MSE News: Government shrugs off Lords benefits defeat

rotoguys

LookingForNipsy wrote: »

rotoguys wrote: »

Well its either a) Force employers to pay more b) Let the government continue to fork out billions to cover the living expenses that the NMW cannot c) Force landlords to charge less rent (significantly less in some areas) or d) Have a race to the bottom that sees the millions more families living in poverty. I can't think of anything outside those options.

Maybe teach people how to survive on less income? We managed it in the depression of the 20's and we managed it during the last world war.
We have to go back and learn how to do without, not bleat on about why employers should be made to increase their overheads.

We need to transition to a system where if a business cannot pay a wage that at the very least allows a person to put a roof over their heads, feed and clothe their family as well as put a little aside for rainy days and old age - then it is should not be a viable business.

And as for suggesting that the government getting their grubby little mits on businesses is the way forward - oh yes, and they are good at what they are doing already - I don't think so.

There's plenty of proof that shows this is beneficial for businesses in the long run. It reduces staff turnover and workers earning a decent wage are healthier and more productive - many successful businesses pay a Living Wage.

A business will pay it's workers what it can afford and what it considers to be an amount of money being the value of what the employee does.

shedboy94

rotoguys wrote: »

LookingForNipsy wrote: »

A business will pay it's workers what it can afford and what it considers to be an amount of money being the value of what the employee does.

Most businesses will pay their employees the bare minimum which is NMW because they are told this is what they HAVE to pay. Do you honestly think a multi-billion pound company such as Tesco for example can't afford to pay their staff more than they currently do?

rotoguys

shedboy94 wrote: »

rotoguys wrote: »

Most businesses will pay their employees the bare minimum which is NMW because they are told this is what they HAVE to pay. Do you honestly think a multi-billion pound company such as Tesco for example can't afford to pay their staff more than they currently do?

No, they can't is the answer!

What you seem to be forgetting is that at the top of the tree is the management board. They control the company, they decide how the company is run. They have to be paid a salary that will attract the best that there is. Why and for who? The shareholders of course, without whom there would be no company! They have their money tied up in it and expect a decent return on their investment.

Then we have the workers. They can only be paid out of what is left after the company has paid all of it's other costs and put money aside for future projects.

NMW is what it is. The minimum amount of money that anybody of a certain age must be paid.
The company may only have in mind to pay £3 per hour as that is all it can really afford, yet the government are forcing them to pay £6+ an hour. The company has to find the difference!

Peterwth

zagfles wrote: »

I don't understand why the Lords even have a say - it's basically a finance issue and the Lords should have no say on finance issues at all, as they aren't elected. They have no say on the finance bill itself.

If they try to block welfare cuts then they are basically saying taxes have to go up - something the Lords have no right to do ("no taxation without representation"). And as the article states they are way out of line with public opinion.

Write to your local "Lord" and express your self. I have written to mine explaining how out of touch with reality he is, and how he should do the right thing and resign. We cant let these old fools ruin our lives for ever more. Just go to the Parliment website, and look up there email address.

cit_k

brutus1983 wrote: »

26k benifits and peple moaning that this isnt enough makes me sick!!

i have kids that i hardly see in the week even tho i sleep under the same roof as them becuase of work to support them

if you cant afford the huge rents then move simple as that dont expect the tax payer pick up he tab and stop making a living from breeding

being a perant is not a career its a life style choice

Isnt that hypocritical?

You have kids - do you not get child related benefits for them?

If so, why do you expect the state to fund your lifestyle choice?

LookingForNipsy

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

e) Teach children to work at hardrer at school so that they can earn a lot higher than the minimum wage. Perhaps let them know that the glory days that their parents had of, living on welfare and welfare top-ups, are over and that their parents' glory days on benefits, now have to be paid for.

When my daughter first got in with the wrong group at school and stopped handing in her homework on time, I took her to the local tomato greenhouses where people spent all day packing tomatoes. I just said that if she didn't get a good education, she would end up like these people and that having money would give her choices.

It's a bit harder for my neigbours with their daughter, as the daughter is already aware that nowdays, if she gets pregnant, she will get a house and lots of benefit money.

Thanks for clarifying the foreign born vs immigrant - I thought you were hinting there was more to it than the children issue.

e) That's a solution to the INDIVIDUAL problem of ensuring you and yours don't end up on NMW. Its the best any parent can do for their child, I completely agree, and it sounds like your daughter has you as a strong positive influence in her life (which is more than a lot of kids have).

However, even if every parent instilled these values in their children ensuring every child worked very hard and got well educated; even if the benefits system was PERFECT and provided no incentive to be out of work, get pregnant or have large families when you can't support them we would still have full time working people on the NMW who would need government support to make ends meet or would live in very poor conditions.

So its either a) pay more b) govt support c) forced lower rents d) poverty for many. I think a) is the best option, raising the NMW to the Living Wage wouldn't stop bright, ambitious kids from earning over and above it. All it would mean is that everyone, bright or otherwise would at least be able to work full time and independently support their families.

ermine

How about a) and e)

by learning more or getting better at what we do we can all produce more. Thereby justifying a)

Terrysdelight

Hi

Have been reading the posts, some I agree with, some I don't and some I partly agree with. My ten pence worth -

Our country is in a mess. There aren't enough jobs, even if everyone had jobs, they would still end up having their salaries topped up by benefits to pay their rents. There are too many people that see benefits as a way of life and believe they should get all they are entitled too. Benefits are supposed to be a short term measure, not a way of life.

There isn't any easy solutions, I do totally agree that no-one should be claiming thousands of pounds a month to live in a property when cheaper property is available elsewhere. I think this is disgusting. I believe the government is right to put a stop to this. This will save millions and millions.

At the same time, the government is a lot to blame for this mess. If they hadn't of brought in the minimum wage, more people would be earning so much more and not need to have top up benefits. EG, where employers use to pay a half decent wage, lots of them saw an opportunity to 'reduce' their wage bill. What did this do, put more people into the benefit queue.

Regarding Child benefit - there are lots of families that just breed like rabbits. I think a law should be put through which states any more than two or three children (for example) and no further child benefit will be paid.

I would also try to get a law passed which says if you work in this country and claim for children who live abroad - this has to stop too.

I work for a charity for disabled children and I have seen so much of their benefits cut - these are people who need money. Not people who want to live in a mansion down the road from relatives.

We pay too much money in taxes because our government don't spend it properly.

Society is really breaking down and I hate what I see.

That's all, just airing my feelings really. Sorry if this message offends anyone - it's not meant to but it's just saying how I feel about everything that is going on.

LookingForNipsy

rotoguys wrote: »

No, they can't is the answer!

What you seem to be forgetting is that at the top of the tree is the management board. They control the company, they decide how the company is run. They have to be paid a salary that will attract the best that there is. Why and for who? The shareholders of course, without whom there would be no company! They have their money tied up in it and expect a decent return on their investment.

Then we have the workers. They can only be paid out of what is left after the company has paid all of it's other costs and put money aside for future projects.

NMW is what it is. The minimum amount of money that anybody of a certain age must be paid.
The company may only have in mind to pay £3 per hour as that is all it can really afford, yet the government are forcing them to pay £6+ an hour. The company has to find the difference!

No. Labour is a cost, you account for it before any "future projects" are accounted for and if the numbers don't add up then you don't have a viable business. Plenty of successful companies pay a living wage.

rogerblack

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/26/government-overturn-lords-welfare-defeats - next week, in the commons, they plan to overturn the recent defeats.
It's time to lobby your MP.