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

[Yew]

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

I agree with this sentiment, but do we have any nice articles on it. It seems to me that if the current measures were a drug, then the costs, sideffects, and number needed to treat would make it unethical to use.

 

[LAX54]

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.

Of course all this has to be paid back by the Great British Public at some point, one assumes higher Income Tax and higher VAT at some point, IF there are any shops left to gp into, I see Edinburgh Woollen Mills, that have shops, and aso own PRIMARK and JAEGER, are also calling in the administrators, with 24,000 jobs at risk to go, the downward spiral of the UK gets faster, of cours eit was CINEWORLD last week, and the ODEON chain is not that healthey either.

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.

HAS anyone asked what the Pensioners really want ? Do they want to fester in their home, or a care home, or rather see family, and have at least some life in the latter years, we all know we have to go at sometime, it is never nice for those left behind, some lived through 2 World Wars, and more, and this must be the first time that have ever been told to 'put life on hold' for months and months, even in WW2 you put a tin hat on and got on with it ! no pussy footing about, running away, they lived life to the full as best they could.

 

[HSTEd]

I agree with this sentiment, but do we have any nice articles on it. It seems to me that if the current measures were a drug, then the costs, sideffects, and number needed to treat would make it unethical to use.

Unfortunately little explicit research is going on this respect in the UK, here is something from Australia

But brute force estimation - 250-500,000 dead.
Did a simplistic analysis that estimated ~14 years per casualty, average QALY factor at that age is about ~0.80 so that is something like 11.2 QALY per casualty. Note that this is an overestimate since even amongst old people the virus kills the frail and ill.

250k-500k*11.2 is about 2.8-5.6 million QALY lost.

Which is £84bn-£168bn total cost to avert at the given ~£30k per QALY.

Note that we have already lost about 500k QALY to the virus even with these restrictions.
Which is a cost of £15bn, so cost averted is actually £70-153bn or so.

Furlough alone cost £60bn, add in the cancer fatalities and the lost economic activity and you will rapidly shoot past £150bn.
Also note that this crisis still isn't over, its still costing us money.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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!).

I am a higher rate taxpayer and think it would be entirely fair to put more tax on me, and I support this (and always did) over austerity.

The one thing I ask is that the tax is levied honestly, which means no stealth taxation. Increase Income Tax and CGT instead.

 

[DustyBin]

I am a higher rate taxpayer and think it would be entirely fair to put more tax on me, and I support this (and always did) over austerity.

The one thing I ask is that the tax is levied honestly, which means no stealth taxation. Increase Income Tax and CGT instead.

Please don’t be offended by this, but you seem to be an ultra-altruistic ‘greater good’ type, which is admirable in many ways to be honest. I however already feel that I pay more than my fair share of income tax, and seeing half of my annual bonus disappear every year, mostly through taxation, is quite painful. I’d rather see increased CGT but I’m not exactly keen on that idea either, even though I’ve never benefited from a ‘capital gain’. We may just need to agree to disagree on this I think!

 

[brad465]

I am a higher rate taxpayer and think it would be entirely fair to put more tax on me, and I support this (and always did) over austerity.

The one thing I ask is that the tax is levied honestly, which means no stealth taxation. Increase Income Tax and CGT instead.

Please don’t be offended by this, but you seem to be an ultra-altruistic ‘greater good’ type, which is admirable in many ways to be honest. I however already feel that I pay more than my fair share of income tax, and seeing half of my annual bonus disappear every year, mostly through taxation, is quite painful. I’d rather see increased CGT but I’m not exactly keen on that idea either, even though I’ve never benefited from a ‘capital gain’. We may just need to agree to disagree on this I think!

Governments worldwide could do a lot more if tax havens were not a thing and tax avoidance linked to them was clamped down on (we of course have loads of them around our own shores and in the Caribbean). Unfortunately because wealth is power there are too many vested interests to see enough done about it. Another action that could perhaps be done instead of tax rises elsewhere is to give more support to HMRC to get our £31 billion annual tax gap (this was their 2018-19 estimate, the latest data) much lower. Some sources elsewhere think offshore tax avoidance is not covered in this metric (although others forms of avoidance are).

 

[bramling]

I am a higher rate taxpayer and think it would be entirely fair to put more tax on me, and I support this (and always did) over austerity.

The one thing I ask is that the tax is levied honestly, which means no stealth taxation. Increase Income Tax and CGT instead.

It’s going to be very hard to put extra tax on the middle-age groups, especially those who have worked as normal right through, without it seeming like they are picking up the bill to bail out the young in order to protect pensioners.

It’s going to be a very tough sell for that group (pensioners) to be seen to walk away unscathed in terms of the financial burden - yet of course BJ won’t want to hit them as they make up a chunk of Conservative voters.

Cue yet another nosedive to this country’s cohesion and unity...

 

[DustyBin]

Governments worldwide could do a lot more if tax havens were not a thing and tax avoidance linked to them was clamped down on (we of course have loads of them around our own shores and in the Caribbean). Unfortunately because wealth is power there are too many vested interests to see enough done about it. Another action that could perhaps be done instead of tax rises elsewhere is to give more support to HMRC to get our £31 billion annual tax gap (this was their 2018-19 estimate, the latest data) much lower. Some sources elsewhere think offshore tax avoidance is not covered in this metric (although others forms of avoidance are).

I agree with this, too many businesses/individuals are seemingly ‘above’ paying tax and nothing is done about it. The fact that it’s their extreme wealth that gives them this benefit is somewhat perverse.

It’s going to be very hard to put extra tax on the middle-age groups, especially those who have worked as normal right through, without it seeming like they are picking up the bill to bail out the young in order to protect pensioners.

It’s going to be a very tough sell for that group (pensioners) to be seen to walk away unscathed in terms of the financial burden - yet of course BJ won’t want to hit them as they make up a chunk of Conservative voters.

Cue yet another nosedive to this country’s cohesion and unity...

This is what I mean when I say certain groups are expected to carry the burden (although I’m not middle aged yet!). Expecting those on middle to high incomes, who are the backbone of the country, to pay more tax and in many cases see their living standards drop as a result isn’t fair in my opinion. I’ll say it again, we’re simply the easiest target.

You make a good point regarding social cohesion, but then turning the population against itself seems to be this government’s speciality!

 

[Bantamzen]

Of course all this has to be paid back by the Great British Public at some point, one assumes higher Income Tax and higher VAT at some point, IF there are any shops left to gp into, I see Edinburgh Woollen Mills, that have shops, and aso own PRIMARK and JAEGER, are also calling in the administrators, with 24,000 jobs at risk to go, the downward spiral of the UK gets faster, of cours eit was CINEWORLD last week, and the ODEON chain is not that healthey either.

I'm afraid as bad as they look, these job losses are only a drop in the ocean with the estimated 750,000 lost since March. In any other situation this would be plastered across the headlines every day, but "because covid" it seems that the loss of three quarters of a million jobs in just six months matters not one jot. And there is almost certainly worse to come.

HAS anyone asked what the Pensioners really want ? Do they want to fester in their home, or a care home, or rather see family, and have at least some life in the latter years, we all know we have to go at sometime, it is never nice for those left behind, some lived through 2 World Wars, and more, and this must be the first time that have ever been told to 'put life on hold' for months and months, even in WW2 you put a tin hat on and got on with it ! no pussy footing about, running away, they lived life to the full as best they could.

The answer is no, nobody has asked them. From what I can tell the majority of people banging on about restrictions and "new normal" are people desperate to find other people to blame & to pay the price, just so nobody can blame them & that they can get away with minimal damage to themselves. Pretty much all the elderly I know would rather be able to see family & friends and get on with a normal life even though this would put them more at risk. So when someone says they support restrictions because they will save others, they probably mean that they are happy for others to pay the cost to save their own would-be guilt. You'll also find that most are not adversely affected by restrictions, i.e. they are not losing their jobs, financially impacted, waiting for operations or procedures, trying to work through their education etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It’s going to be very hard to put extra tax on the middle-age groups, especially those who have worked as normal right through, without it seeming like they are picking up the bill to bail out the young in order to protect pensioners.

I see your point regarding the latter. But regarding the former, the young are having such a bad time of things that I can't find myself able to object at all.

It's fundamentally unfair that just because I seem to have been born with a logical brain which means I'm well-suited to a well-paid job in IT that I should get paid twice as much as someone who works just as hard labouring on a building site. It's just not right. I therefore don't object to the use of the taxation system to level that up a bit - particularly now where my job is continuing basically as normal and many of the latter types of people are stuck with neither work nor pay.

Some would say that makes me a communist - I wouldn't - I'd say it makes me just want things to be fairer - I'm well up for the idea that if you work hard you should live well, and if you're really down on your luck society should help you to get back up, but if you wilfully slack you should get bare minimum to survive, and that's not communist at all.

 

[Richard Scott]

I am a higher rate taxpayer and think it would be entirely fair to put more tax on me, and I support this (and always did) over austerity.

The one thing I ask is that the tax is levied honestly, which means no stealth taxation. Increase Income Tax and CGT instead.

In reality I doubt there are anywhere near enough higher rate tax payers to make any significant difference. It will always be the masses who have to pay and the ones that'll suffer.

 

[SS4]

We only need to look to the last recession to see who will pay - like always it'll be the public sector, the poor, and the sick who pay for it whilst the rich get to buy out competition for pennies on the pound and increase their assets as a result. Can anyone here advise how they've personally benefited from banks paying back those loans from 2008?

Whitehall will again be sneaky about this simply cutting more and more funding to local authorities and letting them take the blame when bin collections become more sparse or local services are cut. The NHS will also be affected - can you imagine the effect on Covid and the economy had the NHS been appropriately funded since 2010? A Tory knows the value of nothing and the cost of everything and you're delusional if you think Boris is calling an election any time soon.

 

[david1212]

I wonder directly how much the government will pay out through this scheme and how many jobs / businesses it will save ?

For the employer to operate a job share for three employees with each working for 1/3 time they have to pay 55% of wages for each topped up by 22% by the government. Further the productivity of three people working 1/3 may well be less than one person working 100%. If 50% job share across two employees the cost to the employer for each is 66.7% and to the government 16.7%. On top of this the employer has overheads which could be 100% or only slightly less.

If this was last April and potentially for 3 months followed by a fast ramp up to ' old normal ' the employer might well consider worthwhile. Now though if trading is still heavily suppressed unless they have a very high confidence of a return to full production at the start of 2021 and need to retain specific skills keeping more employees than are required for the current workload may well be a bridge too far.

 

[brad465]

The chancellor has been forced to try and improve the Job Support Scheme even further now, with the focus being on Tier 2 areas:

New government Covid scheme to pay up to half of wages

Chancellor Rishi Sunak increases support for firms and workers as lockdown restrictions spread.

www.bbc.co.uk

The chancellor has unveiled increased support for jobs and workers hit by Covid restrictions after growing clamour from firms in tier two areas.

Rishi Sunak announced big changes to the Job Support Scheme (JSS) - set to replace furlough in November.

He told the Commons that even businesses not forced to shut were facing "profound economic uncertainty".

Under the revised scheme, employers will pay less and staff can work fewer hours before they qualify.

At the same time, the taxpayer subsidy has been doubled.

The way I see it, for as long as businesses affected still have to contribute, this will not help reduce job losses, on top of the continuing uncertainty exacerbating the case for business closures and resultant job losses.

 

[WelshBluebird]

The chancellor has been forced to try and improve the Job Support Scheme even further now, with the focus being on Tier 2 areas:

New government Covid scheme to pay up to half of wages

Chancellor Rishi Sunak increases support for firms and workers as lockdown restrictions spread.

www.bbc.co.uk

The way I see it, for as long as businesses affected still have to contribute, this will not help reduce job losses, on top of the continuing uncertainty exacerbating the case for business closures and resultant job losses.

I agree it isn't enough - but I don't agree it won't help at all.
Certainly some businesses will be able to continue paying some amount to some employees for a period of time. The less they have to pay (aka the more the more the government pays), the greater the number of people they can pay or the longer they can pay it for.
And some closed business could continue operating in a different way - similar to how we saw many restaurants and pubs turn themselves into takeaways during the main lockdown, I would assume the legislation that allowed that is still in play.
But as I said I do agree it isn't enough. Its the same with people who have to self isolate. Following the rules financially punishes businesses and individuals as it is right now.

 

[david1212]

22 October

The chancellor has been forced to try and improve the Job Support Scheme even further now, with the focus being on Tier 2 areas:

New government Covid scheme to pay up to half of wages

Chancellor Rishi Sunak increases support for firms and workers as lockdown restrictions spread.

www.bbc.co.uk

The way I see it, for as long as businesses affected still have to contribute, this will not help reduce job losses, on top of the continuing uncertainty exacerbating the case for business closures and resultant job losses.

The then proposed scheme was informally discussed with the MD on Tuesday. He bluntly said that from December even if there was enough work to spread around so everyone could work 1/3 hours he could not pay 55% for this plus Second State Pension contributions and overheads. The reality would be intermittent opening only to meet customer orders.

With this revision while still 20% work required a big step down for the employer from 55% to 25%. For the employees a much better situation realistically from December to at least April when for many customers the new financial year starts.

Edit 5th November

Rishi has announced the current furlough scheme will continue until the end of March albeit with a review in January.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54824120

The furlough scheme will be extended across the UK until the end of March, Chancellor Rishi Sunak has confirmed.
Mr Sunak said the scheme will pay up to 80% of a person's wage up to £2,500 a month. He told the Commons that the government will review the policy in January.

For my employer and the employees this gives some security. The current work, much of which is delayed from earlier in the year, is all close to completion. The order book is bare. The one significant order that was thought to be in the bag has been ' paused ' ( while at a guess £150k rather than ~£500m think MML electrification in 2015 ).