This won't work

care are

You want to talk to Amazon about that.

I don't do other people's work for them.

"What I do not believe is right, is taking cash in hand and not declaring it if you are a taxpayer" couldn't agree with you more Gabriella.

Cash in hand jobs is the norm here in rural Wales.

Does anyone actually know people that are doing this, I do not.

I think the majority of people are having a difficult time with only 80% of their income.

Where are all these cash in hand jobs,what sectors.

As others have said, where is the proof that this cash-in-hand assertion is actually true?
It's one thing to "watch and read the news rather more than most" (an unprovable claim in itself!), but it is quite another to have the ability to critically evaluate what one hears or reads!

Cleaners, plumbers, electricians, gardeners
drivers...anyone who has a skill and offers it to anyone who wants to pay less than the going rate. Odd jobs etc...window cleaning.

Where is the proof?

Don't tell me that none of you think that no-one moonlights during normal times (eg: pre-covid)
I've known people who work for cash and have been quite open about not declaring it.
I know it's not everyone or even a majority but I do know that some GNers pay cash for services and cannot be sure that it's declared.
It goes on now just as it did pre March 23rd.

Do you want a signed and dated confession from a moonlighter?

BTW, you can earn up to £1000 a year ftom such activities without having to register as self-employed and/or fill out a self-assessment tax return. Where is the proof that furloughed workers have exceeded that?

I know personally of some gardeners (grass cutters mostly!) who take cash in hand .... glad of a few bob ‘on the side’. And one lady I know does a bit of cleaning. It was ever thus.

Actually now I come to think about it, there are loads of small businesses (hair salons, nail bars, tattooists) who don’t have a machine for debit cards!! They like to be under the radar...

I thought this thread was about those who have been furloughed?

I can understand people not wanting to go back, purely for reasons of safety. Anyone needing to use public transport to get to work would be taking an enormous risk.

In any case, isn't the point of the furlough scheme that it only applies to those who can't go to work because the company has temporarily closed, or because their job is not feasible during the crisis?

What I would like to know is how the government plans to explain to those who are unemployed but not because of Corvid19 that they have to continue to live on £90 a week when furloughed workers get up to £2500 a month. Also, why furloughed workers are not means tested before getting payments, when others are. A two-tier system is very unfair, when both sets of workers have paid NI.

I wonder if a side-effect of all of this will be that the punitive Universal Credit system will be overhauled and become more generous. I really hope so.

I understood that furloughed workers (actually, their employers) had to submit paperwork showing each employee's income over a certain period and 80% of the mean was paid.

Furloughed workers are still, notionally, employed.
Unemployed are not.
Furloughed workers are not, of their own accord off work, either their workplaces were closed temporarily or the workers themselves are self isolating but have jobs to go back to.
On the other hand, unemployed persons do not have a job.
Two entirely different situations.

I beg to differ. Whilst it is true that unemployed people do not have a job, they have, on the whole, lost them through no fault of their own. A furloughed person is also unable to work through no fault to his or her own.

Quite why one group should be given so much more than another, and have no conditions placed on their right to claim is beyond me.

I am not in any way suggesting that furloughed workers should not be helped, incidentally. I am questioning the decision to give them up to £2500 a month without a means test, when others who have to work to go to are expected to have virtually nothing left before they can claim, and they are given so much less.

Furloughed workers have a job to return to.
Unemployed persons do not.

They do have a means test in the form of their employers giving info on each person's income over a designated period. The mean of this amount is calculated to arrive at a monthly figure which will be paid.
There is no way that all unemployed persons can or would provide that info and some left their jobs or were sacked.

Stating the obvious, this is a very complex issue. Some people are obviously being furloughed because there is no job for them to do at the moment but there will be a job for them to return to when this crisis reduces and the business they are employed by opens up again.
Sadly some people are presently being furloughed but won't have a job to return to because the company they work for will fold because of the crisis.
Some are unwilling to return to work because of safety issues, child care issues or because they are in the most vulnerable category and should still be shielding.
Unfortunately there will be a small minority who, for one reason or another, are reluctant to return to work and prefer being furloughed at 80% of their salary. It may be that they hate their job, have a bullying manager or are not very competent at their job. It could also cost some a lot of time and money commuting and therefore, after tax and NHS contributions are taken off find themselves not much worse off at home. It is also true that some will be getting a bit of work cash in hand.
I think that the people who are deliberately delaying their return will be in a very small minority. After all it's not that much fun staying at home without usual leisure activities available.
I am not an admirer of the government's overall handling of this crisis but I can definitely see that, allowing for all these different types of issues, it's going to be a nightmare deciding who to help, how much help to give and for how long.

52bright
Well put. ?

*They do have a means test in the form of their employers giving info on each person's income over a designated period. The mean of this amount is calculated to arrive at a monthly figure which will be paid.
There is no way that all unemployed persons can or would provide that info and some left their jobs or were sacked.*
As I am sure you know, that is not the sort of means test I meant, but for avoidance of doubt, I meant that if someone loses their job and needs to rely on benefits they have to declare all savings and wait until they have very little left before they can claim. If someone is furloughed, however, this does not apply.

The mean amount that an unemployed person earned before losing his or her job is not taken into account when determining the amount of benefit (although it is directly relevant to the amount of NI they have deducted at source), thus placing the furloughed at a distance financial advantage, as Universal Credit does not pay 80% of a claimant's previous salary - it is not earnings related at all.

The maximum that a household on benefits can claim is around £20k a year, but if a couple are both furloughed they can get up to £5k a month between them, ie the equivalent of £60,000 a year. 'Some' unemployed people may have been sacked or left their jobs, true, but I am unsure of the relevance of this, as your initial point was that many of the furloughed are not, in fact, without an income, yet are being paid up to £2500 a month per person.

Your lack of faith in humanity is noted in both cases, but it does not detract from my point, which is that there is a two-tier system in play.

You can repeat for the third time that one group has a job to go beck to and the other doesn't, but again, that is not relevant to the fact that both are being paid because they are not currently working, and both are claiming against the insurance that NI represents, yet get very different payouts. I am simply questioning this, and wondering whether the result might be that the Universal Credit system is re-evaluated, and if not, why not.

You seem to be working on the assumption that those who are unable to work because of the Covid situation are somehow more worthy of public money than those who are unable to work because of redundancy or recession; but to me, the groups are in exactly the same position, except that the former is lucky enough to expect to return to their workplace when this is over, but the latter is not.

Ah...but for how long would the taxpayer be 'obliged' to underwrite the payments you suggest to unemployed individuals, as they have no promise or definite prospect of work?
How would a mean of their salary be arrived at?
Furloughed individuals still have to pay tax and NI if their income exceeds the amount whereby no tax is payable.
Will payments stop when furlough payments stop and who picks up the tab in August when employers (of presently furloughed staff) have to fund at least half the Gov top-up payments of those who go back part-time?

Redundancy pay is often awarded when businesses want to lose staff.
Recession is the exception but what about the others who make a career of being unemployed or do little to find work or have a million reasons not to be employable?