Tax Credits

dktreesea

kinger101 wrote: »

As for self employment, I'd want every claimant to show that their business was capable of generating an income equivalent to minimum wage. Perhaps the benefits office should just assume that at the very minimum it does when calculating entitlement to benefits. I bet if this happened, QT lady would miraculously find paid work very quickly.

I couldn't care less whether a business can generate the FT NMW. I want the self employed's benefits to be calculated as per the minimum income floor, i.e. based on an income of the higher of their actual taxable profit or the NMW for however many hours they are meant to work.


There's no conditionality to their benefits. They aren't being asked to go on courses/do workfare/jump through hoops other than, once UC comes in, to provide their monthly income.


Anyone else claiming as unemployed and meant to be working full time would have to do plenty to justify their claim. Not so the self employed.

kinger101

Thrugelmir wrote: »

That's a politicians response. i.e. try running a business yourself before telling others how to run their's. 90% of people in this country are employed in SME's not large organisations such as supermarkets. Imposing large increases in pay may well have a negative impact. The care industry in particular may well buckle.

The biggest cost to many organisations is labour. So cost efficiency through investment in technology is inevitable. The bigger the cost pressure imposed

The public sector alone employs around 20% of the workforce, so I'm not sure where your 90% figure comes from.

kinger101

CLAPTON wrote: »

well, within the terms of the USA study one could say

that of the wtc benefits bill
that 72-79% subsidised the workers
and 21-28% subsidised the employers

whether that applies to the UK situation is difficult to say, as their benefits and general employment rules etc are different to ours

but it's very different from simply saying wtc are a subsidy for employers without qualification

True, I should have qualified it.

dktreesea

Mistermeaner wrote: »

I wish people would bin this idea that tax credits = subsidy to business

We are all one way or another customers of these businesses , if they have to pay more in wages the increase in costs will be passed on to customers ie all of us.

That's by no means certain. Look at Lidl, now one of the most generous employers when it comes to wages in their sector, with soaring profits because they keep their prices down. Tesco, who relatively speaking are poor value for money, despite their workfare/slave labour workforce, have falling profits. As do Poundland, who are getting worse at the value for money over time and also have slave labour/work force participants.


Some of us shop at Waitrose partly because they don't exploit their staff, nor do they "hire" workfare participants. I bet John Lewis' profits will be just fine for this fiscal year.


Business should pay living wages to their employees. If they then still need support from the benefits system, that's because our benefits system is too generous.


And we should scrap housing benefit and council benefit. I favour the Irish system. Here's your dole, say £118 a week or whatever it works out at over there, and you pay for everything, including housing, out of that.

kinger101

michaels wrote: »

If the employer could pay higher wages and still make a return on the capital employed then by definition they are making excess profit and another supplier could enter the market and undercut the incumbent and take their market share.

Supermarkets as you say are a good example of how labour can easily get priced out.

France is a very good example if what happens if you price one section of society out of the labour market on a 'semi'-permanent basis.

Not sure that works. By that argument, any company making a profit could be undercut by another that decides to make a slightly lower one, until we hit break-even, or bust.

In reality, the successful companies are not competitive simply because they have the lowest wage bill, as they need to be efficient in all areas. The wage is sometimes the NMW, but in reality, it's what's needed to employ and retain the workers they need.

If the wage is the NMW however, the supermarket example doesn't work, as this would be the national floor anyway. It would be better to make comparisons based on international trade, and whether this still remains competitive.

You'll have to explain your point on France. I thought wages there were actually quite low; certainly by Northern European standards.

martinsurrey

mforr64 wrote: »

MartinSurrey - we don't have an income of 32.6K - that is the cutoff threshold with two children. If we had that income we would get zilch. We have less than that. The threshold for one child is 25k. We will be over that when my son leaves school in a couple of years. It tapers down at 41p in the £. There are a lot of people in this situation who would be affected by this.

Sorry I thought you were near the £32.6k = because you said so...

mforr64 wrote: »

...should know the threshold is £32,600. We are near the limit and...

martinsurrey wrote: »

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_368612.pdf

With an income of near £32k + tax credits + child benefit your household income is above median for the UK.

any welfare system that thinks it needs to support anyone in the top 50% is a bit beyond me...

my post mirrored what you said (near the limit in income....)

My mistake, I shouldn't take what some people say at face value...

gadgetmind

dktreesea wrote: »

Here's your dole, say £118 a week or whatever it works out at over there, and you pay for everything, including housing, out of that.

Yes, this. If it's enough for a pensioner, then it's clearly the right amount, so stop wanting everything that comes with a £40k pa career if you're not prepared to put in enough to justify that.

CLAPTON

gadgetmind wrote: »

Yes, this. If it's enough for a pensioner, then it's clearly the right amount, so stop wanting everything that comes with a £40k pa career if you're not prepared to put in enough to justify that.

I think a pensioner on basic state pension, would have their rent and CT paid in addition.

kinger101

gadgetmind wrote: »

Yes, this. If it's enough for a pensioner, then it's clearly the right amount, so stop wanting everything that comes with a £40k pa career if you're not prepared to put in enough to justify that.

The tax credits are mainly aimed at those raising children. And the state pension is contributions based. You're comparing apples with oranges.

antrobus

dktreesea wrote: »

That's by no means certain. Look at Lidl, now one of the most generous employers when it comes to wages in their sector, with soaring profits because they keep their prices down. ...

There is no way that you could know that Lidl UK has "soaring profits". Lidl UK does not publish a profit; it operates in the UK as a branch of the German operation.

However, that other German discounter named Aldi, does publish separate UK numbers. They show a big increase in sales, but a small fall in profits. I'd expect Lidl was no different.

Fighting a price war ain't cheap, ya know.:)

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3251846/Aldi-takes-rivals-online-launch-year-price-war-takes-toll-profits.html

dktreesea wrote: »

...Tesco, who relatively speaking are poor value for money, despite their workfare/slave labour workforce, have falling profits. .......

Oddly enough, if you look around this interweb of ours, you will find that it is Aldi and Lidl who attract criticism for their "workfare/slave labour workforce" rather than Tesco.:)

dktreesea wrote: »

...Some of us shop at Waitrose partly because they don't exploit their staff, nor do they "hire" workfare participants...........

And yet Waitrose pay the lowest hourly rate.

dktreesea wrote: »

...I bet John Lewis' profits will be just fine for this fiscal year.

Maybe not.:)

The darling of the middle classes posts a 26% slide in half-year profits

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-3229007/Pension-charges-hurt-John-Lewis-profits-Waitrose-records-sales-slide-seven-years.html

dktreesea wrote: »

.....Business should pay living wages to their employees. If they then still need support from the benefits system, that's because our benefits system is too generous.

Waitrose doesn't pay the living wage. Lidl and Aldi claim that they do. Why is it you are shopping at Waitrose again?:)

dktreesea wrote: »

.....And we should scrap housing benefit and council benefit. I favour the Irish system. Here's your dole, say £118 a week or whatever it works out at over there, and you pay for everything, including housing, out of that.:D:D

In Ireland they have something called 'Rent Supplement', which is being replaced by something called 'Housing Assistance Payment'. I don't know about you, but it looks just like HB to me.:)

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/social_welfare/social_welfare_payments/supplementary_welfare_schemes/rent_supplement.html