Minimum Wage,£7 an hour
Poll: Minimum Wage,£7 an hour
Total Members Polled: 313
Discussion
crankedup said:
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?crankedup said:
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?Under your model if the company lose money in a year then wages get reduced for all employees.
Lets take General Motors (this is a care site after all).
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=5503957
So, a 15.5 billion loss in a single quarter. How much should an employee be expected to give back to the company?
pork911 said:
crankedup said:
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?crankedup said:
pork911 said:
crankedup said:
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?crankedup said:
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?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.
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.
London424 said:
crankedup said:
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?Under your model if the company lose money in a year then wages get reduced for all employees.
Lets take General Motors (this is a care site after all).
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=5503957
So, a 15.5 billion loss in a single quarter. How much should an employee be expected to give back to the company?
Both your post and mine must have been seconds apart, impressive.
otolith said:
crankedup said:
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?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.
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.
What a lot of people don't understand about working part-time and benefits is that you can work UP TO 16 hours a week (16 hours and more per week is considered full time working). However whatever you earn will deducted from your benefits less the first £5 per week.
So there is no real incentive for people to work as chances are once they have included travel costs etc, they will be worse off, plus all the documentation you have to provide to the benefit office of proof of hours worked - it is a major hassle.
So there is no real incentive for people to work as chances are once they have included travel costs etc, they will be worse off, plus all the documentation you have to provide to the benefit office of proof of hours worked - it is a major hassle.
You have to bear in mind how much state support someone will get on that kind of wage, especially if they have kids. I just did a benefits check (assuming £1k month rent). If I earned £7 per hour for a 37 hour week, I would get the following amounts weekly:
£230 net income
£149 tax credits
£34 child benefit
£155 housing benefit
£6 council tax benefit
Total net weekly income £574.
£230 net income
£149 tax credits
£34 child benefit
£155 housing benefit
£6 council tax benefit
Total net weekly income £574.
Grandfondo said:
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?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 .
P.S only as an hour on hour basis not going into NI and HP.
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)
So what's the answer because it looks like everyone is happy going by your assessment ?
crankedup said:
It is an interesting situation and not at all clear cut from either perspective. As the Government continue to cover low wages and the same time they close down Remploy. Its sometimes difficult to fathom sometimes! It was said that disabled could make their own way and also Remploy was undermining 'private'businesses.
remploy was costing significant sums of money and provided 'help' to a limited number of people. Remploy had not developed corporately beyond the origins in 'sheltered workshop' type glorifed OT
the choice was cut Remploy's subsidy or cut the other Access to Work stuff ...
mph1977 said:
Grandfondo said:
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?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 .
P.S only as an hour on hour basis not going into NI and HP.
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)
So what's the answer because it looks like everyone is happy going by your assessment ?
mph1977 said:
crankedup said:
It is an interesting situation and not at all clear cut from either perspective. As the Government continue to cover low wages and the same time they close down Remploy. Its sometimes difficult to fathom sometimes! It was said that disabled could make their own way and also Remploy was undermining 'private'businesses.
remploy was costing significant sums of money and provided 'help' to a limited number of people. Remploy had not developed corporately beyond the origins in 'sheltered workshop' type glorifed OT
the choice was cut Remploy's subsidy or cut the other Access to Work stuff ...
Good or bad for the economy?
I imagine business owners won't be very happy but on a positive note it will hopefully lead to a reduction in tax credits.
Ed Miliband pledges Labour will raise minimum wage to at least £8 an hour
I imagine business owners won't be very happy but on a positive note it will hopefully lead to a reduction in tax credits.
Ed Miliband pledges Labour will raise minimum wage to at least £8 an hour
voyds9 said:
That's a headline figure would be more interesting to see if it makes much/any difference to take home after the benefits/tax situation have been taken into account.
it will reduce the amount paid out in LHA/HB and working tax creditshowever unless it's also joined with reductions in corporate taxation ( which it won;t be if it's milibrain as PM) it will increase costsd
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff