Are the minimum wage increases enough?

Fridge2

I think that we should start thinking out of the box a little on this one.

Rather than increasing minimum wages (or indeed having them at all) perhaps we should look at cutting taxes to the bone.

Perhaps if people were allowed to keep more of the money they earn then benefits could be reduced. Concurrently, this would also reduce the burden on small businessess.

let more money circulate in the market and give the individual the power to decide where more of their money goes rather than the Government.

ninky_2

dopester wrote: »

Employers should be grateful should they? Maybe you ought to set up in business yourself and get an idea of the real world.

nowhere did i say employers should be grateful. it's a case of mutual respect. and i happen to think a fulltime job that pays so little it gives the worker less than they could receive in benefits is disrespectful to employees.

as for dylansmums point regarding overloading other workers - this is where reasonable working time directives come into play surely?

btw i am "in business" as a sole trader. in the "real world".

dylansmum

ninky wrote: »

nowhere did i say employers should be grateful. it's a case of mutual respect. and i happen to think a fulltime job that pays so little it gives the worker less than they could receive in benefits is disrespectful to employees.

as for dylansmums point regarding overloading other workers - this is where reasonable working time directives come into play surely?

btw i am "in business" as a sole trader. in the "real world".

Well, I am sure you are a very good employer. My own experience is that work intensification is used to keep costs down - whatever the legal postion is, I find that unreasonable amounts of work are expected in short times. I give an example - we are time set/work planned and expected to produce a fairly hefty piece of work in 1-2 hours. I kid you not. And I don't work for the private sector.

ninky_2

dylansmum wrote: »

Well, I am sure you are a very good employer. My own experience is that work intensification is used to keep costs down - whatever the legal postion is, I find that unreasonable amounts of work are expected in short times. I give an example - we are time set/work planned and expected to produce a fairly hefty piece of work in 1-2 hours. I kid you not. And I don't work for the private sector.

hard to know if this is reasonable without the specifics. personally i don't care how hard i have to work as long as my hours are reasonable enough that i have time to do other things.

what would happen if you (and the majority) couldn't produce the work in the given timeframe? if employers set unreasonable parameters that couldn't be met it could only backfire on them i would have thought.

nickj_2

the minimum wage is a disgrace
it should be much more
it's so expensive to live in this country
everyone deserves to earn a sustainable living - if they are willing to put the effort in
if that effects profits and shareholders dividends then it should be a price worth paying

Fridge2

nickj wrote: »

the minimum wage is a disgrace
it should be much more
it's so expensive to live in this country
everyone deserves to earn a sustainable living - if they are willing to put the effort in
if that effects profits and shareholders dividends then it should be a price worth paying

Another shortsighted view....

if you affect profits and shareholders dividends, then there is less incentive for the business to stay viable with the result it either goes belly-up or relocates elsewhere.

Either way you then lose jobs completely...

Fridge2

ninky wrote: »

and i happen to think a fulltime job that pays so little it gives the worker less than they could receive in benefits is disrespectful to employees.

Perhaps that says more about the level of benefits payed out rather than wages?

ninky_2

Fridge2 wrote: »

Perhaps that says more about the level of benefits payed out rather than wages?

or the level of rents that housing benefit is having to cover to subsidise private landlords.

smoker99

mardatha wrote: »

Huge danger of the loony fringe being the only people to vote come the election. I'm glad we have the SNP up here, because England is kind of stuck now for choice, & the BNP is bound to take a few seats which is not a good thing !

It would be a godsend for all the white working class people this government and previous governments have forgotten. The BNP are the political party all the mainstream parties fear the most because they truly are different.

Think about it! The BNP don't receive large donations from big business or Labour affiliated trade unions which expect favours in return. Their funding comes exclusively from small donations from ordinary working people and pensioners who are disgusted with the way this country is going and are prepared to dig deep into their own pockets to try to turn things around.

Just enter 'BNP' on google news search and see for yourselves the filthy hate filled bile spewing from the national media towards the BNP and its members and ask yourself why is this? It's because the wealthy over-priviliged elite of this country are absolutely terrified that their cosy tax-payer funded lifestyles are about to be ended by a truly honest and accountable political party.

If people truly want to end this swine-fest by sleezy, greedy, arrogant politicians then in my opinion the only way to do it is by voting BNP in the European Elections.

BitterAndTwisted

Are you seriously calling the BNP a truly honest and accountable political party? You are either ignorant of the facts, completely deluded or certifiably insane. Them's dirty, fascist racists and that's not opinion, that's a fact