|
|
Post by trevorgas on Mar 26, 2020 21:49:38 GMT
I see various police forces are clamping down on people driving to a location to exercise or dog walk. Derbyshire Police even sent up a drone and posted it to shame people walking in pairs in the Peak District. I don’t really get the issue with “unnecessary journeys”. I would have thought it socially responsible to drive to somewhere quiet and to walk the dog or go for a run than walk to the local park where all and sundry are forced to undertake these activities in close proximity of others. I just done see this as a valuable use of police time or resources. People are scamming the vulnerable, setting fire to delivery vans and other anti social activities which surely must be more important. The problem is Eric everybody went on an "unnecessary journey"on Saturday and Snowdonia just up the road had the busiest weekend ever,no social distancing, local shops mobbed and stripped of food all totally unacceptable, ergo you have to impose it on everyone. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2020 22:13:44 GMT
I see various police forces are clamping down on people driving to a location to exercise or dog walk. Derbyshire Police even sent up a drone and posted it to shame people walking in pairs in the Peak District. I don’t really get the issue with “unnecessary journeys”. I would have thought it socially responsible to drive to somewhere quiet and to walk the dog or go for a run than walk to the local park where all and sundry are forced to undertake these activities in close proximity of others. I just done see this as a valuable use of police time or resources. People are scamming the vulnerable, setting fire to delivery vans and other anti social activities which surely must be more important. The problem is Eric everybody went on an "unnecessary journey"on Saturday and Snowdonia just up the road had the busiest weekend ever,no social distancing, local shops mobbed and stripped of food all totally unacceptable, ergo you have to impose it on everyone. I think everyone who did unintentionally travel to the same beauty spots for fresh air will have realised their mistake the following morning when they saw the news pictures and public response. Unfortunately, the reaction was instant and There was no opportunity to learn from that lesson. Could there not have been a ’suspended sentence’ with clear guidance of the next more draconian measures hanging over another widespread breach of the guidelines? Unfortunately, the consequence is that people fear being ‘caught’ by the police so have no choice but to go somewhere within walking distance for their exercise or dog walking. Near me that means the local park and Bristol to Bath cycle track are far busier than normal! i know this a nightmare situation to manage and it’s so easy with hindsight but we seem to be making some situations worse. Reducing the tube service when tens of thousands of essential workers still need to travel into London didn’t make much sense, if construction workers are making it more congested shut down all non essential construction in London but don’t apply the same rule to construction in say rural Hereford. My local Sainsbury’s has implemented some good measures but delayed too long allowing the selfish panic buyers to strip the shelves which has taken quite a while to gradually return to normal. Its also now card payment only. They are now filtering in and out through separate doors with limited numbers in store, checkouts have 2 metre markers to aid social distancing. All good. Today though they had reasonably well stocked areas cordoned off while they restacked shelves. The unfortunate by product is that if you needed something from those shelves you would have to make a second visit. not so good! |
|
|
|
Post by inee on Mar 26, 2020 22:47:24 GMT
I know I’m old fashioned but my dad and grandad before him always impressed on me the need to have enough money put aside to survive a few months. I know not everyone can afford this but maybe giving up a foreign holiday for just one year would have allowed some ‘rainy day’ money to be put aside? I think too many people sail too close and this may change thought processes going forward? Anyway, one bit of good news I did see today was that spitting or coughing in someone’s face is being treated seriously and rightly so. A couple of 40somethings have been jailed for doing this to emergency services. I know they won’t get the length of sentence or the kicking they deserve but it will send a message nonetheless. I think these days people are only a few months wages to being down and out, Apart from greed i blame the banks it's been far too easy to get loans and or credit cards ,that a couple of generations see no problem with borrowing money to buy the latest gadget or to keep up with the joneses. Then panic and borrow more to get out of debt, it;s a vicious circle. I also agree with the locking up spitters feckin halfwits, the one i struggle with is the system of street fines, if people cant afford the 30 how the hell are they going to be able to pay a much bigger one |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Mar 26, 2020 23:16:37 GMT
It is the employer applying for 80% of the salary costs and it is time limited anyway. If it wasn't "generous" then the employee would be made redundant instead. Did you see the email that was sent round work today. States that anyone made subject to furlough that 80% of salary would be paid by Govt and that our employer would not top up the extra 20%. So our employer would only be claiming back what they are paying out. I briefly skim-read it as I was trying to organise working from home with IT, moving equipment, etc. I think it said something about alternative roles being first otherwise furlough may not be an option. Got to be careful discussing work on social media but things are certainly a little quieter at the moment. Wouldn't surprise me if we see this somewhere within the business. |
|
|
|
Post by aghast on Mar 26, 2020 23:19:58 GMT
I take my dog out twice a day. She's a border collie and needs a lot of exercise and stimulation.
We go to some fields near my house and there's barely a soul there. I never get within 100 metres of anyone else.
Arrest me if you must, but I'm not being irresponsible.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Mar 26, 2020 23:28:15 GMT
Who applies for the furlough? The employer. It allows them to retain an employee rather than make them redundant if they do not have work for them. I still don’t understand why there would be a difference between 80% being covered to say 60%. If I was an employer I’d still seek the payment and if I was an employee I would certainly want them to do that on my behalf. Quite an easy choice for both parties if they want things to return to normality at some stage. I know I’m not the sharpest around here as I’m often reminded but I still don’t understand where you are coming from and why it was necessary to be pitched at 80% in the first place. It may be easier to see this as a job retention scheme rather than a salary replacement which is the sort of policies the likes of you and I are familiar with. The latter are deliberately lower as it is an incentive to return to work. The idea behind the furlough is that it incentifies the employer to retain the employee rather than simply making them redundant (which for many would be cheaper). Pitch the rate too low and it punishes the employee who can't find alternative work (they are trapped with a much reduced salary and no means of changing that). Like you, I am not sure of the thinking why 80% but I can see why it isn't closer to 60-70%. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Mar 26, 2020 23:45:18 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by gregsy on Mar 27, 2020 0:22:14 GMT
I listened to this track today.... I reckon the flaming lips predicted all this 19 years ago:
|
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Mar 27, 2020 5:55:02 GMT
So cynical as I am and was about this clap for carers thing, I actually found myself shedding a tear as I stood there and listened to my community. It somehow made it all more real. So thanks if any of you did it. Meant a lot. Might have been a coincidence, but fireworks went off round here. |
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Mar 27, 2020 6:01:56 GMT
I see various police forces are clamping down on people driving to a location to exercise or dog walk. Derbyshire Police even sent up a drone and posted it to shame people walking in pairs in the Peak District. I don’t really get the issue with “unnecessary journeys”. I would have thought it socially responsible to drive to somewhere quiet and to walk the dog or go for a run than walk to the local park where all and sundry are forced to undertake these activities in close proximity of others. I just done see this as a valuable use of police time or resources. People are scamming the vulnerable, setting fire to delivery vans and other anti social activities which surely must be more important. I'm not sure I understand that completely. If you live in an area where there are a lot of people, if you all go out for your once a day bit of exercise, or dog walk, there's a fairly good chance you'll get close to others doing the same. However, if you get in the car and drive to some remote area where there's no one about, that's got to be a good thing right? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2020 7:12:06 GMT
No, the numbers in Italy increased It appears that in the UK the timeline for reporting deaths was changed, hence the lower number yesterday and the big jump today that makes a lot of sense to me. You can probably assume if you added the two together and spread them by 40/60 across the two days that would make more sense. That's my understanding |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2020 7:18:51 GMT
Normal salary minus tax is clearly higher than 80% of gross salary minus tax. My point is that if an individual normally spends hundreds of pounds on leisure activities, nights in pubs, cinema visits, theatre etc...which they now cannot do there is every chance they will have a larger surplus at the end of the month than they did previously. If you took out Income Protection Insurance to cover yourself against being unable to work due to ill health you are unlikely be able to insure for more than 75% of basic salary. The government scheme seems too generous to me. You’ve often talked about the burden on future generations from government decisions but the level of this intervention will impact to a far greater degree than we’ve ever seen before. It is the employer applying for 80% of the salary costs and it is time limited anyway. If it wasn't "generous" then the employee would be made redundant instead. Precisely. What Eric is missing in his reasoning is the desire (need) to maintain demand in the economy. If it works then this tactic will enable a faster recovery and leave less of a "scar" on our economic capacity. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2020 7:20:21 GMT
I see various police forces are clamping down on people driving to a location to exercise or dog walk. Derbyshire Police even sent up a drone and posted it to shame people walking in pairs in the Peak District. I don’t really get the issue with “unnecessary journeys”. I would have thought it socially responsible to drive to somewhere quiet and to walk the dog or go for a run than walk to the local park where all and sundry are forced to undertake these activities in close proximity of others. I just done see this as a valuable use of police time or resources. People are scamming the vulnerable, setting fire to delivery vans and other anti social activities which surely must be more important. I'm not sure I understand that completely. If you live in an area where there are a lot of people, if you all go out for your once a day bit of exercise, or dog walk, there's a fairly good chance you'll get close to others doing the same. However, if you get in the car and drive to some remote area where there's no one about, that's got to be a good thing right? Try this for enforcement time.com/5811161/singapore-coronavirus-stand-too-close-jail/ |
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on Mar 27, 2020 7:39:50 GMT
Maths Eric my dear boy. How can disposable income be higher when the gross income is 20% lower, and tax etc is still applied? Ffs. Normal salary minus tax is clearly higher than 80% of gross salary minus tax. My point is that if an individual normally spends hundreds of pounds on leisure activities, nights in pubs, cinema visits, theatre etc...which they now cannot do there is every chance they will have a larger surplus at the end of the month than they did previously. If you took out Income Protection Insurance to cover yourself against being unable to work due to ill health you are unlikely be able to insure for more than 75% of basic salary. The government scheme seems too generous to me. You’ve often talked about the burden on future generations from government decisions but the level of this intervention will impact to a far greater degree than we’ve ever seen before. Not necessarily bad. If people end up with surplus income it may help to stimulate the economy if/when this is over |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2020 8:09:23 GMT
Normal salary minus tax is clearly higher than 80% of gross salary minus tax. My point is that if an individual normally spends hundreds of pounds on leisure activities, nights in pubs, cinema visits, theatre etc...which they now cannot do there is every chance they will have a larger surplus at the end of the month than they did previously. If you took out Income Protection Insurance to cover yourself against being unable to work due to ill health you are unlikely be able to insure for more than 75% of basic salary. The government scheme seems too generous to me. You’ve often talked about the burden on future generations from government decisions but the level of this intervention will impact to a far greater degree than we’ve ever seen before. Not necessarily bad. If people end up with surplus income it may help to stimulate the economy if/when this is over It is the "maintain demand" point that some are failing to understand |
|
|
|
Post by Russgas on Mar 27, 2020 8:28:01 GMT
I listened to this track today.... I reckon the flaming lips predicted all this 19 years ago: Bloody hell Gregs i'm even more depressed now listening to that.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2020 8:28:36 GMT
Who applies for the furlough? The employer. It allows them to retain an employee rather than make them redundant if they do not have work for them. I still don’t understand why there would be a difference between 80% being covered to say 60%. If I was an employer I’d still seek the payment and if I was an employee I would certainly want them to do that on my behalf. Quite an easy choice for both parties if they want things to return to normality at some stage. I know I’m not the sharpest around here as I’m often reminded but I still don’t understand where you are coming from and why it was necessary to be pitched at 80% in the first place. When you take into account that a large proportion of the renting community are paying 50% of their wages in rent then paying them 60% and taxing them on it will leave them up the creek. Before you say “well why are they paying 50% in rent” I’ll tell you: it’s unavoidable, frankly. Just before this bollocks broke out I was told to move to one of the most expensive parts of the UK or lose my job. I was recently unemployed and don’t want to go through that again so I had to move, as a result even though I’m earning the average UK wage which would be more than enough in any other part of the UK, local rents are so expensive that nearly 50% goes on my accommodation and there is very little I can do about it. Thankfully I am not (at least not yet) in any job related turbulence but if I was to be paid 60% of my wage minus tax I’d be losing money each month BEFORE I even bought any food to keep myself alive. Let’s not kid ourselves that landlords are going to be giving people any coronavirus related breaks or showing any sympathy during this crisis. This is the problem when you have extortionate rents + a good % of the country living in rented accommodation paying other people’s mortgages. If something good comes of this crisis I hope it is that we re-evaluate how close to ruin some people are forced to live due to the daily battle of trying to keep a roof over their head and the dangers of having such a high portion of the country in rents that exceed 30% of the typical local wage (30% being the percentage that it is considered the sweet spot in order to live comfortably and save for a rainy day). And re: the incentive for people to stay home- isn’t that what the government wants? Construction is not essential so the government WANTS to encourage as many people as possible to stay home. If that construction site breaks out in coronavirus the viral load that would be present on that site would raise the chances considerably of matey who wants to stay home on his 80% ending up on a ventilator and taking up a vital hospital bed needlessly. EDIT: although I don’t think that makes any sense anyway. The money is there for businesses that have actually shut down- it’s not a subsidy for companies that continue to trade during the pandemic. If that construction site reports itself as open than, as far as I understand it, the worker has to go in or arrange to work from home. The subsidy is for businesses that have been forced to close due to loss of custom, it also encourages those businesses to close because they know that they will have their workers wages of their books for the duration of their closure. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2020 8:32:34 GMT
The employer. It allows them to retain an employee rather than make them redundant if they do not have work for them. I still don’t understand why there would be a difference between 80% being covered to say 60%. If I was an employer I’d still seek the payment and if I was an employee I would certainly want them to do that on my behalf. Quite an easy choice for both parties if they want things to return to normality at some stage. I know I’m not the sharpest around here as I’m often reminded but I still don’t understand where you are coming from and why it was necessary to be pitched at 80% in the first place. When you take into account that a large proportion of the renting community are paying 50% of their wages in rent then paying them 60% and taxing them on it will leave them up the creek. Before you say “well why are they paying 50% in rent” I’ll tell you: it’s unavoidable, frankly. Just before this bollocks broke out I was told to move to one of the most expensive parts of the UK or lose my job. I was recently unemployed and don’t want to go through that again so I had to move, as a result even though I’m earning the average UK wage which would be more than enough in any other part of the UK, local rents are so expensive that nearly 50% goes on my accommodation and there is very little I can do about it. Thankfully I am not (at least not yet) in any job related turbulence but if I was to be paid 60% of my wage minus tax I’d be losing money each month BEFORE I even bought any food to keep myself alive. Let’s not kid ourselves that landlords are going to be giving people any coronavirus related breaks or showing any sympathy during this crisis. This is the problem when you have extortionate rents + a good % of the country living in rented accommodation paying other people’s mortgages. If something good comes of this crisis I hope it is that we re-evaluate how close to ruin some people are forced to live due to the daily battle of trying to keep a roof over their head and the dangers of having such a high portion of the country in rents that exceed 30% of the typical local wage (30% being the percentage that it is considered the sweet spot in order to live comfortably and save for a rainy day). And re: the incentive for people to stay home- isn’t that what the government wants? Construction is not essential so the government WANTS to encourage as many people as possible to stay home. If that construction site breaks out in coronavirus the viral load that would be present on that site would raise the chances considerably of matey who wants to stay home on his 80% ending up on a ventilator and taking up a vital hospital bed needlessly. The "Social Mobility Question" oft denied on here. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2020 8:38:13 GMT
When you take into account that a large proportion of the renting community are paying 50% of their wages in rent then paying them 60% and taxing them on it will leave them up the creek. Before you say “well why are they paying 50% in rent” I’ll tell you: it’s unavoidable, frankly. Just before this bollocks broke out I was told to move to one of the most expensive parts of the UK or lose my job. I was recently unemployed and don’t want to go through that again so I had to move, as a result even though I’m earning the average UK wage which would be more than enough in any other part of the UK, local rents are so expensive that nearly 50% goes on my accommodation and there is very little I can do about it. Thankfully I am not (at least not yet) in any job related turbulence but if I was to be paid 60% of my wage minus tax I’d be losing money each month BEFORE I even bought any food to keep myself alive. Let’s not kid ourselves that landlords are going to be giving people any coronavirus related breaks or showing any sympathy during this crisis. This is the problem when you have extortionate rents + a good % of the country living in rented accommodation paying other people’s mortgages. If something good comes of this crisis I hope it is that we re-evaluate how close to ruin some people are forced to live due to the daily battle of trying to keep a roof over their head and the dangers of having such a high portion of the country in rents that exceed 30% of the typical local wage (30% being the percentage that it is considered the sweet spot in order to live comfortably and save for a rainy day). And re: the incentive for people to stay home- isn’t that what the government wants? Construction is not essential so the government WANTS to encourage as many people as possible to stay home. If that construction site breaks out in coronavirus the viral load that would be present on that site would raise the chances considerably of matey who wants to stay home on his 80% ending up on a ventilator and taking up a vital hospital bed needlessly. The "Social Mobility Question" oft denied on here. Yep, keep em paying high rents so they can’t save for a deposit and they will forever remain “in the system” as some landlord’s bitch. As an example I had been saving quite nicely for a deposit before all this, the up front costs of moving have wiped some £3k off those savings and now I’m far away from where I was and it will take me the best part of a year to recover that 3k and get back to where my savings were. And that’s only if I survive this pandemic without losing my job. But that’s a subject for another thread! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 27, 2020 8:44:52 GMT
The employer. It allows them to retain an employee rather than make them redundant if they do not have work for them. I still don’t understand why there would be a difference between 80% being covered to say 60%. If I was an employer I’d still seek the payment and if I was an employee I would certainly want them to do that on my behalf. Quite an easy choice for both parties if they want things to return to normality at some stage. I know I’m not the sharpest around here as I’m often reminded but I still don’t understand where you are coming from and why it was necessary to be pitched at 80% in the first place. It may be easier to see this as a job retention scheme rather than a salary replacement which is the sort of policies the likes of you and I are familiar with. The latter are deliberately lower as it is an incentive to return to work. The idea behind the furlough is that it incentifies the employer to retain the employee rather than simply making them redundant (which for many would be cheaper). Pitch the rate too low and it punishes the employee who can't find alternative work (they are trapped with a much reduced salary and no means of changing that). Like you, I am not sure of the thinking why 80% but I can see why it isn't closer to 60-70%. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree. I view it as being something positive for both employee and employer. An employer, due to the nature of their business, has to mothball everything. This would normally involve redundancies so the scheme allows staff to be retained allowing a pretty seamless, quick resumption of the business when given the green light to do so. From the employees perspective it gives some financial security alleviating initial fear of not being able to pay bills and support their families and also peace of mind that when this nightmare is over they can resume their work without having to start from scratch and find new employment. All good news and I’m sure everyone supports this principle? My issue is cost and pitching it at too high a level. It should be seen as an emergency bailout designed to allow people to remain in their current home, pay the bills and feed their families - nothing more. The government scheme goes far beyond that IMO. Why should an emergency bailout provide individuals with a surplus in the hope this kickstarts the economy at a later date? Ideas for how to later stimulate the economy and future spending patterns should be in the hands of experts and not Joe Public. The workers I mentioned earlier in construction wanted the firm to close down to allow them to claim 80% pay for doing nothing as opposed to undertaking their physically demanding normal work for 100% salary. To me that says the bailout is too generous if people would prefer that and wanted the boss to pursue it for lifestyle reasons rather than genuine health concerns. They thought it was unfair that people in other industries were getting this free money while their employment was continuing! |
|
