Minimum Wage,£7 an hour

[crankedup]

Grandfondo said:

crankedup said:

What is so difficult in understanding my comment you have highlighted, its quite straight forward and to the point. Put your argument up against it, why you seem to think its attacking private businesses and why, presumably, you think its OK for private business to be subsidised by tax payers. Put another way, discuss!

Edited by crankedup on Wednesday 22 January 08:56

But they are not subsidising private business they are subsidising the worker unlike the fact the taxpayer is subsidising private sector pensions to the tune of billions!

Interesting play on words! it all boils down to one factor though : if the employer paid a living wage the Tax payer would not be offering handouts to the employees, raising their income to a minimum living wage. You think its right for tax payers to subsidise people like tesco employees because tesco pays low wages for example?

[crankedup]

The_Burg said:

If you are working you should be able to live, not talking nice cars and holidays.

When the minimum wage doesn't even cover the rent it's too low.

Every working person should be able to attain a minimal standard of living. A one bedroom flat, enough to heat and light it and buy basic food.

That's not unreasonable. st i sound like a socialist...

In our street you can't find anywhere to park, most families have working kids in their 20's who still are living at home. This shouldn't be the case. Especially when the unemployed have paid for housing and better standards of life.

Not at all Socialist imo, just normal decency I suggest.

[RizzoTheRat]

johnS2000 said:

This is a relevant question to which I would like an answer !!

A previous poster stated that his staff had to be careful not to work too many hour's in case they lost benefit entitlement !!

To me this means they are working and receiving handouts therefore subsidising the profits of that business .

The problem is there's a sudden cutoff in benefits rathet than a gradual reduction with number of hours worked. For example if you're claiming jobseekers you can do up to 16 hours work a week (eg a part time job while looking for full time work), but if you go over 16 hours you get no JSA, so there's you'd get less money in total doing 23 hours work at minimum wage than you would doing 16.

As far as the employer's concerned they're not being subsidised by the tax payer, they're being penalised as they need to hire 2 people to do the one person could do.

[RYH64E]

crankedup said:

RYH64E said:

crankedup said:

What is so difficult in understanding my comment you have highlighted, its quite straight forward and to the point. Put your argument up against it, why you seem to think its attacking private businesses and why, presumably, you think its OK for private business to be subsidised by tax payers. Put another way, discuss!

So what do you think would be an appropriate level for a minimum wage?

Very good question, when we take into account the wide variances of housing cost throughout the regions it becomes even more difficult to put a number to it. However, if a % of the National median average was used this could provide a starting point perhaps.

So, what do YOU think would be an appropriate level for a minimum wage?

This is reminiscent of the 'what constitutes wealthy?' debate, it's meaningless without numbers.

[otolith]

crankedup said:

Interesting play on words! it all boils down to one factor though : if the employer paid a living wage the Tax payer would not be offering handouts to the employees, raising their income to a minimum living wage. You think its right for tax payers to subsidise people like tesco employees because tesco pays low wages for example?

Do you think people who aren't capable of earning enough to stand entirely on their own two feet should not be allowed to work at all?

[Funkycoldribena]

Maybe minimum wage linked to company profit would stop such paltry wages being paid by certain supermarkets etc.

[crankedup]

RYH64E said:

crankedup said:

RYH64E said:

crankedup said:

What is so difficult in understanding my comment you have highlighted, its quite straight forward and to the point. Put your argument up against it, why you seem to think its attacking private businesses and why, presumably, you think its OK for private business to be subsidised by tax payers. Put another way, discuss!

So what do you think would be an appropriate level for a minimum wage?

Very good question, when we take into account the wide variances of housing cost throughout the regions it becomes even more difficult to put a number to it. However, if a % of the National median average was used this could provide a starting point perhaps.

So, what do YOU think would be an appropriate level for a minimum wage?

This is reminiscent of the 'what constitutes wealthy?' debate, it's meaningless without numbers.

For now and to keep you happy I will go with the Chancellor, 7 quid. But I would very much prefer to see a formula then a simple 'think of a number. Do you have a POV on this?

[crankedup]

otolith said:

crankedup said:

Interesting play on words! it all boils down to one factor though : if the employer paid a living wage the Tax payer would not be offering handouts to the employees, raising their income to a minimum living wage. You think its right for tax payers to subsidise people like tesco employees because tesco pays low wages for example?

Do you think people who aren't capable of earning enough to stand entirely on their own two feet should not be allowed to work at all?

[crankedup]

Funkycoldribena said:

Maybe minimum wage linked to company profit would stop such paltry wages being paid by certain supermarkets etc.

Good idea imo, or better still worker co-operatives which are brilliant for bosses and workers.

[RizzoTheRat]

It would make sense if minimum wage was linked to the cost of living, but that would be a nightmare because it varies geographically.

[otolith]

crankedup said:

otolith said:

crankedup said:

Interesting play on words! it all boils down to one factor though : if the employer paid a living wage the Tax payer would not be offering handouts to the employees, raising their income to a minimum living wage. You think its right for tax payers to subsidise people like tesco employees because tesco pays low wages for example?

Do you think people who aren't capable of earning enough to stand entirely on their own two feet should not be allowed to work at all?

Is that a yes? If someone is incapable of earning enough to live in the standard you think appropriate, they shouldn't be working at all?

[crankedup]

otolith said:

crankedup said:

otolith said:

crankedup said:

Interesting play on words! it all boils down to one factor though : if the employer paid a living wage the Tax payer would not be offering handouts to the employees, raising their income to a minimum living wage. You think its right for tax payers to subsidise people like tesco employees because tesco pays low wages for example?

Do you think people who aren't capable of earning enough to stand entirely on their own two feet should not be allowed to work at all?

Is that a yes? If someone is incapable of earning enough to live in the standard you think appropriate, they shouldn't be working at all?

Its not a yes or no, frankly its a daft question you ask, hence my laughter. Come on you can do better than that.

[RYH64E]

crankedup said:

For now and to keep you happy I will go with the Chancellor, 7 quid. But I would very much prefer to see a formula then a simple 'think of a number. Do you have a POV on this?

I'd be happy with £7, £8 wouldn't be unreasonable imo.

The reason why I'm interested in a figure rather than a general statement of intent is that the numbers get quite scary. Even in Suffolk where you and I are fortunate to live it costs about £700 per month to rent a small house, add on council tax, gas and electricity and you're up to £1000, add in food, telephone, clothes, all the stuff that children need, and the total rises to, say £1600 take home, which is about £25k per year or £12/hr. That's without running a car or going out. On the other hand, £12/hr for a young lad living at home would be a very comfortable wage.

I don't know much about the tax credit system but I suspect that even at £12/hr a family would still be eligible for tax credits if they have children and only one wage earner. If the intention is to make the minimum wage sufficient to remove the need for tax credits it's going to have to be a lot higher than the proposed £7/hr.

[mph1977]

Grandfondo said:

johnS2000 said:

This is a relevant question to which I would like an answer !!

A previous poster stated that his staff had to be careful not to work too many hour's in case they lost benefit entitlement !!

To me this means they are working and receiving handouts therefore subsidising the profits of that business .

Why? If the employee only does 16 hours so as not to lose benefits another person will have to do the extra hours at a cost to the company so how is that helping the bottom line?

P.S only as an hour on hour basis not going into NI and HP.

For some people working more than 16 hours will eat into benefit entitlement , others will want to average slightly over 30 hours a week for working tax credit purposes ( especially if thery have kids or their spouse/partner is disabled - as these can increasde the amount of tax crredits you get / increase the cut off earnings quite substantially)

Having lots of part time staff is a way to avoid premium overtime rates ( as the NHS trick of no overtime but you can sign up to a second zero hour contract with the same employer or with NHS (un)Professionals to work extra hours in your own workplace ... doesn;t seem to have caught on in the privater sector)

[otolith]

crankedup said:

otolith said:

crankedup said:

otolith said:

crankedup said:

Interesting play on words! it all boils down to one factor though : if the employer paid a living wage the Tax payer would not be offering handouts to the employees, raising their income to a minimum living wage. You think its right for tax payers to subsidise people like tesco employees because tesco pays low wages for example?

Do you think people who aren't capable of earning enough to stand entirely on their own two feet should not be allowed to work at all?

Is that a yes? If someone is incapable of earning enough to live in the standard you think appropriate, they shouldn't be working at all?

Its not a yes or no, frankly its a daft question you ask, hence my laughter. Come on you can do better than that.

Just pointing out the consequences of your policy and asking you whether they are intentional.

You object to a person working if they have to top their income up with benefits.

I think you imagine that what would happen if the minimum wage were raised to the point where anybody earning it gets no benefits is that all of those people would be paid more. That is not the case. Some of those jobs would cease to be viable at all. The people doing those jobs would then have to fall back on the taxpayer for all of their income, not just some of it. You would force them into complete benefit dependency.

[Grandfondo]

mph1977 said:

Grandfondo said:

johnS2000 said:

This is a relevant question to which I would like an answer !!

A previous poster stated that his staff had to be careful not to work too many hour's in case they lost benefit entitlement !!

To me this means they are working and receiving handouts therefore subsidising the profits of that business .

Why? If the employee only does 16 hours so as not to lose benefits another person will have to do the extra hours at a cost to the company so how is that helping the bottom line?

P.S only as an hour on hour basis not going into NI and HP.

For some people working more than 16 hours will eat into benefit entitlement , others will want to average slightly over 30 hours a week for working tax credit purposes ( especially if thery have kids or their spouse/partner is disabled - as these can increasde the amount of tax crredits you get / increase the cut off earnings quite substantially)

Having lots of part time staff is a way to avoid premium overtime rates ( as the NHS trick of no overtime but you can sign up to a second zero hour contract with the same employer or with NHS (un)Professionals to work extra hours in your own workplace ... doesn;t seem to have caught on in the privater sector)

Your first paragraph states that people don't want to be full time because it affects their benefits and the second states the employer wants part time workers to save on overtime rates!
So what's the answer because it looks like everyone is happy going by your assessment ?

[crankedup]

RYH64E said:

crankedup said:

For now and to keep you happy I will go with the Chancellor, 7 quid. But I would very much prefer to see a formula then a simple 'think of a number. Do you have a POV on this?

I'd be happy with £7, £8 wouldn't be unreasonable imo.

The reason why I'm interested in a figure rather than a general statement of intent is that the numbers get quite scary. Even in Suffolk where you and I are fortunate to live it costs about £700 per month to rent a small house, add on council tax, gas and electricity and you're up to £1000, add in food, telephone, clothes, all the stuff that children need, and the total rises to, say £1600 take home, which is about £25k per year or £12/hr. That's without running a car or going out. On the other hand, £12/hr for a young lad living at home would be a very comfortable wage.

I don't know much about the tax credit system but I suspect that even at £12/hr a family would still be eligible for tax credits if they have children and only one wage earner. If the intention is to make the minimum wage sufficient to remove the need for tax credits it's going to have to be a lot higher than the proposed £7/hr.

Completely agree, sadly our whole balance of 'worth and remuneration' is, imo, completely out of kilter with the gap between the have's and the have less is growing. I believe the impact of this imbalance is now coming through into real life consequences. The Government are currently disguising this with the 'credits' they hand out.

[pork911]

Funkycoldribena said:

Maybe minimum wage linked to company profit would stop such paltry wages being paid by certain supermarkets etc.

And those workers should share in the loses as well?

[crankedup]

otolith said:

crankedup said:

otolith said:

crankedup said:

otolith said:

crankedup said:

Interesting play on words! it all boils down to one factor though : if the employer paid a living wage the Tax payer would not be offering handouts to the employees, raising their income to a minimum living wage. You think its right for tax payers to subsidise people like tesco employees because tesco pays low wages for example?

Do you think people who aren't capable of earning enough to stand entirely on their own two feet should not be allowed to work at all?

Is that a yes? If someone is incapable of earning enough to live in the standard you think appropriate, they shouldn't be working at all?

Its not a yes or no, frankly its a daft question you ask, hence my laughter. Come on you can do better than that.

Just pointing out the consequences of your policy and asking you whether they are intentional.

You object to a person working if they have to top their income up with benefits.

I think you imagine that what would happen if the minimum wage were raised to the point where anybody earning it gets no benefits is that all of those people would be paid more. That is not the case. Some of those jobs would cease to be viable at all. The people doing those jobs would then have to fall back on the taxpayer for all of their income, not just some of it. You would force them into complete benefit dependency.

Where have I said that 'I object to a person working if they have to top up their income with benefits'? No such thing from me and its not my stance!

However, thanks for setting out your stall in your second para'. You are clearly in favour of Government hand-outs to the low paid workers under certain circumstances. I take the opposite POV, for me its distorting the labour market and the economy, in addition it leaves employers a useful excuse to keep wage rates low perhaps when they can well afford to pay more. The real reason all this low pay and MW situation has arisen is down to the past 6 years of high unemployment and some employers taking advantage of this. As the economy recovers perhaps this trend will reverse, although with a continuing influx of cheap foreign labour perhaps not. Either way its a Government policy it seems to lower real wage levels making G.B. more competitive in Global terms. Seems to me that your POV will likely win out, so to speak, at the expense of ordinary working people continuing to see their living standards fall.

[crankedup]

pork911 said:

Funkycoldribena said:

Maybe minimum wage linked to company profit would stop such paltry wages being paid by certain supermarkets etc.

And those workers should share in the loses as well?

YES! its how a workers co-operative works and the 'John Lewis' model too. When you say workers that then means ALL workers from CEO to stacker.