[Closed] Benefits and minimum wage?

troll

It isn't. It should. It won't.

There's the living wage which is far more appropriate.

Living Wage defined as £7.45 (£8.55 in London) minimum wage is £6.19 (rising to £6.31) so still way below.

spchantler - Member
troll

Troll troll.

It's not a troll, it's a genuine (but possibly stupid question) which has been bugging me a little for a few days.

So what's the difference between minimum wage and living wage?

Because you can work and claim benefits.

JEngledow - Member
It's not a troll, it's a genuine (but possibly stupid question) which has been bugging me a little for a few days.

So what's the difference between minimum wage and living wage?

I was calling that spchantler chap a troll, not you, apologies (seems to be a spate of "the boy who cried Troll" going on at the moment)

Minimum wage legislated, living wage voluntary.

[url] http://www.livingwage.org.uk/ [/url]

as a family of four with one disabled family member, we are entitled to £4.42 per hour working 38 hours per week theoretically..

I don't understand your maths

Is that for someone providing full time care?

Yunki, I'm not trying to have a go at benefits claimants, I'm more trying to work out why the gov have set minimum wage at approx £230 ish per week, but then (reportedly/apparently) pay some individuals more than this, which suggests to me that minimum wage is set too low.

Surely if minimum wage isn't enough for someone on benefits to live on then it should be increased?

Companies like Tesco pay people minimum wage, then rake in huge profits. Minimum wage is low enough that people earning it are entitled to benefits.

The proportion of the benefits bill that goes to able-bodied people of working age who don't work is very low. Most of it goes to the elderly, disabled and working people.

JEngledow - Member

I'm more trying to work out why the gov have set minimum wage at approx £230 ish per week, but then (reportedly/apparently) pay some individuals more than this,

Because some individuals have greater needs than others (and are you really thinking of individuals, or are you thinking of families?)

I got paid very little indeed when I was signing on.

I was just reading something on e BBC news website about a trial in some Lomdon boroughs limiting benefits to £350 for a single person (£500 for a couple) per week....

My immediate reaction was "are you ffffing kidding me!?"

£350? Stuff me. Too high. Waaaaaay too high. Lets half that for a start.

I've just spent 2.5 months unemployed after something like 24-25 years in constant employment and all I was entitled to was £71/week job seekers allowance. Why the hell is anyone getting any more than that? It's a bloody joke to be honest.

The old lefty that I am finds it difficult to understand why multimillion profit-making companies pay staff minimum wages then let the taxpayer make-up the shortfall with benefits. Subsidised labour, obviously. Even worse when it's that stupid slave labour thing that been going on.

All these benefits for low paid workers must cost a fortune to administer.

Ideally it would be all tied into one single payment...

Like a pay cheque or something

Peter you sound like thatcher 🙂

Why the hell is anyone getting any more than that? It's a bloody joke to be honest.

How much was their rent?

I've just spent 2.5 months unemployed after something like 24-25 years in constant employment and all I was entitled to was £71/week job seekers allowance. Why the hell is anyone getting any more than that? It's a bloody joke to be honest.

I've just spent 2.5 months unemployed after something like 24-25 years in constant employment and all I was entitled to was £71/week job seekers allowance. Why the hell is anyone getting any more than that? It's a bloody joke to be honest.

well my guess is someone sold all the council housing and then didnt invest in more housing so people who have to claim benefits have to live in rented private sector homes which due to chronic housing shortages cost a small fortune to rent.

In London, I'd assume a large part of the £500 is going straight to the private landlords and gets nowhere near the recipient.

😆 at AA

well my guess is someone sold all the council housing and then didnt invest in more housing

What sort of [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Thatcher ]idiot[/url] would to that?

anagallis_arvensis - Member
well my guess is someone sold all the council housing and then didnt invest in more housing so people who have to claim benefits have to live in rented private sector homes which due to chronic housing shortages cost a small fortune to rent.

theres your answer, end of thread

aaaaahh..

I don't think I factored rent onto my calculation..

Back to the drawing board 😳

definitely some blue language here NSFW

please nominate Mark McGowan's youtube channel [url= http://www.youtube.com/user/chunkymark ]http://www.youtube.com/user/chunkymark[/url] for the Turner Prize at [url= http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-britain/exhibition/turner-prize-2013/nominations ]http://www.tate.org.uk/whats-on/tate-britain/exhibition/turner-prize-2013/nominations[/url]

Some good points, made really badly.

My suspicion is always that a low wage and benefits is a way of subsidising companies out of taxation.
Certainly if companies paid more working benefits from taxation would reduce just due to the mechanisms that control them without any need for government intervention.
Note also that as the practice of direct assistance to companies was reduced by EU(?) agreements, the working benefits process grew.
So presumably Mr Osbourne will be along in a minute insisting that companies pay their way and reduce their dependence in benefits.

Edit: apologies to Mike and Adam I appear to be repeating your points.

If you are on minimum wage, won't you be receiving benefits?

The whole thing is ridiculous and complex. The argument is that if minimum wage is increased then there will be less incentive to employ people. Jobs will either be automated or moved to China. It is cheaper the government and generally considered more beneficial to have people working than pay JSA. tesco make huge profits but they also pay huge taxes which then go back to pay the benefits. The fact that you pay income tax on minimum wage is a joke. Especially if you then get benefits back.

The system has grown chaotically so there are some serious issues. Unfortunately there is no chance of starting with a blank sheet to make it more efficient. Small changes are all that can be hoped for. Especially when party politics insist on picking up individual negative cases to rubbish a larger change. You come up with q suggestion and I'm fairly sure it can be countered from either side. Raising the lowest income tax band seems a good start though.

Incidentally, the biggest share holders in this country are the pension plans of the people. So when you say Tesco make huge profits, I'm inclined to read that as'we' make huge profits. It isnt a handful of super rich people as many would want you to believe.

Is it my imagination or don't the wealthy tend to have better pensions too, Jonba?

Some good points, made really badly.

or made really really [i]really[/i] well.. depending on your point of view
Not everyone is a devout follower of the STW calm, reasoned argument with impeccable sources..

I'm inclined to believe that one of the biggest impacts of paying a decent living wage is the sense of self respect you get from not having to rely on others to survive.

I'm not sure what the general effects are on someone working but being unable support themselves, I can't imagine it's particularly good. Any illumination on the matter would be good?

There are also a large number of companies who don't make huge profits and just tick over paying minimum wages. To raise it to the quoted Living wage would probably send a lot of these over the edge as they struggle to pass the costs on.

Is this the same place that complains that LBS's overcharge and you will shop in Germany for something cheaper, import from China and try and avoid Duty and Tax etc. The hypocrisy in here is laughable some days.

A full reform of the benefit an taxation system would be welcome allowing for a simplification and tightening up of the whole system. This would require massive effort and probably put a load of tax accountants out of business, along with their reception staff, cleaners and gardeners...

Restructuring to provide a basic safety net but rewarding those who work and contribute would be the best system IMHO.

Restructuring to provide a basic safety net but rewarding those who work and contribute would be the best system IMHO.

isn't that pretty much exactly what we've got..?

yunki - Member
Restructuring to provide a basic safety net but rewarding those who work and contribute would be the best system IMHO.
isn't that pretty much exactly what we've got..?

Not really we have a myriad of schemes of taxation, tax credits, incentives, extra top ups and deductions.

Taking the paragraph I put above it

A full reform of the benefit an taxation system

The whole system needs to work as 1 so that it's simple and easy to understand. If it could be as simple as whatever you earn you keep up to a threshold, then the government tops up those below and takes from those above.

The old lefty that I am finds it difficult to understand why multimillion profit-making companies pay staff minimum wages then let the taxpayer make-up the shortfall with benefits. Subsidised labour, obviously.

A lot of the public sector pay minimum wage too, its not only the nasty corporations. You can always rise up through most of them, just so many people are happy sitting at the bottom and complaining about it.

Even worse when it's that stupid slave labour thing that been going on.

LOL, I do laugh at this sort of comment. Yes it wasn't the most ethical way of getting people into work. But please don't compare it to slave labour. Its and insult to anyone who has truly experienced slave labour through history.

Incidentally, the biggest share holders in this country are the pension plans of the people. So when you say Tesco make huge profits, I'm inclined to read that as'we' make huge profits. It isnt a handful of super rich people as many would want you to believe.

No they are not, pension schemes only hold around 6% of UK shares. And when you look at the skewing effect of wealth and pension investment, the amount of "buy in" to those schemes by average workers is incredibly small.

SSS - does a public body paying minimum wage the using public funds to top that up with benefits not seem a little odd to you? Or just plain deranged?

I've always thought that the 'advantage' of having the MW so low and topped up by benefits is the ability to determine who gets there wages topped up. Single and live at home or in shared accommodation - tough, you'll have to make do.

Have children and rent in the private sector - have some tax credits and HB.

Just my take on it.

Not posting a new thread for this, but found it interesting.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/wheredoyoufitin/

Top 5% not included

[i]SSS - does a public body paying minimum wage the using public funds to top that up with benefits not seem a little odd to you? Or just plain deranged?[/i]

Yep.

SSS - does a public body paying minimum wage the using public funds to top that up with benefits not seem a little odd to you? Or just plain deranged?

Yes,
I think minimum wage should be raised higher regardless, Why pay someone twice.

Piemonster - I was astounded how high I was when I did that the other year.

Piemonster - I was astounded how high I was when I did that the other year.

That will be the case with very many people and anyone who calls for a blanket "tax the rich" would do well to check to see exactly where they fall in such a breakdown. I suspect that more than a few of them would temper their enthusiasm when they realise how it would affect them.

Apart from the fact that it is a very skewed site. How can you take it seriously when it ignores the richest 5% of the population. Coming high on that, just shows that the disproportionate wealth held by those 5%.

"Tax the rich" is clearly aimed at those that site wishes to pretend do not exist in their statistical analysis.