the fraud figure ? 

Two-thirds continued to work while on furlough

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/two-thirds-continued-to-work-while-on-furlough/

Quote

 

Two-thirds of workers who were placed on furlough continued to work for their employer even though this was not allowed, economists have found.

A group of economists from Cambridge, Oxford and Zurich universities have compiled a study of furloughed workers, showing that men were significantly more likely than women to work while on furlough.

Mothers were 10 percentage points more likely than fathers to have initiated the decision to be furloughed as opposed to the decision being “fully” or “mostly” the employers, the paper said. The researchers found no gender gap in the furlough decision among childless workers.

Overall, 87% of men and 77% of women continued to work while being supported by the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, which forbids employees for working for their employer during furlough leave.

I am reminded of a quote from the great author of the 'Road Less Travelled' H Scott Peck. 'Mental Health is measured by the speed at which you meet the crisis'   

I suggest this would mean not extending the furlough .'extend and pretend' or reduce it drastically.

Face the music, punish those who committed furlough fraud severely and the fact the Gov has no money left and tax income has been drastically reduced . 

 The risked of destroying the currency & economy further with supporting zombie co's is too great.    

Millions had their time ot prepare for the coming economic depression , but chose to watch Netlix. Dependancy culture is rife.

Edited by Saving For a Space Ship
Link to post
Share on other sites

Furlough is a scam run by rich elites to protect and increase their wealth at taxpayers' expense.

Instead of subsidizing up to £3000 per employee to companies, the government could just improve access and size of unemployment benefits. This would provide better support to unemployed for a fraction of costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Saving For a Space Ship said:

How do you judge the scheme worked ? (i'm not saying it has not worked , I just wonder how you judge)

Arguably, the Furlough scheme could have been the cause of one of the biggest frauds on the tax payers finances in history, which would judge it a massive failure imo. Has anyone worked out the fraud figure ? 

Two-thirds continued to work while on furlough

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/two-thirds-continued-to-work-while-on-furlough/

I am reminded of a quote from the great author of the 'Road Less Travelled' H Scott Peck. 'Mental Health is measured by the speed at which you meet the crisis'   

I suggest this would mean not extending the furlough .'extend and pretend' or reduce it drastically.

Face the music, punish those who committed furlough fraud severely and the fact the Gov has no money left and tax income has been drastically reduced . 

 The risked of destroying the currency & economy further with supporting zombie co's is too great.    

Millions had their time ot prepare for the coming economic depression , but chose to watch Netlix. Dependancy culture is rife.

Good book.;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Postman said:

I'm a Unionist and a Socialist and even I absolutely disagree that the furlough scheme should be extended. It is hampering structural change that needs to take place. 

The government should forget the notion of 'returning to normal' and look toward the future, and how to encourage the new jobs of the future, jobs in renewable energy, technology, environment etc. 

I predict the system will collapse. Can imagine the job centre's/DWP being overwhelmed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

At some point we are going to have to accept that somebody being in work 6 months ago is an arbitrary distinction against somebody out of work at the same point. If the first is in a position where continued furlough is the only way for them to not be made unemployed, both are, in fact, unemployed. 

I'm not a huge fan of continuing the scheme but fear the consequences of not doing so. Successive conservative governments' empty headed, demagogic obsession with austerity measures has simply left our law enforcement agencies too weak to deal with the likely outpouring of social unrest, meaning those who have managed to cling on to their jobs and a vestige of their normal lives become victims too. 

I disagree with keeping former employees and business owners in clover whilst others rot though. If there is to be continued government support, stop linking it to long gone jobs and businesses and widen the scope to improve the lot of people left out of the original measures, the disabled and other vulnerable groups. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Postman said:

And that's why I advocate UBI. Get rid of dwp altogether. 

And when UBI is not enough to cover rents in London and the south east - do you keep housing benefit on top.

UBI can only really work in nations without dysfunctional housing markets and prces.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hullabaloo82 said:

At some point we are going to have to accept that somebody being in work 6 months ago is an arbitrary distinction against somebody out of work at the same point. If the first is in a position where continued furlough is the only way for them to not be made unemployed, both are, in fact, unemployed. 

I'm not a huge fan of continuing the scheme but fear the consequences of not doing so. Successive conservative governments' empty headed, demagogic obsession with austerity measures has simply left our law enforcement agencies too weak to deal with the likely outpouring of social unrest, meaning those who have managed to cling on to their jobs and a vestige of their normal lives become victims too. 

I disagree with keeping former employees and business owners in clover whilst others rot though. If there is to be continued government support, stop linking it to long gone jobs and businesses and widen the scope to improve the lot of people left out of the original measures, the disabled and other vulnerable groups. 

indeed i agree. a vulnerbale group has been left out those with over 16k in savings and have seen no wage inflation in 20 years so are restricted to living off beans and rice and not spending or supporting the current economic system as it does not benefit them so why should they participate.

These people should be given free land to self build on and be self sufficient where ever they choose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The gov might be under pressure from those on it but they are a minority compared to those who have not benefited from it, it’s essentially been a lottery win for those that met the conditions. I can’t see it being extended, but admit I could be wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, longgone said:

indeed i agree. a vulnerbale group has been left out those with over 16k in savings and have seen no wage inflation in 20 years so are restricted to living off beans and rice and not spending or supporting the current economic system as it does not benefit them so why should they participate.

These people should be given free land to self build on and be self sufficient where ever they choose.

And of course anyone with £16,000 in savings if they lose their job might merely qualify for £80 a week in contribution related JSA even if they have worked and paid in for decades - and just for six months!

What a wonderful welfare system we have - where hard work and saving means you get almost nothing but the opposite gets you shedloads in non contibutory benefits!

Edited by MARTINX9
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, MARTINX9 said:

And of course anyone with £16,000 in savings if they lose their job might merely qualify for £80 a week in contribution related JSA even if they have worked and paid in for decades - and just for six months!

What a wonderful welfare system we have - where hard work and saving means you get almost nothing but the opposite gets you shedloads in non contibutory benefits!

Can only look and laugh.......£16k in equity gained from doing nothing, protected......£16k of savings worked hard and saved......nothing for you.....you stupid people.?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Postman said:

I'm a Unionist and a Socialist and even I absolutely disagree that the furlough scheme should be extended. It is hampering structural change that needs to take place. 

The government should forget the notion of 'returning to normal' and look toward the future, and how to encourage the new jobs of the future, jobs in renewable energy, technology, environment etc. 

I don't know if your title is a clue to your job. But why shouldn't for example the Royal Mail get in on home food delivery? Tax Amazon and other firms, and give Royal Mail a special national champion status?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Saving For a Space Ship said:

 

Arguably, the Furlough scheme could have been the cause of one of the biggest frauds on the tax payers finances in history, which would judge it a massive failure imo. Has anyone worked out the fraud figure ? 

Two-thirds continued to work while on furlough

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/two-thirds-continued-to-work-while-on-furlough/

I

If HMRC will give a 10% commission, I can name at least 10 major firms that have abused furlough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, MARTINX9 said:

And when UBI is not enough to cover rents in London and the south east - do you keep housing benefit on top.

UBI can only really work in nations without dysfunctional housing markets and prces.

If UBI is not enough to cover rents in London then people can suppliment UBI with other income. Or they can move out of London and let the rents fall.

Housing benefit is a corrupt system to subsidise rich landlords at taxpayers expense and squeeze all money from the working people. It needs to be abolished asap.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, winkie said:

Can only look and laugh.......£16k in equity gained from doing nothing, protected......£16k of savings worked hard and saved......nothing for you.....you stupid people.?

Even a £3m house owned outright - perhaps inherited - isn't included in the means test - if you are asset rich but income/cash poor you can still claim pension credit and other welfare and even get free dental treatment and glasses and pay no council tax on that house.  Not saying there are a huge number of such people - but its fine under the rules.

You must be expected to use up your £16k of cash savings - but downsizing from a big house to a smaller place to free up cash to meet your living costs is not necessary under our benefits system.

Edited by MARTINX9
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, AAA said:

 

If UBI is not enough to cover rents in London then people can suppliment UBI with other income. Or they can move out of London and let the rents fall.

Housing benefit is a corrupt system to subsidise rich landlords at taxpayers expense and squeeze all money from the working people. It needs to be abolished asap.

Wrong......rents in London are where they are not because of people moving out of London, it is because of speculators moving into London......or speculating from afar.....Londoners should not be the ones to move out, once they could afford the rents, now they cannot.?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MARTINX9 said:

Even a £3m house owned outright - perhaps inherited - isn't included in the means test - if you are asset rich but income/cash poor you can still claim pension credit and other welfare and even get free dental treatment and glasses and pay no council tax on that house.  Not saying there are a huge number of such people - but its fine under the rules.

You must be expected to use up your £16k of cash savings - but downsizing from a big house to a smaller place to free up cash to meet your living costs is not necessary under our benefits system.

Shit stinks.?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone else noticed where we have got to the point where the amount of public spending, borrowing, extraordinary economic measures(zero rates, wage support), that would have provoked intense debate in the past, are barely worthy of public discussion? I mean intelligent discussion about the future consequences of such things. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 418 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.