The economic impact of Covid-19

[Davkaus]

I've heard many anecdotes of friends of friends/family getting nice new Mercedes and Land Rovers courtesy of the taxpayer. It's underwritten by the government. Shame if their business goes under, isn't it? 

[Genie]

1 minute ago, welnik said:

I must have the wrong accountant then!

I don’t agree with what he’s done at all. He’s been raking it in as demand sky rocketed after an initial couple of weeks off. As long as he doesn’t show he has made more money this year than last year then he will keep the money.

The main point though was that the government threw a shit load of money at people without really checking if they needed it or if it was going to be open to abuse, then there’s industries crying out for help getting nothing.

[bannedfromHandV]

Spoke to a guy recently through work, he's worked the sum total of roughly 3 months since 2017 as a Consultant but has placed himself on furlough via his limited company, no idea what he's claiming but I'll bet it's not commensurate with what he's actually worked/earned in the past 12+ months.

 

On the vaccine situation - I won't be putting my hands up to voluntarily be injected with something that has almost certainly not been rigorously tested and definitely will not have had any evaluation of long term effects.

[welnik]

6 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Spoke to a guy recently through work, he's worked the sum total of roughly 3 months since 2017 as a Consultant but has placed himself on furlough via his limited company, no idea what he's claiming but I'll bet it's not commensurate with what he's actually worked/earned in the past 12+ months.

 

On the vaccine situation - I won't be putting my hands up to voluntarily be injected with something that has almost certainly not been rigorously tested and definitely will not have had any evaluation of long term effects.

I did some work for a guy in early May, he was raging as he got nothing because he was a director of a limited company. When I asked why, he told me that he pays himself a salary at minimum wage, and then pays 18% on his dividends! He wasn't best pleased to be reminded that he'd had his furlough money by not paying his fair share of tax. Coincidentally, on his drive was a 2 month old X6 ! Maybe,he should have sold the car!

[knoppy1987]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

Ending furlough for workers in industries which cannot operate at the moment is a disaster - there will be an absolutely enormous amount of job losses between now and Christmas in hospitality, retail, entertainment, aviation, hotels and the service sectors unless some sort of targeted support is provided. 

The end of furlough is a cliff edge that the nation is strolling towards with its head in the sand.

 

I agree with your post and echo your concerns because I work in the Aviation/Aerospace sector and can report on similar impacts. Our business sales will have halved compared to calendar 2019 come the end of December. Other than Private Equity buyers looking for good value opportunities largely due to this crisis, as well as the largest aircraft component suppliers, our work as consultants has diminished. When we do sell we cannot sell without a substantial discount in place ~50% in some cases.  

A few months ago I was given the option to take a temporary pay cut or go on furlough (both options resulting 80% of salary). I opted without hesitation for the former based on my own wisdom to support the business, and also hoping that this would reflect positively if any further decisions had to be made. Whichever way you look at it though, if things continue as they are, my wisdom (blind faith by then) will count for nothing, and my job along with many in the sectors you mention are merely a ticking time bomb (not forgetting that there have been thousands affected already). Targeted and extended help is a must rather than some homogeneous strategy with a cut off. 

[bannedfromHandV]

12 minutes ago, welnik said:

I did some work for a guy in early May, he was raging as he got nothing because he was a director of a limited company. When I asked why, he told me that he pays himself a salary at minimum wage, and then pays 18% on his dividends! He wasn't best pleased to be reminded that he'd had his furlough money by not paying his fair share of tax. Coincidentally, on his drive was a 2 month old X6 ! Maybe,he should have sold the car!

Yeah with all due respect to any freelance folk on here I think contractors have taken the piss for long enough personally.

I welcome the IR35 reforms, once they finally land.

[Genie]

3 minutes ago, bannedfromHandV said:

Yeah with all due respect to any freelance folk on here I think contractors have taken the piss for long enough personally.

I welcome the IR35 reforms, once they finally land.

Not all, but many.

[bannedfromHandV]

17 minutes ago, Genie said:

Not all, but many.

Of course, it was a sweeping generalisation

[HanoiVillan]

I'm sure there's a Basic Income thread, but can't find it for some reason. Anyway:

 

[Davkaus]

That's nice. They may as well promise free unicorn rides for all though. 

[ml1dch]

Given their current standing, it's a pretty bold claim to call the Lib Dems a "major political party" if the Greens (who've already made that policy offering) aren't described as the same. 

[Davkaus]

10 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Given their current standing, it's a pretty bold claim to call the Lib Dems a "major political party" if the Greens (who've already made that policy offering) aren't described as the same. 

They have 1000% more MPs. They're massive  

[HanoiVillan]

28 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

That's nice. They may as well promise free unicorn rides for all though. 

 

12 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Given their current standing, it's a pretty bold claim to call the Lib Dems a "major political party" if the Greens (who've already made that policy offering) aren't described as the same. 

Obviously there's not going to be a Lib Dem government that puts the policy into practice, but the point is to show which way the political winds are blowing.

[darrenm]

This pandemic should have seen UBI instead of various furlough schemes since the start.

The further we go towards the endpoint of capitalism where all capital has moved to the richest with nothing left for the rest, the more progressive thinking needs to come into the mainstream.

Really interesting that Lib Dems are moving to the left of Labour though.

[ml1dch]

7 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Obviously there's not going to be a Lib Dem government that puts the policy into practice, but the point is to show which way the political winds are blowing.

Sure. I was just quibbling the description that The Independent has given the party. If their 8% in the polls and handful of MPs makes them a major party, then the Greens can probably describe themselves as the same. 

[blandy]

47 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

That's nice. They may as well promise free unicorn rides for all though. 

Indeed. Same as with the Greens, who also seem to have it as a policy. It's one of those things where the idea is seemingly a good one, but the actuality is that it can't work in terms of achieving what it is being touted as doing. I've looked into UBI quite a lot, and rather than go on at length* about it (I may do that another time), there are a few significant factors.

Firstly do you make it enough to live on, with no other income? - in effect replacing state pensions, working credits, Unemployment benefit/Universal Credit/Disability payments and such like? And if you do make it enough to live on, do you tax it? And to whom do you give it - everyone, everyone over (say) 16, or 18, or to everyone not in full time education? let's say everyone over 16 - that's 81% of 68 million people = 55 million people.

55 million x 20 grand a year = £1,100,000,000,000 per year = £1.1 trillion The whole economy was only 2.7 trillion  and all benefits combined made up 264 billion of that - so we're talking about quadrupling the amount spent on benefits. Where does that come from, that extra 840 billion pounds a year? Either taxes or borrowing or both and at a monumental level.

Next - If I can sit at home for 20 grand a year - I might well decide to do so, rather than work. So that leads to skills shortages, which forces up wages, which forces up inflation, which forces up the amount needed to live on, which forces up UBI, which forces up taxes, which...etc. A vicious circle.

And all for what? - shouldn't we instead properly help people who need help?

And then there's the record of government measures like Universal credit being implemented - it's appalling.

Of course you could make it so the "benefit" is a much smaller sum. But if you do that, you still need to pay benefits and pensions etc. to people who wouldn't have enough to live on. So then you're paying UBI to a whole mass of people who don't need it because they have enough already, and benefits and UBI to people who do need it - why not make it non-universal, call it benefits and make it enough for those who need it to live on? Thus avoiding all the rejigging of the tax system, the borrowing, the wage inflation, general inflation and so on?

From trials of UBI, or something a bit like UBI some positives have come out, which can be summed up as giving people money allows them to be happier, to be less stressed and to do things they like doing and in some cases to start a new career or hobby or vocation. Which is great, if totally unsurprising. But again, target it at those who need it, then.

Finally the trials have concluded that there are more or as many results from the trials that suggest it is a bad idea as a good one - and that's from the people conducting the trials, not from politicians of one slant or another.

So nice idea in principle, terrible one in practice. If someone could demonstrate how to make it actually work, then great, I'd change my mind, but with no evidence of any sort along those lines, it's nothing other than the promise of Unicorns from people who ought to have seen what promising Unicorns does to a Country.

*sorry, I lied.

[HanoiVillan]

11 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Sure. I was just quibbling the description that The Independent has given the party. If their 8% in the polls and handful of MPs makes them a major party, then the Greens can probably describe themselves as the same. 

I see what you're saying, but I think I would take the other side of that argument. Maybe somewhere between a major party and a minor party.

[snowychap]

14 minutes ago, blandy said:

If someone could demonstrate how to make it actually work, then great

I think, as suggested before, we wouldn't begin with the assuptions and/or calculations on which you base your opinion.

But that's as far as you and I ought to go on the subject as we've done it to death in many threads.

[HanoiVillan]

7 minutes ago, snowychap said:

we've done it to death in many threads.

We certainly have talked about it before, so much so that I'm sure a Basic Income thread was created - really annoying me that I can't find it.

[snowychap]

Just now, HanoiVillan said:

We certainly have talked about it before, so much so that I'm sure a Basic Income thread was created - really annoying me that I can't find it.

I seem to remember discussions in one or more GE threads and possibly the Labour one.

Not so sure there was a specific thread unless @blandy created one and then accidentally deleted it.