Coronavirus

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.

I would class myself as down the middle in political terms. However Corbyn is watering me off. It's easy to sit back and point out people's mistakes when you don't have to take accountability for those decisions.

Sorry Eric
But you keep doing it
This
"The business I’ve quoted will be stopping work after next week as more customers are cancelling work. I know what the bailout is there for, my point was that whilst the business remained operating some employees wanted it to stop so they would get their money for nothing, others were happy to continue working. The ones who didn’t want to come in were the ones who quite often phone in sick on Mondays and before bank holiday weekends etc. They were eyeing a nice freebie rather than concerned about health."

You have evidence for this?
And, what evidence do you have that people have a 20% elasticity in their monthly budgets to be able to willingly desire a 20% cut in their incomes?

Genuine question.

I have a lot of sympathy with that but this is an unprecedented, emergency situation. There will be individuals who will struggle but there will also be many who benefit too much from the scheme. It is impossible to cover every individual scenario and the government are doing everything they can. There will also be individuals who don’t fit the criteria for either scheme and will find things even harder again. It’s a near impossible situation to manage and keep everyone happy.

i get the point about incentive to stay at home but the government disease and economic models take into account keeping a certain percentage of the population working. If everyone were incentivised would there have to be economic remodelling and the bail out scaled back?

The business I’ve quoted will be stopping work after next week as more customers are cancelling work. I know what the bailout is there for, my point was that whilst the business remained operating some employees wanted it to stop so they would get their money for nothing, others were happy to continue working. The ones who didn’t want to come in were the ones who quite often phone in sick on Mondays and before bank holiday weekends etc. They were eyeing a nice freebie rather than concerned about health.

Ok.
I get you have that opinion, one to which you are obviously entitled to.
My opinion is, in rebuttal to your assertion that many would willingly desire a 20% cut to their incomes, that most people cannot afford it.
As evidence, a cursory review of the interviews given, where almost to a person people stated they had only a one month worth of cash available to pay bills.
Hardly suggests that you are correct.

The whole point of it is that it’s there to cover those who would struggle while knowing that some *may* get some extra benefit. From previous posts it seems that you have a poor view of the welfare state due to your job and it has made you cynical as to the role it plays. The welfare state is there to primarily protect the vulnerable and as it is an imperfect system part of that is the acceptance that some might find ways to game the system. But that is like a lot of things in life- very rarely are things so perfectly sliceable down the middle that the losers win and the winners lose. It’s just the way it is, you can’t have an omelette without breaking some eggs etc...I also doubt that people are having a great time if they have been put on to the governments bail out as there is still no guarantee there will be a demand for the sector they work in when things get back to normal because quite frankly no-one knows what normal is. This is a time of great stress and uncertainty and anyone who is having a high old time right now and thinking they are getting money for nothing I would suggest is obviously too hard of thinking to figure out what the long terms consequences are and whether they will still have a job or industry to go back to at the end of it.

Oldie also raises a good point about stimulating the economy although how much of the economy can be stimulated at the moment with vast portions of hospitality and retail shut down is up for debate so that is a lesser effect at this time imo.

There are also other factors such as mental health, I’m sure everyone here appreciates the toll this will take on the mental health of everyone anyway, spare a thought for the poor sod who would be told not only is there a pandemic that is going to cost him his loved ones but he also has the worry of losing 40% his income to contend with.

I’m sorry, but to me this is a nonstarter, if some banks are too big to fail for their CDS and CDO shenanigans then we can bail out the workers of the country during a time of grave national consequence and worry about how it’s financed later.

My view on welfare is that there far too many on it. Too many make a lifestyle choice and too many claim to be too unwell for work. I think for those with serious disabilities the amount of welfare should be paid at 2 or 3 times the current rate. Those that do not work but are fit and well should have to make some meaningful contribution to society. I don’t think this makes me some sort of Ogre, the benefit system is brilliant but does get abused and it’s almost seen as an acceptable situation. Unfortunately, any government trying to create a fairer system just gets voted down as picking on the poor. Anyway, that’s a debate for another day as the current bailout is an emergency, short term solution to a near impossible situation and which cannot possibly be expected to cover every scenario and there will be some losers. Hopefully this will prove short term as at the current rate of 80% is it feasible to carry on for months, maybe years? Will a very long term shutdown do more damage to mental and physical health as well as irreparable damage to the economy which will impact several future generations?

the whole thing is a nightmare and I pray for a vaccine soon the same as everyone else.