PeteMorris 10 #1 Posted June 11, 2015 I see Mr O (not unexpectedly) is planning Working Tax Credit Cuts to save 5 Billion...Or whateve number they dream up next. Reading the piece from the Beeb website, I noticed this quote: Changes would cut entitlements for about 3.7 million low-income families by about £1,400 a year, the IFS said. Political allies of Mr Osborne say the move would increase incentives to work. So if you're lucky enough to have a job at all, and being paid rubbish wages, then the advice is to get a second rubbish paid job to supplement your income!...Wonderful! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33089711 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
I1L2T3 10 #2 Posted June 11, 2015 A year ago if I'd read this I'd have been fuming. But since then I've read mumsnet. I kid you not but middle England is as adept at cynically playing the system as any 'waster' off benefits street. There are no end of people pretending to be self-employed or carefully engineering their working weeks to the minimum 16 hours so they can max out on tax credits. I'm left wing but the tax credits system was one of Labour's must stupendous errors. The more I've read into it the more I think it can't be good for people. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Obelix 11 #3 Posted June 11, 2015 I see Mr O (not unexpectedly) is planning Working Tax Credit Cuts to save 5 Billion...Or whateve number they dream up next. Reading the piece from the Beeb website, I noticed this quote: So if you're lucky enough to have a job at all, and being paid rubbish wages, then the advice is to get a second rubbish paid job to supplement your income!...Wonderful! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33089711 You missed out the importnat bit though... "A family with two children, where at least one parent works full-time, would see their tax credit entitlement running out at £28,847 of gross earnings - rather than £32,969" These luvvies that cannot cope on £33k a year? My heart bleeds... I'd no idea that Labour was piddling money that far up the wall buying votes - why they haven't been dragged down earlier is beyond me. It's about time Middle england started learning that they dont get to whine about the gravy train that the JSA people are one, whilst they are creaming the system as well! This needs slapping down, along with child benefit it must be said and we can stick half the savings in the bank and the rest can get put into the welfare system where it may be needed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
PeteMorris 10 #4 Posted June 11, 2015 A year ago if I'd read this I'd have been fuming. But since then I've read mumsnet. I kid you not but middle England is as adept at cynically playing the system as any 'waster' off benefits street. There are no end of people pretending to be self-employed or carefully engineering their working weeks to the minimum 16 hours so they can max out on tax credits. I'm left wing but the tax credits system was one of Labour's must stupendous errors. The more I've read into it the more I think it can't be good for people. Daft as it sounds...I blame the minimum wage...All it's served to do is suppress wages to a minimum requirement....Employers merely paying the minimum they can get away with. Once upon a time employers had to compete with one another to get the best workers, which meant paying more... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
truman 10 #5 Posted June 11, 2015 I see Mr O (not unexpectedly) is planning Working Tax Credit Cuts to save 5 Billion...Or whateve number they dream up next. Reading the piece from the Beeb website, I noticed this quote: So if you're lucky enough to have a job at all, and being paid rubbish wages, then the advice is to get a second rubbish paid job to supplement your income!...Wonderful! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33089711 Are you happy that people on about 33k get tax credits? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
PeteMorris 10 #6 Posted June 11, 2015 Are you happy that people on about 33k get tax credits? No...Not really....I'm talking about the poor sods working their arses off on minimum wage to make a living and being told to get another job to make it up. That's what gets up my nose. If the minimum wage was to work adequately it should be set at a level that doesn't require the state to subsidise it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone 10 #7 Posted June 11, 2015 Daft as it sounds...I blame the minimum wage...All it's served to do is suppress wages to a minimum requirement....Employers merely paying the minimum they can get away with. Once upon a time employers had to compete with one another to get the best workers, which meant paying more... The minimum they could get away with was considerably lower than the minimum wage that was set though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
PeteMorris 10 #8 Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) The minimum they could get away with was considerably lower than the minimum wage that was set though. Yes there were employers who abused it, by using sweatshop labour...But any other employers paid the going rate, and had to better it, if they wanted a better calibre. In fact it's not changed at the top end of the earning spectrum....How many times do we hear bankers say that in order to get the best people we have to pay the going rate and huge bonuses or they'll go abroad? Imagine if top earners were capped at a maximum rate.... Edited June 11, 2015 by PeteMorris Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
sgtkate 10 #9 Posted June 11, 2015 Daft as it sounds...I blame the minimum wage...All it's served to do is suppress wages to a minimum requirement....Employers merely paying the minimum they can get away with. Once upon a time employers had to compete with one another to get the best workers, which meant paying more... No Pete...what should have happened is that the minimum wage should have been linked to a 'living wage' long ago. Don't forget the living wage is actually set by a government department who in a totally ironic manner pay their own staff less than that, so government employees also have to claim tax credits...nice one. Tax credit pretty much top up low paid workers pay to the living wage level. If they were paid that much to start with they'd be completely unnecessary. And before the usual stuff about 'small businesses can't afford to pay that' etc etc, that's fine, other government loans, tax incentives etc. can be used to offset those businesses costs to leave them neutral for a period of time after the changes are brought in. But wages paid to an individual no matter what job they do, should be equivalent to the living wage based on a 40 hour week. Cuts red tape. Stops exploitation of the system by those middle class mums as one poster put it. Stops businesses having their business subsidised by the government without 'good reason'. Stops demonising people again who are on low incomes even if they are working full time! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
PeteMorris 10 #10 Posted June 11, 2015 No Pete...what should have happened is that the minimum wage should have been linked to a 'living wage' long ago. Don't forget the living wage is actually set by a government department who in a totally ironic manner pay their own staff less than that, so government employees also have to claim tax credits...nice one. Tax credit pretty much top up low paid workers pay to the living wage level. If they were paid that much to start with they'd be completely unnecessary. And before the usual stuff about 'small businesses can't afford to pay that' etc etc, that's fine, other government loans, tax incentives etc. can be used to offset those businesses costs to leave them neutral for a period of time after the changes are brought in. But wages paid to an individual no matter what job they do, should be equivalent to the living wage based on a 40 hour week. Cuts red tape. Stops exploitation of the system by those middle class mums as one poster put it. Stops businesses having their business subsidised by the government without 'good reason'. Stops demonising people again who are on low incomes even if they are working full time! Yes I don't disagree in principle...But even if employers were required to pay the living wage...Most would only pay that...All it does is make people stuck at the lower end of the wage spectrum. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
geared 268 #11 Posted June 11, 2015 Wouldn't inflation counteract a minimum wage rise as well, so people at the bottom would never really see any benefit??? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
sgtkate 10 #12 Posted June 11, 2015 Wouldn't inflation counteract a minimum wage rise as well, so people at the bottom would never really see any benefit??? Yes but at least they would never lose out. And if it was linked to RPI then their spending power would remain the same. In times of good economic growth it might be prudent for a government to raise it above the minimum as well but to enforce anything above inflation seem overzealous. ---------- Post added 11-06-2015 at 15:40 ---------- Yes I don't disagree in principle...But even if employers were required to pay the living wage...Most would only pay that...All it does is make people stuck at the lower end of the wage spectrum. If that was the case Pete then when NMW was first brought in no employer would have complained as they would all have been paying above that limit. The amount of whining about it back in the 80s suggests otherwise, that employers were and still are taking the mickey with wages. The thing is that is their job. Businesses are there to make money, that is their SOLE raison d'etre. Legislation should be changed to ensure that a company can make money fairly but only if it's staff are paid fairly too. I don't see why these 2 goals cannot be legislated for. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...