Furloughing
#31
They don’t have to. The govt has agreed to pay 80% of the wages, the employer is free to top that up to 100%
Reply
#32
(05-14-2020, 04:34 PM)Sunshine Wrote: Why should workers lose 20% of their wages through no fault of their own?

Could you give us your considered alternative as eventually and hopefully some of them will have jobs to go back to - Do you think the taxpayer should fund 100% of their wages, which begs the question is why should the taxpayer and future generations have to pay for them through no fault of their own. OR would you actually prefer that businesses had to pay the workers when have no income and which will result in those workers having to take universal credit which is much less than 80% of their wages. 

I'm sure the Government would welcome your critical thinking
Reply
#33
(05-14-2020, 04:44 PM)strawman Wrote:
(05-14-2020, 04:34 PM)Sunshine Wrote: Why should workers lose 20% of their wages through no fault of their own?

Could you give us your considered alternative as eventually and hopefully some of them will have jobs to go back to - Do you think the taxpayer should fund 100% of their wages, which begs the question is why should the taxpayer and future generations have to pay for them through no fault of their own. OR would you actually prefer that businesses had to pay the workers when have no income and which will result in those workers having to take universal credit which is much less than 80% of their wages. 

I'm sure the Government would welcome your critical thinking

Who decided it should be 80% and Why? 

Yes if they can afford 80% then 100% shouldn't be a problem.
Reply
#34
The cost of furlough is ?

The bank bail out 12 years ago was?

100% please not a 20% wage cut
Reply
#35
(05-14-2020, 05:27 PM)Sunshine Wrote: The cost of furlough is ?

The bank bail out 12 years ago was?

100% please not a 20% wage cut

The cost of help for the self employed is?
The cost for extra support for abuse victims is?
The cost of applying SSP from day one is?
The cost of paying grants or cancelling tax liabilities – with businesses never being required to repay the money or pay the tax at a later date is?
The cost of deferring tax payments is.
The cost of providing businesses with low-interest loans is?
The cost of grants to councils during the lockdown is?
The cost of emergency grants to Food Banks is?
The cost of Retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in England receiving a business rate holiday for the 2020 to 2021 tax year is?
etc. etc.
As well as 100% wages why not a free Fortnum and Mason’s food hamper each household  every week? 

I might be able to afford 80% of the price of a new small car (on tick) but I can assure you 100% WOULD be a problem
Reply
#36
(05-14-2020, 06:19 PM)JOK Wrote:
(05-14-2020, 05:27 PM)Sunshine Wrote: The cost of furlough is ?

The bank bail out 12 years ago was?

100% please not a 20% wage cut

The cost of help for the self employed is?
The cost for extra support for abuse victims is?
The cost of applying SSP from day one is?
The cost of paying grants or cancelling tax liabilities – with businesses never being required to repay the money or pay the tax at a later date is?
The cost of deferring tax payments is.
The cost of providing businesses with low-interest loans is?
The cost of grants to councils during the lockdown is?
The cost of emergency grants to Food Banks is?
The cost of Retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in England receiving a business rate holiday for the 2020 to 2021 tax year is?
etc. etc.
As well as 100% wages why not a free Fortnum and Mason’s food hamper each household  every week? 

I might be able to afford 80% of the price of a new small car (on tick) but I can assure you 100% WOULD be a problem
You usually dismiss my posts as lies.

Now you ignore my simple questions.
Reply
#37
(05-14-2020, 05:24 PM)Sunshine Wrote:
(05-14-2020, 04:44 PM)strawman Wrote:
(05-14-2020, 04:34 PM)Sunshine Wrote: Why should workers lose 20% of their wages through no fault of their own?

Could you give us your considered alternative as eventually and hopefully some of them will have jobs to go back to - Do you think the taxpayer should fund 100% of their wages, which begs the question is why should the taxpayer and future generations have to pay for them through no fault of their own. OR would you actually prefer that businesses had to pay the workers when have no income and which will result in those workers having to take universal credit which is much less than 80% of their wages. 

I'm sure the Government would welcome your critical thinking

Who decided it should be 80% and Why? 

Yes if they can afford 80% then 100% shouldn't be a problem.

The Government decided 

There is no THEY can afford it - The Government has no money - it raises it in taxes and borrowing. The bank bailout did not require the amount of borrowing that the current crises has because there was still a reasonable economy. The economy has more or less been decimated and along with it tax receipts. Borrowing has therefore increased massively and will have to be repaid, this will be via cuts and tax increases. You ask why not 100% through no fault of their own - I ask why the taxpayer and future generations should be saddled with debt through no fault of their own. 80% is a reasonable compromise, especially when you take into account reduced expenditure on tax, NI, travelling for some and reduced social life.
Reply
#38
So you wanted the Government to pay people 100% of their wages while sitting in their back garden while key workers are out at all hours and not getting anymore ....I can take a bit of furlonged if that was the case.

Some people still refuse to say well done .
Reply
#39
Shows how low expectations have fallen.

Mediocrity Is seen as great by the hard of thinking.

20% wage cut for millions of workers and then higher taxation in the future so will lose even more money.
Reply
#40
(05-14-2020, 08:18 PM)Sunshine Wrote: Shows how low expectations have fallen.

Mediocrity Is seen as great by the hard of thinking.

20% wage cut for millions of workers and then higher taxation in the future so will lose even more money.

The hard of thinking have no positive or constructive suggestions - just continual ideological criticism and no understanding of the implications of their continual bleating. Congrats on winning 1st prize
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)