Rishi Sunak has rightly been praised for his swift and extensive support for employees. The Chancellor has also delivered roughly parallel measures for the self-employed — albeit with certain omissions. But that can’t be the end of it.
Lessons must be learned from the 2008 financial crisis — in particular we must pay attention to who benefits from massive government support and who doesn’t. Back then, it was the wealthy who took the most from the bailouts and from quantitative easing, which pushed up the value of financial assets and property. And as recession turned to recovery, that advantageous position further compounded inequality by rewarding the already advantaged as we saw house prices move upwards again — and out of the reach of aspiring homeowners.
This time we need to make sure that government intervention puts ordinary people first.
That’s certainly what the Job Retention Scheme does by making payments covering 80% of the wages of workers who’d otherwise be laid off — up to a cap of £2,500 per month. It’s clearly focused on the protection of those on modest wages.
However, it’s not only household incomes we need to worry about, but also outgoings — not least of which are debt repayments.
Debt weighs most heavily on those least able to afford it — both in terms of borrowing costs and type of debt (eg. mail order) and as a proportion of their income. The issue with our current unsecured debt burden is a distributional one which means it impacts those least able to cope more.
Consider the following from a Resolution Foundation study, published back in January. The poorest 25% of the population are far more exposed to consumer debt than anyone else – the median level of consumer debt constituted 17% of their pre-tax income in 2016 -18, compared with only 4% for those in the richest fifth of the population. Furthermore, the report found that “typical consumer debt-to-income ratios remain more than three times higher for lower-income households as compared to their higher-income counterparts”.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe Job Retention Scheme does not provide much support for employees, it mainly transfers taxpayers money to businesses that can still make staff redundant. Indeed, the Scheme rules explicitly states that companies can make staff redundant whilst staff are on furlough.
This allows the scheme to be abused as employers can get government to pay salaries during any period of redundancy consultation and notice. Essentially taxpayers will be helping business to survive whilst at the same time increasing unemployment.
The Scheme rules should be changed immediately so that any business that applies for the JRS are forbidden to start any redundancy process whilst they are receiving government support for furlough payments.
Small business is 60% of all employment. By killing small business you kill the majority of wages in the community. Redundancy is exactly that. A position that is not justified by the volume of sales of the business.
I think you have been exposed to far too many years of communist Labour Party propaganda. Small business is the life of a community it hires and spends in that community. Keeping these businesses healthy so they can restart your community economy is vital.
But if you would like a depression, instead of recession, where a third of people are unemployed just keep worrying about yourself. You will assist in making it happen. This is not an “Us and Them” propasition this is a time for unity. Part of that is to recognize the need for support for all not just those branding themselves as victims.
The doomsday scenario proffered by Alan Hall that suggests the natural state of employers is to abuse the retention scheme is exactly the narrow thinking that is not needed at this time. The reality is the majority of employers will use the scheme correctly and for the purpose intended. A minoirity may manipulate it. This is not a reason to abandon a good idea. No idea will be perfect. Keeping the connection between employer and employee as a synergy for success in rebuilding a damaged economy is wise. Pursuing a socialist/communist agenda that all things come from government is destructive.
Paul the firefighter had a good article on the sound policy that this article extends. Relief in the critital areas of employment continuation, rent/mortgage relief, utility relief and this article deals with debt/interest payment releif. Which is a worthy extension because it is 17% of net earnings for many families
Again I caution the glossing over relief to private landlords. For the majority they are small investors without a large capacity to fund others housing. Loans to them can be only valued on a future cash flow. As such mandating no evictions without significant incentives for them will drive a great many to bankruptcy and diminish housing for the poor. A government write off of capital gains for landlords for income foregone at 300% for the year or two after this crisis is necessary. Firstly it will allow lenders to calculate greater earnings justifying loans. Secondly it will give landlords the opportunity to repair and upgrade causing the lift in employment the greater economy will require to recover. Further this policy would see employment not concerntrated but aggregated proportionately over the country providing equal improvement in earnings and life amenity to all UK residents.
If a landlord gets the benefit of a moratorium on their mortgage, that needs to pass through to the tenant. Otherwise the landlord gets an uninterrupted income stream and a halt to their own interest payments.
Michael I can tell you have never owned a property for rent. Mortgage relief offered is “deferred” payment with the accrual of interest. There is no financial benifit to this person . In fact over the course of the mortagage they pay more. They just pay later. So the discount to renters should be zero. And their rent should be increased to cover the cost of additional interest using your rationale.
I agree with the article. I’m in a fortunate position of having some savings, no mortgage and a job that I can do unimpeded from home. Not everyone is in that situation. There will be a lot of economic pain from the current crisis and it’s important it is shared equitably. In my view, that means a debt moratorium. If it also means a moratorium on interest payments for savers, so be it – frankly, the rates are so low that it won’t make much difference to most people.