[jfman]

Originally Posted by tweetiepooh

It may not be common but we have contacts earning more on furlough than normal because it's based on last years income and this year (before lockdown) was lower (that is 80% of last year is higher that 100% of this year). But it is true, we can't keep paying people for doing nothing.

It’s not sustainable forever, however there’s no reason for it not to be sustainable in the shorter term. Someone taken off furlough with no job to go back to goes on benefits still costs the taxpayer, gets council tax benefit, rent/mortgage interest paid and has less money to spend in the economy - impacting the demand side of the economy. If they had a job to go back to they’d remain a net taxpayer in the longer term.

The economy is on life support but removing furlough and other protections is switching off the machine and hoping for a miracle.

It's hard to see any quick way out. Even if government removed all restrictions some public are still too scared to go out (I even saw people wearing masks in own cars). Waitrose has restricted numbers entering because their feedback said it was too crowded.

I like Wagamama and like the way they work on benches, sharing space but can't see that working anytime soon. And if restaurants have to maintain long distances many can't work.

I do agree with the points made earlier that we are moving to a phase to protect the vulnerable and loosen the reins elsewhere. Maybe provide for local/regional variance other than Wales/Scotland/NI so local flareups can be brought under control but a difference in the UK is that we are a small island with large population and a population that won't stand for the measures used in some Asian nations.

Easing restrictions doesn’t necessarily equate to all of these businesses suddenly becoming viable in the absence of consumer confidence. We should focus less on what we perceive as making us different from the rest of the world and recognise that, in the face of the virus, we are all fundamentally the same.

---------- Post added at 11:32 ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Your suggestion needs more debate having regard for human psychology. If it is put to the population "let the virus run free", might they not opt for lock down? If at the same time they're told that lock down is buggering the economy, what will they choose?

jfman is right - government pays either way and that money has to be repaid to the lenders. The people who need to earn that wealth also need to believe in whatever is the right course of action - and they're in the rock/hard place situation.

I disagree to some extent. People are shitting themselves as to whether or not they still have a job when we emerge from lock-down. Millions won't have a job foir well understood reasons. It's going to be very tough.

I can only speak from personal experience I’m working from home on 100% of my salary and saving about two thirds of it each month. Before Covid-19 I was much more active in the economy - going out for meals, after work drinks, cinema, football matches etc. and making more modest savings.

I’m likely to have the ability to work from home well into next year and if the virus is prevalent in my local community (or the city to which I used to regularly commute) I’m unlikely to start spending as much again. There’s likely to be hundreds of thousands, if not millions, working from home in a similar boat - spending less and not going to until they feel it’s safe to do so (either for personal health or job security reasons).

That impacts on every service sector, hospitality, retail, etc. going forward.

Fundamentally the whole economy needs restructured to rebalance the gains of the Amazons of this world with the costs to bread and butter local businesses hit hardest. This is the bitterest pill to swallow for “small c” conservatives who see no role for the state and uninhibited free markets as the answer. If they are the answer - the question most definitely isn’t how to we respond to Coronavirus.