Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK government to pay up to 80% of wages for employees not working

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 183 posts

Re: UK government to pay up to 80% of wages for employees not working

#131

Post by watwut »

user5994461 wrote: post #85
tomxor wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What penalty? it's the other way around, you take a 20% penalty if you stop working, and note that it's not for people who voluntarily stop working.

You can easily save 10 to 20% when unemployed because you don't have to pay for daily transportation (tube/train/car), lunch outdoors every day and a few other things. So the difference in disposable income is about null in most cases.

You can take lunch from home and eat that. I know enough people who do that. People who bought yearly or other long term tickets (majority of frequent travellers) dont save.

Re: UK government to pay up to 80% of wages for employees not working

#132

Post by SilasX »

RobertKerans wrote: post #127
SilasX wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you stop working, you also get a lot of time back.

Yes of course, that's exactly what's happening at the minute. Everybody who can't work is having the most terrific fun on this unplanned holiday time they've suddenly been handed where they don't have to pay bills or buy food or support dependents./s You're surely just being deliberately naïve here, playing the naif? I just don't really see the point I guess

Ignoring the penalization of work is being naive? Ignoring the "not having to work" in calculating how well off someone is, because you can make a snarky remark about how mixed a blessing it is to stay home, is naive? I would say the opposite.

I could just as well ask if you're just trying to be clever devil's advocate here.

Re: UK government to pay up to 80% of wages for employees not working

#133

Post by AntonStratiev »

tibbydudeza wrote: post #13
lotsofpulp wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theoretically, it’s less than the cost of letting everything fall apart for 2 months of pausing business.

2 months seems optimistic ... SARS died out all by itself but I don't think this one will so a vaccine which is a few months off will be critical for folks to go back to "normal".

Vaccine estimate is 18 months according to the Imperial College:

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/s...

Vaccines in human trials in the US now need to go through a 14 month observation period to understand effectiveness and side effects.

Influenza vaccines, if they are any guide, are only 50-70% effective and need to be renewed annually.

Ask people if they are willing to sacrifice 18 months of their life so that someone with an average age of 79 and existing health complications can live another couple of years and you will start to deal with the problem honestly.

By my calculations for every 1 year of saved life (average age 79) we are paying for it with 10 years of lockdown life (average age 35-40).

Re: UK government to pay up to 80% of wages for employees not working

#134

Post by RobertKerans »

SilasX wrote: post #132
RobertKerans wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes of course, that's exactly what's happening at the minute. Everybody who can't work is having the most terrific fun on this unplanned holiday time they've suddenly been handed where they don't have to pay bills or buy food or support dependents./s You're surely just being deliberately naïve here, playing the naif? I just don't really see the point I guess

Ignoring the penalization of work is being naive? Ignoring the "not having to work" in calculating how well off someone is, because you can make a snarky remark about how mixed a blessing it is to stay home, is naive? I would say the opposite. I could just as well ask if you're just trying to be clever devil's advocate here.

Yes, I think you're being deliberately naïve. Maybe if people were spherical cows, you might have a point, but you're just acting as if there is no such thing as society, as if people aren't going to want friends and family (in particular) who can't work to be supported through this period. It's a slightly bizarre way to view this handout, given the situation that is very clearly occurring.

And some people will make that calculation and figure out a way to officially be unable to work and pick up government money. That's always happened, it's called malingering.

Re: UK government to pay up to 80% of wages for employees not working

#135

Post by ericd »

metaobserver wrote: post #123
justsomedude11 wrote: post #19

I will happily pay 45% tax on my salary knowing the Gov has my back in difficult times like these. I'm fortunate enough to still have a job, but I'm happy I live in Europe.

Why would you prefer the government to manage your money instead of investing and saving it yourself?

Because government is an easy way to work together on big problems. Things like charity are great, but the participation rate tends to be a whole lot lower than you can get from taxes.

Re: UK government to pay up to 80% of wages for employees not working

#136

Post by ericd »

Mvandenbergh wrote: post #69
Ididntdothis wrote: post #6

This makes more sense for me than sending $1000 checks to people who still have a job.

Giving everyone money makes sense as fiscal stimulus once the economy is back to normal. It does not make sense now because people are avoiding spending and many will not need the $1000 and not spend it. Targeted help now and then a jolt when it's over.

Mm no, a lot of people are already wondering how to pay rent. If anything, that $1000 needs to be higher, and adjusted for cost of living by area.

Re: UK government to pay up to 80% of wages for employees not working

#137

Post by kmlx »

GreeniFi wrote: post #117
slyfocks wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s quite alarming that no country (as far as I’m aware) is taking a more rational approach towards coronavirus policy. Any attempt to make an argument of this sort in the current panic is being seen as insensitive and met with outrage (“you don’t care about me/someone’s parents/grandparents”). If the consensus ends up being that we need to put an 18 month hold on all activity and spend trillions of dollars to exten…

I’m an economist, I get your Cost Benefit Analysis. But I think you’re missing two factors: firstly the psychological cost a community where senicide occurs ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senicide ). Secondly, the fact that governments are not rational. This UK government is beginning to wake up to the fact that it will lose all public support in coming months and is making belated attempts to shore up some public…

> This UK government is beginning to wake up to the fact that it will lose all public support in coming months and is making belated attempts to shore up some public support.

lose support over what exactly? are you foreseeing a scandal of some sorts?

Re: UK government to pay up to 80% of wages for employees not working

#138

Post by michaelmrose »

user5994461 wrote: post #125
michaelmrose wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are already covering debt for a lot stupider reasons at least you can console yourself that the money was worth spending.

The point is precisely that views differ on whether the money is worth spending ;)

I think a half a million people are worth saving even if some of them get decades more of life and some only get A single decade more of life.

Re: UK government to pay up to 80% of wages for employees not working

#139

Post by megablast »

SilasX wrote: post #39
Ididntdothis wrote: post #6

This makes more sense for me than sending $1000 checks to people who still have a job.

Because it should penalize anyone who kept working or who was in an essential occupation?

It doesn’t penalise anyone. The money goes to those who need it.

Re: UK government to pay up to 80% of wages for employees not working

#140

Post by megablast »

Ididntdothis wrote: post #52
SilasX wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it should penalize anyone who kept working or who was in an essential occupation?

This is about helping people in need and not a gift from government.

Are you upset you don’t have a wheelchair?
Post reply on HN