This is what is wrong with this country ?

[Peter_]

I now work 25 hours per week for health reasons after being off ill for 7 weeks last year because I want to work and do not want to be a claimant in the system, my hours suit my needs and I feel a lot better with regards to my health and outlook on life.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Anyway on that note back to work

All done, have earned my excessive salary today. Time to drink!

EDIT: Oh here's a thought while I'm feeling provocative, I am going to start contracting next year, and have arranged financial advice to minimise my tax bill. Given this government and the last one couldn't care less about doing so I'll have to do it myself

[Hom3r]

The trouble I have is when I've applied for minimum wage jobs, I don't get them because I have spent my own cash learning to improve myself. They won't employ me because as soon as a higher wage comes along I'll be gone.

So I've gone from a £23,000 a year job to £5,500 on JSA, and I've written to a load of companies and non of them have bothered to even tell be to sod off.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by mertle

about time we got government fine companies excessive profiteering..........
About time we had government with bottle to take industry on.

Is that the same industry that pays tax on its profits? .......and the same industry that employs people so they can earn money and pay tax on that money?.......Just checking........'cos it sounds to me like you want that 'industry' to make less profit, pay less tax and employ fewer people who would then generate less tax revenue for the country.......
.......and before you start on how 'industry' minimizes it's tax with loopholes, thats the fault of the govt and it's complicated exploitable tax rules. Not the fault of the private sector........I minimize my tax and so does anyone who doesn't actually like paying a shedload of tax.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Is that the same industry that pays tax on its profits? .......and the same industry that employs people so they can earn money and pay tax on that money?.......Just checking........'cos it sounds to me like you want that 'industry' to make less profit, pay less tax and employ fewer people who would then generate less tax revenue for the country.......
.......and before you start on how 'industry' minimizes it's tax with loopholes, thats the fault of the govt and it's complicated exploitable tax rules. Not the fault of the private sector........I minimize my tax and so does anyone who doesn't actually like paying a shedload of tax.

Me next year.

As a thought, where do people who want corporations taxed stupid think their income is from?

You think their shareholders will happily take the lower returns on their investments? They'll expect the companies to put their prices up in order to maintain margins, which in turn leads to inflation and higher prices. This would be inflation basically as nothing more than a tool to fill government coffers. That it reduces their debt is merely a bonus.

Incidentally inflation is theft from people investing in their own retirements like myself and savers generally. Promotes debt by governments and individuals and we've seen how well that goes.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

As a thought, where do people who want corporations taxed stupid think their income is from?

Indeed. Thats why I consider the term 'socialist economist' to be an oxymoron.......

[Lew]

Originally Posted by Hom3r

The trouble I have is when I've applied for minimum wage jobs, I don't get them because I have spent my own cash learning to improve myself. They won't employ me because as soon as a higher wage comes along I'll be gone.

So I've gone from a £23,000 a year job to £5,500 on JSA, and I've written to a load of companies and non of them have bothered to even tell be to sod off.

That's exactly the situation I'm in as well. Because I normally work in IT I can't even get an interview with Morrisons as I'm "overqualified".

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Lew

That's exactly the situation I'm in as well. Because I normally work in IT I can't even get an interview with Morrisons as I'm "overqualified".

I think that's the trouble. you're either under qualified or over qualified. not many are actually qualified.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Gary L

I think that's the trouble. you're either under qualified or over qualified. not many are actually qualified.

Not to mention that a good part of those that are actually qualified consider themselves over qualified and the job unworthy.

It's what happens when you have a welfare state working on the premise of winning votes and redistributing money from the better off to the poor and from the employed to the unemployed rather than encouraging them back to work or incentivising them to improve their lot in life.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Not to mention that a good part of those that are actually qualified consider themselves over qualified and the job unworthy.

It's what happens when you have a welfare state working on the premise of winning votes and redistributing money from the better off to the poor and from the employed to the unemployed rather than encouraging them back to work or incentivising them to improve their lot in life.

True. I think there's various factors people use when jobs come up. like is it worth them working and paying their own rent. or is it better not working and having the rent paid for them?

[Ignitionnet]

Exactly Gary. In some cases it's clear cut, hence the need for the welfare overhaul.

[Traduk]

I think that the situation regarding these jobs is simply being used as argument point to display an apparent workshy attitude amongst UK workers but without regard to facts. Fairly typical for this forum.

The article carrying the story was in the Daily Mail and stipulated that the jobs in question where 238 in number and all in London locations. It implied that they were managerial in nature but due to lazy reporting did not stipulate salaries beyond the broad spectrum of salaries paid to managers.

I think that for a newbie manager the lowest level can be safely assumed and that was stated at £26K p.a. London is just about the most expensive part of the UK to live, work or get to and £26K is an uneconomic salary to work in London.

I live 30 miles from London (within the commuter belt) and an annual season ticket (rail) is £4K p.a. which given a 1.5 hour (each way) commute plus the need for £4K net I would have wanted well in excess of £10K p.a. to even contemplate the stress of the extra pressure. It takes some incentive to get up at 06.00 and return home at 20.00 and national average wage isn't going to do it for me or I guess many others.

Living costs within easier striking distance of London are prohibitively expensive as Ignitionnet can attest but even if he over pays a more realistic but bottom end cost is that incurred by my niece who in her 7th year of a Phd course has regularly had to find (from the bank of parents) £12K p.a. to student share multiple occupied accommodation.

The reason why those jobs are unfilled is that they are not offered with regard to the economic costs for the area involved and that defies free market logic. Market logic dictates that for demand to meet supply price must attract supply and it this case it does not.

The question that arises from this situation is if locals find what is on offer uneconomic how is it that Slovakians will find it economic. The fact that they can live on paper round money in their home country has nothing to do with it as they can hardly commute so where does the extra cash come from that makes it viable for them but not for locals.

If there are loopholes that assist incoming migrant workers with cash payments it is a reasonable argument that companies are using such public money in an exploitative manner to the detriment of incumbents and getting around market forces.

If the maths do not work for locals they will not work for anybody providing there are no other factors in the equation. The story was printed to show a work shy Britain and without doubt appalled the chattering classes. It is the "why spoil a good story with facts" element where the truth lies and it may not be palatable.

When I owned businesses and directorships I had to pay market rates or above to secure the staff I wanted. If I advertised below the going rate, for the area I might just as well have put the advertising cost in a charity box. Market forces dictated where the bar was and I had to pitch above or end up with permanently unfilled positions.

It is imperative that regional differences in costs are factored into any thought process regarding pay. Inner and Outer London pay supplements are not given away out of largesse by companies and barely cover costs.

[Hom3r]

The trouble now is that were a couple of years ago a job salary was £22,000 a company looking for staff can now advertise it for £12,000.

In most cases with the rising costs of fuel, and public transport people living out side the job area cannot afford to live if they got that job.

I myself looked at a job that paid minimum wage against my out goings and it worked out that I would pay roughly £60 a month to work there.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

If you go to a jobcentre, looking for a job, 9/10 it will be an agency (who make the money) advertising the job, A JC will nornmally advertise a job for 13.000 or 14.000 per year.

Who ever goes for that job, has to look at, hours, commuting, and what happenes after tax, to get tax credits, you have to be in the job for six weeks, to try and get help with travelling, is a no no, l have tried it.

Companies are moving out of the country due to costs in the UK, Companies are advertising for jobs as it will be mostly foriegn people will apply for it.

My whole point is that, You have to go for a job that pays the money. Over the years, l have worked for some right b's, and this is what is wrong, IF employers can get away with employing cheap labour, they will.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Companies are moving out of the country due to costs in the UK

So what exactly would having them increase those costs by paying higher salaries accomplish Arthur?

Your post makes no sense, on the one hand you comment on how high costs of business are in the UK and on the other you want to increase the largest cost to most companies, staff.

Seems to me that salaries aren't the issue but cost of living, and doing business, is.

Now one really good way to help with both of those is public sector cuts and a commensurate reduction in people's tax bills along with promoting social and health insurance rather than out and out welfare. In short extensive welfare reform to a more contribution based social security and NHS reform to more single payer insurance based schemes along with perhaps dumping the state pension as a PAYG and replacing it with a contributions based scheme which pays out to the contributer rather than funding the pension of current retirees and relying on future tax payers to pay your own.

There's a thought. People and governments looking after themselves and paying their own bills transparently and directly including insuring their health and employment through the state. That should reduce everyone's tax bill mightily and give people more choice along with sharing the burdens more evenly.