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 ….

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 ….

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 – Member

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.

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)

Perhaps 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.

yunki – Member
HAHAHAHA HAH!
Pull the other one you insidious turd
Grow up!

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.

https://www.politicshome.com/economy-and-work/articles/story/ifs-budget-leaves-low-income-workers-significantly-worse

Still, we have to fund those tax cuts for the rich somehow eh?

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.

Sooo, Labour aren’t opposed to the cuts themselves, just the scale 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 – Member

At 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 really don’t agree tbh.

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.

Luckily they know it won’t be challenged.

I’d consider that to be decidedly unlucky if that turns out to be the case.

Gauge them by their actual actions, and by the words they use and how closely they relate to those actions.

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.

Yup.

There is a solution though, if they can’t afford decent care.

http://www.dignitas.ch

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 😉

THM can you explain how making the poor poorer while cutting taxes for the rich is ‘very un-Tory’ please?

Why would I do that? The question does not make sense

*sigh*

The question makes perfect sense and you understand it perfectly well – why try to pretend otherwise apart from to troll?

It’s your nonsense claim that a budget that takes away from the poor and includes tax cuts for the rich isn’t a typical Tory budget that makes no sense whatsoever.

The we have a “Tory” budget that has, wait for it, greater than expected tax RISES, yes RISES.

Like the rise in corporation tax and the the rise in inheritance tax? Oh no wait….

Well I can take the same view as other professional economists (google the left-of-centre Stephanie Flanders for a start) or I can take your view. Choices, choices……

Hmmm…….

Or I could read today’s article in the FT about how UK tax has become more progressive since 2000….hmmm again.

The Daily Mail is heralding this as a triumph, and they’re known for their moderate centrist views.

Nice little infographic here from the Mail which explains how great it is that everyone wins – except the working poor who are getting screwed over to the tune of £2000 per year. But yeah, definitely not a typical Tory budget. 🙄

yeah really, it’s the comfortable whingers that are getting hit no?
Any family earning under £20k isn’t gonna get hit from what I understood

Any family earning under £20k isn’t gonna get hit from what I understood

You understood wrong then.

are you sure?
That seems very unlikely.. could you elaborate?

As a share of income, a household in the second poorest decile will be more than 7% worse off as a result of the budget and changes previously announced. The losses get steadily smaller as households get richer, up to the ninth decile, which is better off as a result of the budget. The richest 10% of households loses, but only marginally.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/09/ifs-picks-the-budget-to-pieces-again

yunki – Member
yeah really, it’s the comfortable whingers that are getting hit no?

No, they’re fine.

What about comfortable but not whinging, are they being hit too?

But yeah, definitely not a typical Tory budget.

Wow, Grum and The Wail versus the likes of Stephanie Flanders

Chancellor’s break with Tory orthodoxy not very conservative at all….But it is the exact opposite of what Margaret Thatcher preached in the 1980s.

And Martin Wolf

This is of course an example of the leaden-footed regulatory interventions against which the Conservative party rails when they emanate from the EU.

Leaving aside the other comments re jackdaw politics as Osbourne borrows ideas from other parties.

Choices, choices…a real conundrum now….

And let’s not forget those tax experts who always remind you that taxes have to be considered as a whole not in isolation. What do they know. They will be pointing to the rise in the tax burden in their folly. Honestly, some people…