Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

No, because the inevitable price increases because of ......... the living wage.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

And trust is hard to win back after a plethora of scandals some which are still ongoing.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Well, with inflation at around 0 to 1%, and expected to stay there for the next couple of years, yes.....

---------- Post added at 17:14 ---------- Previous post was at 17:12 ----------

So we should have the insane situation where low salaries are topped up by the Government, at a time when business profits are at their highest levels in two decades?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...e-economy.html

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Or perhaps we're heading to a point where no one will give misleading, fraudulent advice just to line their own pockets for fear of being found out ten years down the line and then being held accountable for it

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Isn't that what National Insurance is for?

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

The living wage isn't going to profoundly increase the amount of money in the economy so shouldn't make that much of an impression in prices.

The minimum wage didn't make much difference in the grand scheme.

Companies will see their own tax bills drop a bit, and will have to take hits on their bottom line, which many can certainly afford. Those who cannot, well, some are exactly the unproductive 'zombie' businesses that have been kept going on cheap credit and forbearance.

---------- Post added at 20:15 ---------- Previous post was at 20:14 ----------

National Insurance is general taxation. It goes into the same pot as the rest. It's income tax under another name.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

How many full time childless employees have their income topped up? It is part timers and/or those with children that are topped up. The Living Wage is calculated using 9 different scenarios, one of which is a couple with 4 kids. How is that comparable to a single person with no kids? A general Living Wage would be paying too much, even by the measures of the Living Wage itself.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Point missed completely.....

Why shouldn't businesses, whose profits (which are a good thing) are at their highest point in two decades, pay their employees a living wage?

When we hired students in their placement year, they got the same salary as trainees (around £18k) - this motivated them, so everyone benefited (more productive, better work experience, happier employees).

We are talking about people, not 'resources' - I treat those who work with me how I would I would like to be treated if I were in their shoes; with dignity, and paid a fair wage.

If your business model can't afford a living wage, the model isn't right.....

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

Beats me why we still bother with it ,scrap it and raise the income tax rate

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

The best post I have read in a very, very long time :tu:

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

"Highest point in 2 decades" is meaningless as in the other 19 years it was lower, but they would still have been expected to pay that wage. And it wasn't for all companies and wasn't just businesses that employ a lot of people, eg financial businesses. Rate of return is not the same as profit.

How does a salary enough to not "need" tax credits etc, for a couple with 4 kids, some or all needing childcare, have any relevance to a single person with no kids living with their parents. That could be in the region of £60,000 minimum wage.:shocked: Try starting up a new business with those sorts of silly costs. Even a couple with 4 kids not needing childcare would apparently need over £35K living wage. A cleaner on £35K?

Being motivated by higher salaries depends on the job and the business. So again using that is completely meaningless.

And why don't we scrap the main tax-free allowance as that is also state aid. The list goes on.

Which planet has a minimum "living wage" enough to not need state aid in one form or another for a large proportion of the population? Double the cost of a business and the "living wage" goes up in response and so on. China and India becoming cheap production powerhouses was a one off. Any benefits from that can't be repeated again.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

I call out your 'straw man' argument.

We are talking about £9 per hour, not £30 per hour (your £60,000 figure) - you are moving the goalposts to deflect discussion.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

I've only read the last page or two of this thread but isn't that subjective? Surely a 'living wage' (presumably you mean that in a general context as opposed to the proposed "Living Wage") for one person is different from the next?

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

I am referring to the proposed Living Wage, rather than a variable hypothetical one.

Re: The state benefits system mega-thread. Many merged.
 

This.