Trade union and socialist coalition party

[TwigtheWonderkid]

thinkofaname said:

The only reason that the minimum wage is sustainable is because it is low enough that it doesn't cause too much damage.

But that's not what we were told before it was first introduced in 1998. Before it's introduction, we were told it would be a disaster and millions of small business would go to the wall. And the rate back in 1998, £3.60/hour for those aged 23 and over, and £3.20 for 18-22 year olds. Looking back now, I bet if any of you are completely honest, you opposed its introduction then but now you can't actually believe we paid grown men and women under £3.60 an hour in 1998!!! Am I right? Be honest, no one knows you on here!

Do people seriously think Burger King and Hilton Hotels will go bust if they have to pay £10/hour minimum. As said, 85% of people on NMW work for companies with a turnover in excess of £100m.

[V8covin]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

But that's not what we were told before it was first introduced in 1998. Before it's introduction, we were told it would be a disaster and millions of small business would go to the wall. And the rate back in 1998, £3.60/hour for those aged 23 and over, and £3.20 for 18-22 year olds. Looking back now, I bet if any of you are completely honest, you opposed its introduction then but now you can't actually believe we paid grown men and women under £3.60 an hour in 1998!!! Am I right? Be honest, no one knows you on here!

Do people seriously think Burger King and Hilton Hotels will go bust if they have to pay £10/hour minimum. As said, 85% of people on NMW work for companies with a turnover in excess of £100m.

Some of you are confusing turnover with profit.Amazon being a prime example.Huge turnover yet making losses year on year

[TwigtheWonderkid]

V8covin said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

But that's not what we were told before it was first introduced in 1998. Before it's introduction, we were told it would be a disaster and millions of small business would go to the wall. And the rate back in 1998, £3.60/hour for those aged 23 and over, and £3.20 for 18-22 year olds. Looking back now, I bet if any of you are completely honest, you opposed its introduction then but now you can't actually believe we paid grown men and women under £3.60 an hour in 1998!!! Am I right? Be honest, no one knows you on here!

Do people seriously think Burger King and Hilton Hotels will go bust if they have to pay £10/hour minimum. As said, 85% of people on NMW work for companies with a turnover in excess of £100m.

Some of you are confusing turnover with profit.Amazon being a prime example.Huge turnover yet making losses year on year

Well they should be running their business better. If they are making losses year on year, slash the wages of the directors, but don't pay warehouse staff etc st wages.

[loafer123]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Well they should be running their business better. If they are making losses year on year, slash the wages of the directors, but don't pay warehouse staff etc st wages.

They are running their businesses well, they try and make a profit. You are trying to make them make a loss, at which point the capital required for those businesses will bugger off.

The director you are trying to redistribute the wages from is the one who pays positively into the tax system (I am sure you know the stats) so if you redistribute their wages, basic rate taxes will have to increase to compensate or public spending will have to fall.

I guess you don't want that either?

[markcoznottz]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

V8covin said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

But that's not what we were told before it was first introduced in 1998. Before it's introduction, we were told it would be a disaster and millions of small business would go to the wall. And the rate back in 1998, £3.60/hour for those aged 23 and over, and £3.20 for 18-22 year olds. Looking back now, I bet if any of you are completely honest, you opposed its introduction then but now you can't actually believe we paid grown men and women under £3.60 an hour in 1998!!! Am I right? Be honest, no one knows you on here!

Do people seriously think Burger King and Hilton Hotels will go bust if they have to pay £10/hour minimum. As said, 85% of people on NMW work for companies with a turnover in excess of £100m.

Some of you are confusing turnover with profit.Amazon being a prime example.Huge turnover yet making losses year on year

Well they should be running their business better. If they are making losses year on year, slash the wages of the directors, but don't pay warehouse staff etc st wages.

Oh aren't you clever, I'm sure you could do a better job. Burger king are franchises, a lot are struggling, but YOU know best, a keyboard warrior ffs.
Minimum wage has been a disaster, coupled with open borders, hence ways to reduce staff costs, ZHC, disguised employment, agency staff, contracting in general, to be honest the very low paid jobs pre 1998 served as a springboard to a better wage, there were far more jobs then, and far better paid jobs as well. IMO the nmw is a form of dumbing down, be careful what you wish for.

[V8covin]

Re: minimum wage and tax credits.
The time to transfer the onus from the tax payer to the business is not when the world is in an economic slowdown.
If we were experiencing good growth in all sectors then yes,increase minimum wage and cut tax credits.Until then no.
Far better to reduce income tax on low earners

[Countdown]

loafer123 said:

They are running their businesses well, they try and make a profit. You are trying to make them make a loss, at which point the capital required for those businesses will bugger off.

The director you are trying to redistribute the wages from is the one who pays positively into the tax system (I am sure you know the stats) so if you redistribute their wages, basic rate taxes will have to increase to compensate or public spending will have to fall.

I guess you don't want that either?

Not sure I follow your logic.

Redistributing wages from the Director (who may or may not be mitigating tax/NI by paying himself dividends etc) to employees who are on NMW means that tax/NI will be paid at 32% rather than 42%, but (on top of this) it may reduce the amount of tax credits / HB / CT benefit that the employee is getting which means a greater saving for the general taxpayer.

Increasing NMW shifts the costs from the Taxpayer to Business owners.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

markcoznottz said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

V8covin said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

But that's not what we were told before it was first introduced in 1998. Before it's introduction, we were told it would be a disaster and millions of small business would go to the wall. And the rate back in 1998, £3.60/hour for those aged 23 and over, and £3.20 for 18-22 year olds. Looking back now, I bet if any of you are completely honest, you opposed its introduction then but now you can't actually believe we paid grown men and women under £3.60 an hour in 1998!!! Am I right? Be honest, no one knows you on here!

Do people seriously think Burger King and Hilton Hotels will go bust if they have to pay £10/hour minimum. As said, 85% of people on NMW work for companies with a turnover in excess of £100m.

Some of you are confusing turnover with profit.Amazon being a prime example.Huge turnover yet making losses year on year

Well they should be running their business better. If they are making losses year on year, slash the wages of the directors, but don't pay warehouse staff etc st wages.

Oh aren't you clever, I'm sure you could do a better job. Burger king are franchises, a lot are struggling, but YOU know best, a keyboard warrior ffs.

Well perhaps we shouldn't force them to pay out for fire extinguishers and electrical safety certificates, to ease their burden. But then again, I bet you wouldn't want your family to have to go into shops and restaurants that were a potential fire hazard.

You're happy for other people to suffer to make these businesses viable, and earn a crap wage, but you wouldn't be happy for potential money saving measures to help business to impact on you and yours. And you call me a keyboard warrior!

Lot's of people on here prepared to defend apparently non viable businesses to the last drop of someone else's blood!

[Oakey]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

But that's not what we were told before it was first introduced in 1998. Before it's introduction, we were told it would be a disaster and millions of small business would go to the wall. And the rate back in 1998, £3.60/hour for those aged 23 and over, and £3.20 for 18-22 year olds. Looking back now, I bet if any of you are completely honest, you opposed its introduction then but now you can't actually believe we paid grown men and women under £3.60 an hour in 1998!!! Am I right? Be honest, no one knows you on here!

Do people seriously think Burger King and Hilton Hotels will go bust if they have to pay £10/hour minimum. As said, 85% of people on NMW work for companies with a turnover in excess of £100m.

My first job out of school at 16 in 1998, prior to the minimum wage, paid £3.00-£3.50 an hour. Six months later I was working elsewhere for £4.50 an hour.

In 2015, what is the minimum wage of a school leaver?

£3.79! Hardly seems like progress, does it?

What does that £3.60 in 1998 translate to today with inflation?

[V8covin]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Well perhaps we shouldn't force them to pay out for fire extinguishers and electrical safety certificates, to ease their burden. But then again, I bet you wouldn't want your family to have to go into shops and restaurants that were a potential fire hazard.

You're happy for other people to suffer to make these businesses viable, and earn a crap wage, but you wouldn't be happy for potential money saving measures to help business to impact on you and yours. And you call me a keyboard warrior!

Lot's of people on here prepared to defend apparently non viable businesses to the last drop of someone else's blood!

So,the government/tax payer stops supporting non viable businesses as you call them.Then what ? If they are non viable they will close and jobs will be lost.The workers will then have to claim benefits which will mean even more cost to the taxpayer will it not ?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

V8covin said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Well perhaps we shouldn't force them to pay out for fire extinguishers and electrical safety certificates, to ease their burden. But then again, I bet you wouldn't want your family to have to go into shops and restaurants that were a potential fire hazard.

You're happy for other people to suffer to make these businesses viable, and earn a crap wage, but you wouldn't be happy for potential money saving measures to help business to impact on you and yours. And you call me a keyboard warrior!

Lot's of people on here prepared to defend apparently non viable businesses to the last drop of someone else's blood!

So,the government/tax payer stops supporting non viable businesses as you call them.Then what ? If they are non viable they will close and jobs will be lost.The workers will then have to claim benefits which will mean even more cost to the taxpayer will it not ?

I don't believe they are non viable. My point is, as has been said, crap employers pay what they can get away with. When they can afford to pay a £10/hour min, which is hardly a fortune.

[BGARK]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I don't believe they are non viable. My point is, as has been said, crap employers pay what they can get away with. When they can afford to pay a £10/hour min, which is hardly a fortune.

How much do you pay your staff?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

BGARK said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I don't believe they are non viable. My point is, as has been said, crap employers pay what they can get away with. When they can afford to pay a £10/hour min, which is hardly a fortune.

How much do you pay your staff?

I don't employ any unskilled labour so it's not really comparable. But the window cleaner takes about 45 mins and charges £12.50, so £16.66/hour.

[mph1977]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

BGARK said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I don't believe they are non viable. My point is, as has been said, crap employers pay what they can get away with. When they can afford to pay a £10/hour min, which is hardly a fortune.

How much do you pay your staff?

I don't employ any unskilled labour so it's not really comparable. But the window cleaner takes about 45 mins and charges £12.50, so £16.66/hour.

where's the parrot ...

[Rovinghawk]

If unskilled workers receive a minimum £10 per hour, what wage would those currently on £10 per hour expect & what would be the consequences of that?

[Blib]

Oakey said:

What does that £3.60 in 1998 translate to today with inflation?

The "This is Money" historic inflation calculator says that the equivalent today would be £5.86.

[dudleybloke]

Rovinghawk said:

If unskilled workers receive a minimum £10 per hour, what wage would those currently on £10 per hour expect & what would be the consequences of that?

This.

[technodup]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I don't employ any unskilled labour so it's not really comparable. But the window cleaner takes about 45 mins and charges £12.50, so £16.66/hour.

With logic like that... what could possibly go wrong?

[Du1point8]

All I can see happen is that SME will reduce staff.

Have 4 people currently, they all get a pay-rise to minimum of £10 an hour, so remove one person and make the others work harder for their new salary enforced on the company.

Many retail/fast food/small companies will go to the wall and simply close when they work out that now the owner is making so little money, they might as well shut up shop or go back to being an employee or a one man band.

Yet another way to fk over the SMEs with the current supply and demand in jobs, lots of supply = lower wages.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Du1point8 said:

All I can see happen is that SME will reduce staff.



Many retail/fast food/small companies will go to the wall and simply close when they work out that now the owner is making so little money, they might as well shut up shop or go back to being an employee or a one man band.

Yet another way to fk over the SMEs with the current supply and demand in jobs, lots of supply = lower wages.

That's exactly what they said would happen in 1998 when the £3.60 NMW was introduced. The Earth would be sucked into the sun, millions of firms would go bust and it would be a catastrophe.

And that's what they said when they made fire extinguishers compulsory. And when they made employers liability insurance compulsory. In fact, it's exactly what they said to William Wilberforce when he muted the idea of abolishing slavery.