Reading this post http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6032083&postcount=121 in another thread prompted me to start this thread.

I think Mr mossdog made a good point there.

Reading this post http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6032083&postcount=121 in another thread prompted me to start this thread.

I think Mr mossdog made a good point there.




Are you assuming the people who work under these conditions will be homeless?

If you consider £3 an hour x 35 hours = £105 a week.

£105 x 4 = £420 a month.

That person would just about be able to afford the very cheapest rent/bedsit. With any money left over, they would have to pay council tax + pay bus fare to get to work. Also, not forgetting that this person I'm assuming will need to eat food, then to me its a non starter

If they went for a mortgage, then your £3 an hour over 36 hours = around £5600 a year.

£5600 x 3 times your wages = a mortgage potential of £19,600. Not many houses available for £20,000 these days

Are you assuming the people who work under these conditions will be homeless?

If you consider £3 an hour x 35 hours = £105 a week.

£105 x 4 = £420 a month.

That person would just about be able to afford the very cheapest rent/bedsit. With any money left over, they would have to pay council tax + pay bus fare to get to work. Also, not forgetting that this person I'm assuming will need to eat food, then to me its a non starter

If they went for a mortgage, then your £3 an hour over 36 hours = around £5600 a year.

£5600 x 3 times your wages = a mortgage potential of £19,600. Not many houses available for £20,000 these days

You can get more than £20000 a year in housing benefit if you live in London.

Keeps the property prices high, and the landlords with a nice income. Forces the rent up to such a degree that the young people cannot compete with housing benefit, even to rent! Yet alone save up a deposit.

Are you assuming the people who work under these conditions will be homeless?

If you consider £3 an hour x 35 hours = £105 a week.

£105 x 4 = £420 a month.

That person would just about be able to afford the very cheapest rent/bedsit. With any money left over, they would have to pay council tax + pay bus fare to get to work. Also, not forgetting that this person I'm assuming will need to eat food, then to me its a non starter

If they went for a mortgage, then your £3 an hour over 36 hours = around £5600 a year.

£5600 x 3 times your wages = a mortgage potential of £19,600. Not many houses available for £20,000 these days

The government could, lets say, "encourage" morgage lenders and landlords etc, to be a bit more realistic with their pricing.

The government could, lets say, "encourage" morgage lenders and landlords etc, to be a bit more realistic with their pricing.

Landlords buy housing based upon the mortgage rate and rental yield. The minimum rental yield is determined by the maximum housing benefit payable for that property. Mortgage rates are at a record low.

A 2 bed house will yield £104 a week in Sheffield.

£5408 a year. That's over half of somebodies wage who works full time for minimum wage.

Landlords have been profiting massively out of this arrangement.

Property prices have been kept artificially high.

The government could, lets say, "encourage" morgage lenders and landlords etc, to be a bit more realistic with their pricing.



Its not going to happen.

For example, if landlords were in a position to charge £800 a month due to how the benefits system works, do you think they will charge £400 a month as a means of being good to society, or will the charge the full rental value?

With the population predicted to go up in the millions through mass immigration + not enough houses being built, the rental market is only going to increase. Give it 10 years, and going to work for a young person simply is not going to be a career option

Its not going to happen.

For example, if landlords were in a position to charge £800 a month due to how the benefits system works, do you think they will charge £400 a month as a means of being good to society, or will the charge the full rental value?

With the population predicted to go up in the millions through mass immigration + not enough houses being built, the rental market is only going to increase. Give it 10 years, and going to work for a young person simply is not going to be a career option

Housing benefit is forcing up rents. housing benefit forces up house prices.

If a 2bed house yields £5408, and costs £100000, then that's a 5.408% yield. (Far higher than what you will get in a bank)

Yet to qualify for a £5408 mortgage, one would need a salary of £30k. I.e. you'd have to be in the top 20% of earners.

A 2bed house, shouldn't cost more than £30k.

Lax lending let prices explode, but housing benefit keeps them propped up.

Yet to build a deposit, you hav to break through the housing benefit barrier.

It's a subsidy for landlords. These property owners are being kept rich. And the youth are denied access to social housing, as it has been sold off and knocked down. Forced to rent, and forced to pay more than they should in a free market.

raising the minimum wage might encourage people to stop living off the dole and cut the benefit bill

Yawwwwn here we go again. Some people never learn do they?

Landlords buy housing based upon the mortgage rate and rental yield. The minimum rental yield is determined by the maximum housing benefit payable for that property. Mortgage rates are at a record low.

A 2 bed house will yield £104 a week in Sheffield.

£5408 a year. That's over half of somebodies wage who works full time for minimum wage.

Landlords have been profiting massively out of this arrangement.

Property prices have been kept artificially high.

You don't seem to have realised that some small BTL landlords have lost money, and sometimes their properties when mortgage rates were high. Some find it difficult to get tenants who stick to their side of a rental agreement too. If someone had worked hard, managed to save some money and bought property as an investment for retirement they could end up with nothing. Any investment can go wrong.

It is difficult to find accommodation on low wages, but if I was single and only earning a small wage, I wouldn't expect to have a 2 bedroomed house. I'd expect to have a small flat or bedsit or share a house, like students and young professionals do. The running costs would be less as well. A couple, both on minimum wage could afford the rent of a two bedroomed house. If we are talking about people in work, then surely the idea is to start with what they can afford, and aim higher? On the other hand, some housing associations see low incomes (both in and out of work) as one of the priorities for housing. Perhaps local authorities should follow suit?

We need to match expectation to reality I think, just like my generation did. The only difference is I'd expect all properties nowadays to have bathrooms. ;)

I wouldn't abolish the minimum wage, but I would increase the basic income tax thresholds to match it.

raising the minimum wage might encourage people to stop living off the dole and cut the benefit bill


Hi

The workshy and the minim wage, the two have no relationship to each other in anyway, fact.

Hosuing association rents in London in nice new areas where people are paying in excess of 250k for one bedroom flats is around 1200 quid.

when a person makes a decsion not to work and is maried and couple of kids under 16 and living in a 3 bedroom HA house they do not pay rent or council taxt

so staright away savings of 15000 quid a month net equating to 2400 gross monthly, so that is why they decide not to work or work legally. (not saying all are like that, just 66%)

You don't seem to have realised that some small BTL landlords have lost money, and sometimes their properties when mortgage rates were high. Some find it difficult to get tenants who stick to their side of a rental agreement too. If someone had worked hard, managed to save some money and bought property as an investment for retirement they could end up with nothing. Any investment can go wrong.


Some big BTL landlords have lost money. (Which is a good thing - however, that loss of money has been shifted onto the state, the taxpayer is having to bail them out, after been a rent yielding tenant).

What happens and has happened when this type of exploitative investment goes wrong?

These people go bankrupt. Debts go unpaid. These BTL ****s are normally in debt up to their eyeballs. The bank takes the loss. The banks then goes running to mummy and daddy state.

The taxpayer has been forced to bail out the banks.

We've had, and will have money printing. Inflation, inflation, inflation

This destroys the value of any savings in £. It's destroying wages in real term.

Subsequently YOUR pension is destroyed, as its value is eroded by inflation.

These people need to be forced to pay off their debt, but they can walk away from it, and within a year, they can start doing the same thing again.

They suck wealth from the economy and do so using debt, when it goes wrong the taxpayer bails them out. Further wealth is sucked from the economy. The working man is robbed twice.

The minimum wage can only work if every country in the world has a minimum wage. Otherwise companies will continue to leave the UK and set up factories and call centres in places like India and China where wages costs will be a fraction of those in the UK.

As there's no way China and India would ever bring in a minimum wage, we should get rid of it here.

The government could, lets say, "encourage" morgage lenders and landlords etc, to be a bit more realistic with their pricing.

Mortgage lenders don't price anything, and encouraging them to be responsible means not letting them lend higher than 3 - 4 times someones income.

Some big BTL landlords have lost money. (Which is a good thing - however, that loss of money has been shifted onto the state, the taxpayer is having to bail them out, after been a rent yielding tenant).

What happens and has happened when this type of exploitative investment goes wrong?

These people go bankrupt. Debts go unpaid. These BTL ****s are normally in debt up to their eyeballs. The bank takes the loss. The banks then goes running to mummy and daddy state.

The taxpayer has been forced to bail out the banks.

We've had, and will have money printing. Inflation, inflation, inflation

This destroys the value of any savings in £. It's destroying wages in real term.

Subsequently YOUR pension is destroyed, as its value is eroded by inflation.

These people need to be forced to pay off their debt, but they can walk away from it, and within a year, they can start doing the same thing again.

They suck wealth from the economy and do so using debt, when it goes wrong the taxpayer bails them out. Further wealth is sucked from the economy. The working man is robbed twice.

The way you pin the worlds economy and current financial problems on landlords is hilarious. You really have got a bee in your bonnet about it. Your posts on the subject are starting to border on lunacy and are slightly boring.

The state does not have a reponsibility to provide a house for everyone. People need to buck their ideas up, get off their backsides and provide from them selves.

There has been landlords renting property in the UK for hundreds of years, this will NEVER change.

The minimum wage can only work if every country in the world has a minimum wage. Otherwise companies will continue to leave the UK and set up factories and call centres in places like India and China where wages costs will be a fraction of those in the UK.

As there's no way China and India would ever bring in a minimum wage, we should get rid of it here.

How is going back to paying people less that £3 p/h going to help the UK??

The minimum wage can only work if every country in the world has a minimum wage. Otherwise companies will continue to leave the UK and set up factories and call centres in places like India and China where wages costs will be a fraction of those in the UK.

As there's no way China and India would ever bring in a minimum wage, we should get rid of it here.

IN what way is the minimum wage classed as "not working"

Companies and businesses relocate for many reasons, local wage costs only being one of them, and the relative importance of it to their decision will vary from business to business

The minimum wage wasn't, as far as I am aware, ever intended as a method of attracting companies based overseas to relocate here, so why should that be a measure of whether or not it is "working"

Housing benefit is forcing up rents. housing benefit forces up house prices.

If a 2bed house yields £5408, and costs £100000, then that's a 5.408% yield. (Far higher than what you will get in a bank)
That's assuming that there are no costs to being a landlord. Even ignoring the cost of your own time spent managing the situation, you have to pay for maintenance and upkeep, landlords generally pay the water rates, they need buildings insurance, in most cases they provide furnishings which need replacing periodically, and they definitely provide fittings.
So your far higher yield than a bank, just got chopped in half due to outgoings and is now lower than you can get from a 12 month bond.

Yet to qualify for a £5408 mortgage, one would need a salary of £30k. I.e. you'd have to be in the top 20% of earners.
Eh?

A 2bed house, shouldn't cost more than £30k.
They cost more than that 20 years ago, when earning 30k would have put you in the top 5% or higher of earners.

Lax lending let prices explode, but housing benefit keeps them propped up.
I don't see how, the rental market doesn't determine house prices, and housing benefit is a lowest common denominator, not something lifting the cost of rental up.

That's assuming that there are no costs to being a landlord. Even ignoring the cost of your own time spent managing the situation, you have to pay for maintenance and upkeep, landlords generally pay the water rates, they need buildings insurance, in most cases they provide furnishings which need replacing periodically, and they definitely provide fittings.
So your far higher yield than a bank, just got chopped in half due to outgoings and is now lower than you can get from a 12 month bond.
Eh?
They cost more than that 20 years ago, when earning 30k would have put you in the top 5% or higher of earners.
I don't see how, the rental market doesn't determine house prices, and housing benefit is a lowest common denominator, not something lifting the cost of rental up.

I meant £100k

How is going back to paying people less that £3 p/h going to help the UK??

In case you hadn't noticed there are about 3 million people unemployed. Better for a company to be paying them £3 an hour than the state giving them £100 a week to stay on the the dole.

In case you hadn't noticed there are about 3 million people unemployed. Better for a company to be paying them £3 an hour than the state giving them £100 a week to stay on the the dole.

somone has pointed out that people aren't going to get off the dole for a higher wage, so why on earth would they do it for less?

I understand the people with families not being encouraged by a rise in minimum wage, but for young people I think it would encourage them. going from job seekers into full time work you end up with about £40 extra in your pocket per week, no wonder it's no real incentive (i know that's not a very possitive attitude but it's one that a lot of people share).

If by working you were guaranteed a decent wage and a significantly better quality of life it might kick start the younger generation into work and stop them before they do become reliant on benefits for life like so many now.

somone has pointed out that people aren't going to get off the dole for a higher wage, so why on earth would they do it for less?

I understand the people with families not being encouraged by a rise in minimum wage, but for young people I think it would encourage them. going from job seekers into full time work you end up with about £40 extra in your pocket per week, no wonder it's no real incentive (i know that's not a very possitive attitude but it's one that a lot of people share).

If by working you were guaranteed a decent wage and a significantly better quality of life it might kick start the younger generation into work and stop them before they do become reliant on benefits for life like so many now.

What quality of life, these people are expected to rent rooms in shared houses till they are 35.

The economy is weighted too far in favour of non productive people such as landlords and usurers. Rent and housing benefit is so high, whilst wages are low, that it don't make somebody better off by working.

somone has pointed out that people aren't going to get off the dole for a higher wage, so why on earth would they do it for less?

I understand the people with families not being encouraged by a rise in minimum wage, but for young people I think it would encourage them. going from job seekers into full time work you end up with about £40 extra in your pocket per week, no wonder it's no real incentive (i know that's not a very possitive attitude but it's one that a lot of people share).

If by working you were guaranteed a decent wage and a significantly better quality of life it might kick start the younger generation into work and stop them before they do become reliant on benefits for life like so many now.

Alternatively it would be simpler to lower the amount of benefits people receive so taking any job, no matter how poorly paid, is better than staying on the dole.

A life on benefits was never intended to be a permanent lifestyle choice, it was to help out people who were temporarily out of work.

In case you hadn't noticed there are about 3 million people unemployed. Better for a company to be paying them £3 an hour than the state giving them £100 a week to stay on the the dole.

What about the many more millions who are paid minimum wage. Is it going to help them to cut their income by over 50%. They're on a barely sufficient wage as it is.

In case you hadn't noticed there are about 3 million people unemployed. Better for a company to be paying them £3 an hour than the state giving them £100 a week to stay on the the dole.


So you'd rather the government put people into debt?

People need to take responsibility for their own finances and stop blaming the government for their irresponsible spending!

People need to take responsibility for their own finances and stop blaming the government for their irresponsible spending!

What line of work are you in ricki?

People need to take responsibility for their own finances and stop blaming the government for their irresponsible spending!

What's this comment got to do with reducing the minimum wage?

The minimum wage can only work if every country in the world has a minimum wage. Otherwise companies will continue to leave the UK and set up factories and call centres in places like India and China where wages costs will be a fraction of those in the UK.

As there's no way China and India would ever bring in a minimum wage, we should get rid of it here.

How is going back to paying people less that £3 p/h going to help the UK??

@Mike84.

How is people earning zilch because so much work is going abroad helping the the UK??

rickiethecat is right, a minimum wage can only work if every country in the world adopts it.

What's this comment got to do with reducing the minimum wage?

Sorry, for got to do the quote bit. It was in response to Mecky claiming that the government puts people into debt.

Fair enough, I didn't really understand what he was getting at. Probably something about landlords though.

@Mike84.

How is people earning zilch because so much work is going abroad helping the the UK??

rickiethecat is right, a minimum wage can only work if every country in the world adopts it.

Is there that much work going abroad? We've had a minimum wage for what, 15 year now, so in what way isn't it working?

The suggestion of a world wide minimum makes little sense really, the costs of living vary massively across the world.