Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is about helping people in need and not a gift from government.
Are you upset you don’t have a wheelchair?
I don’t understand the question.
UK government to pay up to 80% of wages for employees not working
141–150 of 183 posts
Re: UK government to pay up to 80% of wages for employees not working
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Well, I guess if people didn't avoid work because of the incentive effects of social assistance systems, then your model would be better, but that's not the world we live in.
>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.
Wait, you agree this happens, despite just having waxed eloquent about "living in society", but then condescend to everyone who suggests it does? Right, I'm the one wasting everyone's time here...
Re: UK government to pay up to 80% of wages for employees not working
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd be shocked is most people on this page who are fully employed devs/techs/etc in the US do not already donate roughly 45% to the government. SS and Federal, plus state (3% for me, and almost 4% for local), now that's just on income, not anything you spend. Again, here we go. 9% sales tax in my municipality, plus individualized taxes on a variety of goods the government deems bad. This includes markups on booze, to…
> I'd be shocked is most people on this page who are fully employed devs/techs/etc in the US do not already donate roughly 45% to the government. Yeah, but 45% would be federal income tax only in Europe. Social Security, pensions, sales tax etc pp would be on top, and are generally also considerably higher than in the US.
Sales tax is on top of course, but social security and state provided pension is included in the 40% to 52% here (the percentage depends on total yearly income)
We pay between 0 and 100 euro per month for health insurance, which covers basically everything with a very low co-pay amount (like 150 euros per year max)
Student loans are also much much lower. We pay 1600 euros per year tuition, the rest is government paid.
So the 40% may sound very high, but if you look at what is included compared to what the middle class in the US spends on student loans and healthcare I think we're not much worse off over here.
Re: UK government to pay up to 80% of wages for employees not working
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
There’s going to be huge criticism over mismanagement of the crisis. The criticism will be at two levels:
1. You didn’t act fast enough and lots of people died before their time.
2. When you did act, it was too late and that has ramped up the cost to the economy.
As it is we might be headed towards a yo-yo epidemic. Interesting argument here: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2020/03/he...
Ps wasn’t sure if you were being sarcastic...
Re: UK government to pay up to 80% of wages for employees not working
#145Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Well, I guess if people didn't avoid work because of the incentive effects of social assistance systems, then your model would be better, but that's not the world we live in. >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. Wait, you agree this happens, despite just having waxed eloquent abou…
You understand that soon many people will lose their jobs who have done nothing wrong? They are not avoiding work but they are being laid off.
Re: UK government to pay up to 80% of wages for employees not working
#146Has anyone calculated the value of life that we are saving here? The Imperial College report had 510,000 dying in the UK under a no-action scenario. Average age lets say 79 as the virus progresses. 510,000 * (82.5-79) * GBP 30,000 (QALY for the NHS) = 53.5 billion pounds based on the funding methodology used for the NHS. Instead the Uk seems to be willing to throw its entire GDP at this problem, 3 trillion pounds. Th…
Can you show me how you calculated the 3 trillion dollar cost? Are you for example counting loans to businesses as if none will be paid back? Are we talking about the economic impact or direct costs or both? To be clear the UK has 29 million workers who make an average of 28k pounds. If 60% of them are off work and can't work from home paying 80% of that wage to 60% of them would appear to cost about 32 billion pound…
She had an pre-existing condition: compromised immunity after a stage 4 cancer.
Re: UK government to pay up to 80% of wages for employees not working
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
In theory if you saved the difference in taxes...but then we don't generally save, but consume. max 2500 pounds. Say for 6 months? A Year? That's 15k to 30k. This is not enough to justify "45%" taxes for life...
It's not about breaking even financially. It's about knowing you're never going to end up homeless or starving when your luck turns bad.
There are plenty of homeless people in London.
Re: UK government to pay up to 80% of wages for employees not working
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Sure but then isn't it better to take this approach - 80% of your salary for people out of work and nothing for people still employed - than to give an arbitrary amount of $1000 to everyone regardless of local cost of living?
Re: UK government to pay up to 80% of wages for employees not working
#149Notably this now leaves a gaping self employed person shaped hole in the otherwise impressively woven safety net.
Yes but they have increased universal credit amounts substantially, that will go some way to close the gap.
Re: UK government to pay up to 80% of wages for employees not working
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Well, I guess if people didn't avoid work because of the incentive effects of social assistance systems, then your model would be better, but that's not the world we live in. >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. Wait, you agree this happens, despite just having waxed eloquent abou…
Then what point are you really trying to make here then? Because on its own, what you're saying is a non-sequitur, it's as if you're just ignoring what's going on. Some people will take advantage of this handout. So what? Most people will not, and most working people are not looking at this the way you describe (it doesn't have almost universal public support because everyone is rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of cheating the system).
Edit: it's as if you're talking about a completely different thing to what this actually is: as per the sibling comment, this is a benefit going to people losing their jobs, for reasons they cannot control in any way.