We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
milliband - 1 in 5 on low pay
Comments
-
Say what you like. The only 'ism though you could possibly link to that is ageism so I don't see why you couldn't have just said it
Do you believe
are not liable to be disproportionally represented by women then?or only wishing to work around childrenDon’t be a can’t, be a can.0 -
The is always going to be someone at the bottom of the pile. Like the premier league no matter how much each team spends in the transfer market there will always be three that finish last and get relegated0
-
Maybe we should decrease it. It'll certainly make us more competitive.
We would be even more competitive if a reduction of 20.76% is applied to all workers. Are you willing to sacrifice some of your salary to back up your idea?
After all, many higher earners feel they would "deserve" more money if the NMW increased, it is only fair and proportionate that their salaries would reduce in that instance.
IMHO, the MW should have been above £8 per hour years ago. Tax credits privatise profit and nationalise debt, and should be reclaimed (with interest) by HMRC from penny-pinching companies end-of-year profits. Many of these firms are willing to pay agencies well over this to secure labour anyway, so its not as if they "cant" afford it.
Why should the hard working taxpayer subsidise private companies who refuse to reward all their employees with gainful employment?0 -
Bill_Shidding wrote: »We would be even more competitive if a reduction of 20.76% is applied to all workers. Are you willing to sacrifice some of your salary to back up your idea?
I see no reason why not. I would be accepting of a 20% across the board cut. This won't happen however as the Government don't get to dictate what employers pay their employees beyond minimum wage.Bill_Shidding wrote: »IMHO, the MW should have been above £8 per hour years ago. Tax credits privatise profit and nationalise debt, and should be reclaimed (with interest) by HMRC from penny-pinching companies end-of-year profits. Many of these firms are willing to pay agencies well over this to secure labour anyway, so its not as if they "cant" afford it.
Why should the hard working taxpayer subsidise private companies who refuse to reward all their employees with gainful employment?
The issue with this (and probably why it hasn't been done) is that it would increase unemployment at a time when this statistic is in the public eye. Some businesses would close and some would simply relocate abroad. We've already seen this in part, if you make it even more expensive to operate here more will leave.
An agency employee works out a similar price to a regular employee due to the extra hidden payments required so that point doesn't really hold weight either.
I also stand by what I said, you can increase the NMW to whatever you like but in real world terms you'll see very little extra as prices would increase to reflect this change.0 -
Getting back on track!
If NMW was raised to £8.00ph (rather then the current £6.31ph) then I would also expect a 25% (ish) increase in my hourly rate - and so would everybody else...
Net result is the price of all goods would go up, the same bang for your buck, hence no benefit to anybody.
Do you think Ed has thought this through?0 -
Getting back on track!
If NMW was raised to £8.00ph (rather then the current £6.31ph) then I would also expect a 25% (ish) increase in my hourly rate - and so would everybody else...
Net result is the price of all goods would go up, the same bang for your buck, hence no benefit to anybody.
Do you think Ed has thought this through?
Even if they didn't increase everyone's salary by 25% prices would go up. Most people involved in the manufacture, distribution and sale of goods are generally low paid and would be included in the increase of minimum wage which would push prices up anyway.
Of course doing it this way just means people on NMW will be able to get the same for their money and those on a higher salary will get less so in effect no one wins.0 -
I also stand by what I said, you can increase the NMW to whatever you like but in real world terms you'll see very little extra as prices would increase to reflect this change.
So, what is the answer to ensuring companies pay all their employees enough to live, without state support?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards