Forum menu
Read my other posts - my business couldn't sustain it. Are you really that thick that you can't understand how the retail industry works? I'd love to pay her £9 p/h - and I give her a bonus when we are doing well, but there is nothing left in the pot. READ MY BLOODY POSTS YOU TOSSER!
Your problem mate, this isn't a Laissez-faire libertarian utopia, if your business can't handle the change.....bye bye.
My business can handle whatever I choose thanks Tom. Do you have a business, or just work for the Man?
This may help shed some light on Tom,
http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/the-wonderful-world-of-work
I have no idea whatsoever what the blokes getting at. He's starting to make Yunki seem sane. All we need now in Hora! 😈
My business can handle whatever I choose thanks Tom. Do you have a business, or just work for the Man?
Not yet, but when I do it won't be vulnerable to changes in the labour market. 
Because I listened at school.
Yet they just keep winning elections
Not really - they've only managed it once in the last 20 years without help.
Can you all not have a grown up debate without insulting each other?
Nowhere near 37% of the electorate voted Tory BTW. IIRC it was about 24%.
However, there are numerous poor, disabled and vulnerable people who are literally having their lives made a misery or even dying because of the actions of the government you voted for. That's a simple fact. They've successfully laid the blame for the financial crisis created by their mates in the city on the most vulnerable members of our society, and you've all lapped it up.
I notice there doesn't seem to have been much mention of the 'northern powerhouse' turning out to be the utter lie it always obviously was. Lots of people fell for it though. Tory supporters, how do you feel about your party telling outright lies to win the election which they then immediately abandon?
And I'm self-employed BTW, I don't fit the lame stereotype some of you are coming out with. It's just that I'm not greedy and selfish.
I voted labour. I'm sure had they got in then we would have found out a significant number of their policies were lies as well. Are you that naive to think otherwise? It is the failing of people to see the opposing view that makes any discussion on here pointless.
Tax credits will affect those who decide to detune their work hours to enable more money from the state right?
Yes Labour have no integrity either, that's why I didn't vote for them. Are you suggesting we should just meekly accept it when our politicians tell outrageous lies to win elections?
I've not long, just a few points.
DD.
I was being sincere, no offense intended.
stevomcd
I've my own business so see both the employees and employers side of the tax obligation, but thanks anyway.
TAFKAS
Ok, got that. It's a small business so perhaps there isn't that much room for maneuver. I hope if your business does pick up that you'll split the win with her.
Self employed here, couldn't vote this time round, but probably would have voted con (tactical).
[i] Stoner - Member
I do love all this left wing grumpiness.
"Yeah, we wanted a rise in the minimum wage, but we didn't want it from you, you bastards!"
"We demand a living wage!".
"OK, here's a living wage".
"We demand a HIGHER living wage!!!". [/i]
That's the left for you and to be fair, it's in the T's and C's.
I want better wages for those at the bottom, however, I'd want to fund that from business, not state revenue.
Flame away!
That's pretty pathetic trolling from Stoner. What they've announced isn't the living wage - just calling it that doesn't make it so. Also, increasing the minimum wage while taking away more in tax credits is pretty cynical slight of hand, even for the Tories.
'Being grumpy' aka actually caring about the most vulnerable members of our society. Sorry but people should be getting angry about this stuff, it's a disgrace.
Meanwhile, tax cuts for the rich.
Grum.
Do you not see that a balance needs to be struck? Imo, We shouldn't, as a nation, borrow money to supplement wages, while shareholders enjoy disproportionately high dividends, ROI.
So any attempt to divert some of those profits/dividends, etc, into the wages of staff so as to reduce the need for state funded wage top-up benefits, would be a move in the right direction, imo.
As I've stated before, I don't believe anyone in FTE should suffer the indignity of claiming wage benefits, as that wage should be sufficiently funded by the employer.
Whether this actually comes to be, only time will tell and if things don't go exactly to plan, I hope the incumbent will adjust policy to reach the objective of fewer wage top-up state benefits, [b]replaced[/b] by realistic wages.
I'm getting pretty tired of socialist/communist pretenders who haven't had the gumption to go out and make some sort of decent career for themselves bleating all over social media how unfair life is. You should have listened harder at school, deal with it!
I'm currently sat at home with no work, I'm getting no financial support from anyone and have a heap of debt. I'm not blaming the government, or people better off than me though - I'm blaming myself for not having all my bases covered.
Sounds like I'm doing a fair bit better than you then sonny Jim!! 😆
Grum - However, there are numerous poor, disabled and vulnerable people who are literally having their lives made a misery or even dying because of the actions of the government you voted for. That's a simple fact.
I thought the budget was pretty fair in this respect though - hopefully the dodgy tory bastards are starting to realise that they have to be a bit more human if they want to survive
[i]Grum - However, there are numerous poor, disabled and vulnerable people who are literally having their lives made a misery or even dying because of the actions of the government you voted for. That's a simple fact.[/i]
From the BBC:
[i]In addition, many working age benefits will be frozen for four years, such as tax credits and local housing allowance, [b]but excluding maternity pay and disability benefits.[/b][/i]
I hope that means new mothers and the disabled will not see cuts, a freeze, to what they already receive.
Tom1987 are you nieve or stupid ?
You raise the wage to 9 pounds across the board by making business pay for it ....
How do they do tht - they raise the price of their product
Suddently your 9 pound isnt worth the 9 pound it was intended to be its worth roughly 6 quid....
Makes the voter feel good though as they get a "wage rise."
[i] trail_rat - Member
Tom1987 are you nieve or stupid ?
You raise the wage to 9 pounds across the board by making business pay for it ....
How do they do tht - they raise the price of their product[/i]
It's not that simple, is it? That ^ business, in your statement, has competitors, therefore raising prices of it's product may make them more expensive than their competitors. Collusion to set prices with competitors would probably be illegal and pricing yourself out of people's pockets probably isn't a cool move.
I think it's a bit more complex than you seem to believe.
Investors/shareholders, etc, feel under pressure to invest their wealth to offset the effect of inflation. So they invest rather than bank the money so as to receive a much greater return on that investment than they would from a high street savings account.
I'd suggest that this should be the target, to drop in on that ROI and skim some off the top, for wages. The investors, etc, still receive an ROI on the right side of the deal, and the state doesn't have to top-up wages from it's revenue.
anagallis_arvensis - Member
Can you all not have a grown up debate without insulting each other?
POSTED 3 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST
This is STW, are you stupid? 😈
Oops Sorry Anagallis you have a good point! 😳
Everyone be nice and pick up your dummies.
The budget will balance itself out so nothing has changed except people relying on tax credits or grants will need working incomes or loans.
Tom1987 are you nieve or stupid ?You raise the wage to 9 pounds across the board by making business pay for it ....
How do they do tht - they raise the price of their product
Suddently your 9 pound isnt worth the 9 pound it was intended to be its worth roughly 6 quid....
Makes the voter feel good though as they get a "wage rise."
Total balls, as others have mentioned, pricing is a lot more complex than that. Besides, most of my monthly expenses aren't going to be affected by minimum wage hikes. Even going out for a meal will be unlikely to change by very much (because the catering industry just gets round the minimum wage by salarying people then making them do double the overtime unpaid).
The ratio between the minimum wage and the living wage has been lower in the past, why is it suddenly a bad thing to be lower now?
As an aside: given Dave's stated desire to drastically reduce net migration to the UK, I can't see effectively raising the minimum wage* is going to help on that score.
Then again: I've never believed that he actually meant that for a minute. He's just mouthing platitudes to blunt nigels message to his core vote of small-minded racists.
The bottom line is that business calls for a constant supply of labour that will work for minimum wage, and it's they who fund the Tory party. Given that a lot of migrants are coming to work minimum wage jobs, this increase is surely only going to increase the numbers heading here.
* Can we stop using the phrase 'living wage'? It isn't. Its a raised minimum wage. Or in a lot of industries, just [i]the[/i] wage
or, in a lot of industries 'lots more than the [i]actual[/i] wage'
Binners.
That's not an especially sophisticated trap you've set there and you're calling everyone racist?
Try the decafe mate.
🙂
Oops. Sorry. [i]closet[/i] racists, to quote Dave directly. Admittidly its been a while since he used the term. 😉
That's pretty pathetic trolling from Stoner. What they've announced isn't the living wage - just calling it that doesn't make it so. Also, increasing the minimum wage while taking away more in tax credits is pretty cynical slight of hand, even for the Tories.
This. He's just pushed up the real living wage by a few £/hour by cutting tax credits.
Steve Bell sums it up nicely
[img] 
?w=940&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=325dcd1d3d1b687ba6249b142d2de2b8[/img]
The government will have to break its own pay restraint for its lowest pay grades if it wants to comply with its new improved minimum wage.
And that's ignoring the bill for subcontracted staff who are only just making the current minimum wages.
So if tesco- asda - lidl- aldi and sainsburys - oh and m and s for some of you ... Are all force to pay their staff the "living" you honestly believe that competition will stop them putting their prices up to make up the short fall im their profits ....
[i] trail_rat - Member
So if tesco- asda - lidl- aldi and sainsburys - oh and m and s for some of you ... Are all force to pay their staff the "living" you honestly believe that competition will stop them putting their prices up to make up the short fall im their profits .... [/i]
They are already engaged in a pricing war, so it'll be more of the same. Those companies should all pay the difference between what staff lose in IWTC through wage increases. Consider also, that those companies don't all pay the same rate, so seeing as they are all starting from different wage levels, some would find it easier to bump up a wage to make up the difference, than others and so not need to raise product prices. Super markets can be a bit of a uniquely emotive example, which I suspect you have chosen for that reason.
You can shoot this all down if you like, but the aspiration to get people off state subsidies to be replaced with real wages paid by the employer. I feel is the right direction to try to head in.
Anyway, the budget is bigger than just IWTC.
Solo - MemberYou can shoot this all down if you like, but the aspiration to get people off state subsidies to be replaced with real wages paid by the employer. I feel is the right direction to try to head in.
TBF I doubt many people disagree with this principle. The problem is that one doesn't automatically lead to the other, just removing the subsidy without strong measures to compensate in salary is going to leave people worse off. (no, the un-living wage and the tax changes do not do this)
[i]Perhaps[/i] it'll adjust out over time but there's no guarantee and plenty of reasons to be skeptical. In the short term at least this is coming directly out of employee's pockets.
Solo im with you get off subsidys. I just dont see it as the magic bullet.
How ever neither do i have the solution.
TR.
I don't for one minute, believe it's a done deal yet and I'm sure there will be employers who can't resist the force of greed who will resist upping wages.
So, like you, I've yet to be completely convinced it can happen, but for now I'm prepared to give the incumbent the chance to try.
Thing is, if it doesn't all work, straight out the box, the haters will point and howl, but I'd hope that policies can be revised if they're not providing the desired effect, which brings me to one of the points I made earlier. At least for now, there appears to be the aspiration to elevate wages so as reduce the cost of IWTC to the Gov.
After reading page four, it's all gone fairly ok for page 5, imo.
Although... this was particularly funny in a most ironic way.
[i] yunki - Member
HAHAHAHA HAH!
Pull the other one you insidious turd
Grow up![/i]
Oh, the ironing.
Surprise surprise....
George Osborne announced a new ‘National Living Wage’, which will be worth £9 per hour by 2020 and will be compulsory for over-25s, alongside the deep cuts to tax credits and other benefits.
The Chancellor has characterised the reforms as a “new contract” to reduce dependency on the state and said the Government was “rewarding work”.But the IFS said increases in the minimum wage would not be “anywhere near” enough to make up for the losses to be incurred by those on tax credits.
“If that’s what they’re arguing, they’re plain wrong because there is simply not enough money going into the new minimum wage to anywhere near compensate in cash terms people on tax credits,” IFS director Paul Johnson told the World at One.
“Very clearly on average people who are currently receiving tax credits will be significantly worse off as a result of this, even when you take into account any increase in the minimum wage.”
“The increase in the minimum wage simply cannot provide full compensation for the majority of losses that will be experienced by tax credit recipients. That is just arithmetically impossible.”Mr Johnson also said those out of work would be less affected than those in employment.
“The cuts will be bigger for people in work than they will be for people out of work and in the new Universal Credit system it will reduce the incentives for people to move into work,” he added.Labour has criticised the scale of the cuts to tax credits, saying they amount to a “working penalty” that will reduce incentives to get into work.
The IFS said some three million households were in line to lose an average of £1,000 per year as a result of the Chancellor’s Budget yesterday.
Still, we have to fund those tax cuts for the rich somehow eh?
[i]Labour has criticised the [b]scale[/b] of the cuts to tax credits, saying they amount to a “working penalty” that will reduce incentives to get into work.[/i]
Sooo, Labour aren't opposed to the cuts themselves, just the [i]scale[/i] ok.
Not convinced it would reduce the incentive to get into work. However, I'd hope that if this initial step doesn't work as intended, then it should be revised.
So, if business doesn't put it's hand in it's pocket to make up any shortfall when IWTCs are cut/stopped. What should the Gov's next step be?
The labour party hasn't got a clue how to respond to it, as it doesn't have the slightest idea what its meant to be for any more.
This isn't going to change any time soon.
Meanwhile George Osbourne - the real power in the Tory party (Daves just a mouthpiece) is set about fundamentaly restructuring the entire relationship between the citizen and the state. He's systematically dismantling the whole post-war settlement. Note how just about all benefits have been withdrawn from the under 25's. He's effectively saying that for people from that age and younger, the welfare state is over
So, if this first stage doesn't get things rolling in the direction I assume it's supposed to...
How about a Gov monitored wage increase application process?
Employee applies to employer for wage rise. Employer has to respond in writing. If the response is in the negative, employer has to demonstrate to the Gov why they can't release more of their profits to meet a certain wage level.
Would this work?
Solo - MemberAt least for now, there appears to be the aspiration to elevate wages so as reduce the cost of IWTC to the Gov.
I really don't agree tbh. If this aspiration exists, where is the policy and action it would inspire?
I think that the decision to misleadingly rebrand the minimum wage and pretend it equates to the living wage is very telling tbh. The logical conclusion is that they want to give the impression of wanting to increase wages to a living wage, without actually doing it. It's just propaganda, and very crude at that. Luckily they know it won't be challenged.
Gauge them by their actual actions, and by the words they use and how closely they relate to those actions.
How about just a proper minimum wage which is also a real living wage with no tax credits?
the thing all the parties need to do is stop point scoring if £9 is or isn't a living wage and tackle the reason why so many folk find it so hard to make ends meet.
The cost of housing, the lack of house building for the past 20+ years is shameful and all the parties have let down joe public.
The wage level isn't the most important issue its the £££ left over after paying the fixed bills that people have to pay to put a roof over their head and food on the table.
Food and energy are difficult for the government to manage as its a global market. But housing is far more in their control and shame on them all.
[i]I really don't agree tbh.[/i]
Ok, re-reading my comment, perhaps I should have pointed out that it appears to me that the Gov has an aspiration to see employers take responsibility for providing a sufficient wage, rather than picking up the bill itself while dividends/profits paid out are higher for the few, off the back of the current system.
[i]Luckily they know it won't be challenged.[/i]
I'd consider that to be decidedly unlucky if that turns out to be the case.
[i]Gauge them by their actual actions, and by the words they use and how closely they relate to those actions. [/i]
I intend to.
The cost of housing, the lack of house building for the past 20+ years is shameful and all the parties have let down joe public.
They won't sort out the housing crisis, their main voting base....old people in general....are happy to see their houses rise and rise in value at the expense of everyone else.
I love the typical nasty Tories and austerity stuff!
Here is a Chancellor who has just announced a very un-Tory like budget and is not even close to implementing real austerity - not that you would think so from the vitriol above and elsewhere
Austerity George has run a budget deficit double the European average for the past five years and has reduced borrowing at a lower rate that most advanced economies - austerity, what austerity?
The we have a "Tory" budget that has, wait for it, greater than expected tax RISES, yes RISES. And he's eased off the spending cuts - austerity, what austerity?
And then the minimum wage stuff - normally those nasty Tories would be doing the opposite. And yet here is George Nasty the Tory taking a punt that rather than shedding staff, companies will be investing in training staff to make them more productive. Nice idea but hardly out of the Tory handbook. Indeed its higher than the level advocated by Wallace - remember him?
No wonder Labour found it hard to attack. This was the non-Tory, Tory budget!!! Amazing what happens when those Lib Demmers are out of the way. 😉
To use a STWism - oh the ironing!!!
They won't sort out the housing crisis, their main voting base....old people in general....are happy to see their houses rise and rise in value at the expense of everyone else.
.... because they'll need the cash from selling the house to pay for their future care.
Here is a Chancellor who has just announced a very un-Tory like budget and is not even close to implementing real austerity - not that you would think so from the vitriol above and elsewhere
Yep showering the masses with free money as you say.
Unless you're under 25, have more than 2 children (and aren't rich), or are dependant on tax credits to make ends meet.
Yep showering the masses with free money as you say.
I missed that bit of the job spec 😉