New Job Support Scheme announced to replace Furlough scheme from 1 November

[brad465]

The Chancellor has announced in an extension to the job support scheme that firms forced to close anytime in the next 6 months will get 67% of their wages covered by the Government:

Covid-19: UK workers to get 67% of pay if firms told to shut

The chancellor says his Job Support Scheme "expansion" comes ahead of "what may be a difficult winter".

www.bbc.co.uk

Employees who work for UK firms forced to shut by law because of coronavirus restrictions will get two-thirds of their wages paid for by the government.

Chancellor Rishi Sunak said it was an "expansion" of the Job Support Scheme, which begins on 1 November and will be available for six months.

A Treasury source says it could roughly cost hundreds of millions a month.

A restrictions update, which could see pubs and restaurants shut in the worst-affected areas, is expected on Monday.

Labour's shadow chancellor Anneliese Dodds said Mr Sunak's "delay in delivering support has caused unnecessary anxiety and job losses".

Regional leaders have called for more help for struggling firms.

The support will be reviewed in January. Until November businesses that are asked to close can continue to use the furlough scheme.

I don't know if there's to be a further development on any other support, but I do think this won't help much, if at all if overheads are not also covered as there is still cost to the firms' expenditures with no income to address those costs.

Edit: there does appear to be some support through business grants, now updated to the same article above:

In addition, for businesses forced to close in England, the chancellor announced an increase in business grants - with up to £3,000 a month paid every fortnight.

 

[Tomp94]

And just how are people supposed to pay their rent and mortgages and other bills, and pay for their food, on just 66% of their wage?

 

[HSTEd]

This could paradoxically mean pubs and the like have an economic incentive to cause as many cases as possible so they are ordered to close, rather than left to slowly die on 10pm closing.

 

[bramling]

This could paradoxically mean pubs and the like have an economic incentive to cause as many cases as possible so they are ordered to close, rather than left to slowly die on 10pm closing.

This will be the point where public opinion rapidly turns. It’s already happening - my local Facebook has even had a few anti-mask posts in the last couple of days, which is a first.

The job loss tally is already creeping up. What do they expect is going to happen when people find they physically cannot pay their bills, especially when this will be able to be directly blamed on political policies and decisions?

Likewise the taxpayer cannot keep splashing out on measures like this. There’s begging hands coming at it from all directions, and most of this is as a result of deliberate policy decisions.

I fear this is now a juggernaut that’s out of control.

And if hospitality is now being singled out as such a major issue, it cannot have been a sensible decision to crowd it out during August. That was Sinai’s baby, and he should be held accountable for that. If only cost half a billion of our tax.

 

[adc82140]

And just how are people supposed to pay their rent and mortgages and other bills, and pay for their food, on just 66% of their wage?

I guess the government are assuming that the employers will pay the other 33%. Which is obviously stupid. How can an employer with zero income do this? It would just hasten the demise of the company.

What about the self employed whose main clients are the businesses forced to close?

 

[jtuk]

Fifth of November is just around the corner, if only we can remember why we celebrate it

 

[brad465]

And just how are people supposed to pay their rent and mortgages and other bills, and pay for their food, on just 66% of their wage?

They probably think not travelling to work and/or going on holiday/to arts' events is the remaining 34% of their income, but for many that won't be true, not least as I imagine in hospitality many workers are relatively local given how widespread it is.

Fifth of November is just around the corner, if only we can remember why we celebrate it

There is actually an event known as the "Million Mask March" that happens annually on that day, the masks being the classic Guy Fawkes' style, where their protests are usually against political wrongdoings. I doubt there will be a million participants this year, but I expect it will still happen in one form or another.

 

[Tomp94]

They probably think not travelling to work and/or going on holiday/to arts' events is the remaining 34% of their income, but for many that won't be true, not least as I imagine in hospitality many workers are relatively local given how widespread it is.

Ah. So the plan is to just go to work. Come home. Sleep. Go to work. Go home. Sleep. etc. and spend the weekend locked up inside until the next working day.
The plan is to just exist. Not live.

I really hope there's some massive backlash against all these new restrictions that'll be coming in next week. But given how the majority don't question what they're told by those in authority or by the media, I doubt that somehow!

 

[bramling]

Ah. So the plan is to just go to work. Come home. Sleep. Go to work. Go home. Sleep. etc. and spend the weekend locked up inside until the next working day.
The plan is to just exist. Not live.

I really hope there's some massive backlash against all these new restrictions that'll be coming in next week. But given how the majority don't question what they're told by those in authority or by the media, I doubt that somehow!

This is what’s done it for most of those who have been at work over the last 8 months - going to work, balanced with a lack of quality leisure time. I had pretty much no leisure at all over the period from March to July - couldn’t even use the time to get the garden straight as the garden centres were closed for much of that time.

We managed to get away last month, but factors like weather and shorter days meant we only achieved a fraction of what we’d have done in the spring or summer months. Now winter is coming.

All that just to get us to where we were in March.

 

[Tomp94]

This is what’s done it for most of those who have been at work over the last 8 months - going to work, balanced with a lack of quality leisure time. I had pretty much no leisure at all over the period from March to July - couldn’t even use the time to get the garden straight as the garden centres were closed for much of that time.

We managed to get away last month, but factors like weather and shorter days meant we only achieved a fraction of what we’d have done in the spring or summer months. Now winter is coming.

All that just to get us to where we were in March.

I feel sorry for you!
I was furloughed March to September, although been working full time since September. Could have hours reduced at some point though, as government continue to toy with everyone's lives and livelihoods. I work in a community centre.

Found lockdown tough through the latter parts of April and through May!

The government should focus on re opening businesses not closing them down for any period of time, we can't just keep printing money!

 

[birchesgreen]

And just how are people supposed to pay their rent and mortgages and other bills, and pay for their food, on just 66% of their wage?

Hi, been on 66% of wages since May.

Answer: there isn't a lot left over at the end of the month. Luckily i've always been fairly frugal in life and don't have any debts. Otherwise would really be struggling.

 

[STINT47]

Going forwards we will exist to work and go to work to exist. Please forget about any leisure or recreational activities that previously made life worth while.

 

[BackOnTheTrain]

And just how are people supposed to pay their rent and mortgages and other bills, and pay for their food, on just 66% of their wage?

They’re going to close the businesses anyway, to “get the virus under control”. 66% of most people’s wages will be better than benefits I’m sure.

 

[jtuk]

They’re going to close the businesses anyway, to “get the virus under control”. 66% of most people’s wages will be better than benefits I’m sure.

The trouble comes when the businesses continue to go bust, and that 66% does become benefits

 

[DelayRepay]

And just how are people supposed to pay their rent and mortgages and other bills, and pay for their food, on just 66% of their wage?

One thing they'll do is stop discretionary spending. Which will in turn affect other businesses, even those which don't have to close through Covid. So the cycle will just get worse and worse.

 

[Yew]

One thing they'll do is stop discretionary spending. Which will in turn affect other businesses, even those which don't have to close through Covid. So the cycle will just get worse and worse.

Indeed, Keynsian theory would dictate that depressions are due to a lack of demand, rather than a lack of supply. If we continue on this path, we're in for a hell of a terrible few years from an economic perspective.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Back to the original question, I think it's a sham - businesses who won't be able to afford it will have to pay pensions and National Insurance contributions, so will lay staff off anyway.

It appears to be set up to avoid the Government looking bad, but I doubt many will claim it, they will just lay people off/give zero hours people no hours.

Also, I think any such scheme needs to bottom out at the full Minimum Wage.

 

[johnnychips]

Also, I think any such scheme needs to bottom out at the full Minimum Wage.

I don’t know the nuances of this scheme, but I would have thought a lot of workers in the hospitality industry would be on minimum wage anyway. A bar staff I know said she usually got about £10 in tips a night, so obviously this will disappear.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don’t know the nuances of this scheme, but I would have thought a lot of workers in the hospitality industry would be on minimum wage anyway.

That's what I meant. If you earn the Minimum Wage, in my view you should get the full Minimum Wage paid to you if your employer is forcibly closed. 2/3 should only apply once that exceeds the Minimum Wage.

 

[johnnychips]

That's what I meant. If you earn the Minimum Wage, in my view you should get the full Minimum Wage paid to you if your employer is forcibly closed. 2/3 should only apply once that exceeds the Minimum Wage.

So if the minimum wage you are on...sorry I don’t know the exact figure... is £9, you should get that anyway, not £6?

 

[Bletchleyite]

So if the minimum wage you are on...sorry I don’t know the exact figure... is £9, you should get that anyway, not £6?

Yes, that's what I mean.

 

[Bantamzen]

Back to the original question, I think it's a sham - businesses who won't be able to afford it will have to pay pensions and National Insurance contributions, so will lay staff off anyway.

It appears to be set up to avoid the Government looking bad, but I doubt many will claim it, they will just lay people off/give zero hours people no hours.

Also, I think any such scheme needs to bottom out at the full Minimum Wage.

There's a simple reason why that won't happen, and its the same reason why the furlough scheme isn't being extended. Put simply, we can't afford it anymore.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's a simple reason why that won't happen, and its the same reason why the furlough scheme isn't being extended. Put simply, we can't afford it anymore.

We can afford what we need to afford. Government borrowing isn't like what your bank will give you.

We just need to be honest about how to fund it and have that debate in public (just like the rest of it, I'm bored of secret squirrelling).

 

[Bantamzen]

We can afford what we need to afford. Government borrowing isn't like what your bank will give you.

We just need to be honest about how to fund it and have that debate in public (just like the rest of it, I'm bored of secret squirrelling).

No we can't afford it, there's no magic money tree to shake. Because the bottom line is the more we spend now, the more we will have to cut tomorrow, and that will include essential services like the NHS. What you are proposing is effectively burning the village to save it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No we can't afford it, there's no magic money tree to shake. Because the bottom line is the more we spend now, the more we will have to cut tomorrow, and that will include essential services like the NHS. What you are proposing is effectively burning the village to save it.

We don't need to cut anything. We can take the preferable (Scandinavian style) option of increasing taxes.

You've fallen into the Tory trap of austerity being the only way - it's not.

 

[radamfi]

And supposedly economic liberal countries like the UK and USA only manage to afford lower taxes by increasing national debt. Scandinavian countries have relatively low levels of borrowing.

 

[Bantamzen]

We don't need to cut anything. We can take the preferable (Scandinavian style) option of increasing taxes.

You've fallen into the Tory trap of austerity being the only way - it's not.

And if people can't afford said taxes because they've lost their jobs, or had to move to lower paid ones?

 

[DustyBin]

We don't need to cut anything. We can take the preferable (Scandinavian style) option of increasing taxes.

You've fallen into the Tory trap of austerity being the only way - it's not.

Increase taxes for who though? I’m all for corporations and the mega rich paying their way but that won’t happen. Those on a lower income simply can’t afford it. So I suspect it will be those already paying the higher rate that will carry the burden. Because they can afford it, right? I mean, how dare they get qualifications and good jobs, especially those pesky working class types with ideas above their station (I’m convinced that’s how the ruling classes see us!).

 

[Yew]

As much as I like borrowing for investment, this sort of borrowing makes me nervous. I think the return on the 'investment' is good enough to make it worthwhile, but it's certainly in the realm of 'economic losses avoided' rather than 'economic stimulus gained'

 

[HSTEd]

We don't need to cut anything. We can take the preferable (Scandinavian style) option of increasing taxes.

Increasing taxes is not some magical way to unlimited government purchasing power.

This government is expending colossal quantities of purchasing power in a likely futile attempt to keep pensioners alive, largely for political advantage.

The cost per QALY vastly exceeds that justified for all other public health interventions according to NICE et al.

This purchasing power will have to be extracted from teh economy eventually - either through inflation, austerity or taxation.

Scandinavia has a fundamentally different economy to the UK, and in many ways is considerably more Staid.
I myself would welcome such an economy, but many would not like the inevitable consequences of it.