Employers can't 'afford' to pay a living wage?

wantsajob

Russe11 wrote: »

so options would be work 40hours, or not work 40 hours and get the same... and that will get more people into work?

Yep. Complete stupidity from the Government. The easiest way to achieve this is by increasing the minimum wage and reducing costs of travelling to work (fuel taxes). Not by subsidising employment for big businesses with some stupid benefits.

Russe11

wantsajob wrote: »

Yep. Complete stupidity from the Government. The easiest way to achieve this is by increasing the minimum wage and reducing costs of travelling to work (fuel taxes). Not by subsidising employment for big businesses with some stupid benefits.

I don't think you do need raise the min wage, just scrap child tax credits and give them the tax allowance instead, say £3-4k per child.

That way a couple with 3 kids could earn 28-30k a year without paying tax.

I don't think fuel prices are to high, since everyone keeps telling me its cheaper to have a car than public transport, fuel prices should therefore increase until it make public transport more attractive. Ok so the actual problem is public transport is a joke and to expensive is well known.

wantsajob

Russe11 wrote: »

I don't think you do need raise the min wage, just scrap child tax credits and give them the tax allowance instead, say £3-4k per child.

That way a couple with 3 kids could earn 28-30k a year without paying tax.

The parents would need to be Polygamous before they reach 30k on minimum wage. The tax allowance would be a great idea, but would need at least double the current minimum wage to make it workable.

Russe11 wrote: »

I don't think fuel prices are to high, since everyone keeps telling me its cheaper to have a car than public transport, fuel prices should therefore increase until it make public transport more attractive. Ok so the actual problem is public transport is a joke and to expensive is well known.

Fuel tax goes up, then taxi, bus, and train firms use it as an excuse to jack the prices up substantially - in no way related to the couple of pence added per litre. Public transport is all about profits. Nationalise public transport?

Itismehonest

Russe11 wrote: »

so you are saying people will earn the same for their working week as they would on benefits?

so options would be work 40hours, or not work 40 hours and get the same... and that will get more people into work?

No. What will happen is that, instead of the current WTC system where people can have benefits reduced due to income for just a few hours work, those who work will be allowed to keep more of their benefits even if only working the same few hours - thus making work a better prospect than JSA. It is called using a disregard.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/universal-credit-full-document.pdf

There will also be tougher sanctions for those who knowingly try to dodge the system.

Russe11

wantsajob wrote: »

The parents would need to be Polygamous before they reach 30k on minimum wage. The tax allowance would be a great idea, but would need at least double the current minimum wage to make it workable.


Fuel tax goes up, then taxi, bus, and train firms use it as an excuse to jack the prices up substantially - in no way related to the couple of pence added per litre. Public transport is all about profits. Nationalise public transport?

But the wage levels would look after themselves in time, market rates would soon be attained, the allowances could just be introduced gradually, how ever did future generations cope?

Taxi fares have not gone up much over the last 5 years, in fact the last taxi I got after a night out was cheaper to go about 25 miles than I have ever experienced, £28 quid I think it was, ofcourse I rang up othe providers that quoted me 35, 40 etc, but I asked why they said fuel prices/sat night etc(just chancing picking up drunks maybe)... paid just £5 from a train station to the theatre a week or so ago, where as 3-4 years ago it would of been above £6. Fuel prices are one thing, but it seems that there is down ward pressure on prices when the service is in less demand.

I hear less people moaning about fuel prices now than I did 4-5 years ago.

Russe11

Itismehonest wrote: »

No. What will happen is that, instead of the current WTC system where people can have benefits reduced due to income for just a few hours work, those who work will be allowed to keep more of their benefits even if only working the same few hours - thus making work a better prospect than JSA. It is called using a disregard.

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/docs/universal-credit-full-document.pdf

There will also be tougher sanctions for those who knowingly try to dodge the system.

4. We do not expect to include a disregard for a single person without children –
any earnings would be tapered off straight away.
37 We envisage that disregards will be reduced by one-and-a-half times the recipient’s eligible rent or mortgage

So there we have it, no change since those with dependants will be able to work for lesser wage rates due to the income disregard they will get. It will devalue every single persons with out dependants labour value.

Correct me if i'm wrong.

Itismehonest

Russe11 wrote: »

4. We do not expect to include a disregard for a single person without children –
any earnings would be tapered off straight away.
37 We envisage that disregards will be reduced by one-and-a-half times the recipient’s eligible rent or mortgage

So there we have it, no change since those with dependants will be able to work for lesser wage rates due to the income disregard they will get. It will devalue every single persons with out dependants labour value.

Correct me if i'm wrong.

I'm stating to wonder if I follow you at all, sorry. What exactly is your point? I've re-read the posts & you seem to swing between to viewpoints.

Under Universal Credit those who have dependants & work will keep more of the money they earn without deductions from their benefit. An incentive to work whether at NMW or above.

By definition then, as now, a single person without dependants who is not in work has no labour value.

The rule about the unskilled being mainly on NMW will still apply to either bracket, with or without dependants, & always has.
If someone has no skills to make them more attractive to employers wanting or needing a certain skill set then the only option is a low-paid, often NMW, job.
You can't devalue someone's labour value if it's already at the minimum.

The benefit system has to change. People need to be in work if they are able. The system has long meant that people will opt to do nothing because there is little to gain financially by working. The intent is to change that - to make working pay.

We aren't far off the top of the table for rate of NMW in Europe
What could, however, bring both NMW & benefits down is going the way of Greece & Spain & letting our debt run riot. As you can see from the list their NMW are now 585.78Euro & 641.50Euro.

Russe11

The main point is those that work do not want to have to compeate with those enttitled to benefits, the benefits should be a saftey net, not pay more than the NMW, by allowing benefits when working means that wages stay supressed.

Single people and low earning couples can not compeate with those claiming housing benefits because the wages are so low.

The NMW has to be equal to or greater than benefit levels, but the NMW is not a constant because its topped up depending on circumstances.

Itismehonest

Russe11 wrote: »

The main point is those that work do not want to have to compeate with those enttitled to benefits, the benefits should be a saftey net, not pay more than the NMW, by allowing benefits when working means that wages stay supressed.

Single people and low earning couples can not compeate with those claiming housing benefits because the wages are so low.

The NMW has to be equal to or greater than benefit levels, but the NMW is not a constant because its topped up depending on circumstances.

I absolutely agree that benefits should be a safety net & that, at present, many people get paid more for doing nothing than going out to work which is totally wrong. However, it's by lowering the State's bill (benefits being a large part of that) & getting people back into work that this can be achieved.
If the NMW is raised then more, particularly small, businesses will be forced under, more people made unemployed & the benefit bill increased. That's the exact opposite of what is needed.

This is why Greece has had to cut it's NMW to less than half the UKs. It's a massive attempt to get employers to take more people on, move the onus to pay the country's workforce from the State to the private sector & to reduce the State sectors' own NMW payroll.

Russe11

I think the big elephant in the room we are all forgetting is that the jobs are not there.