'Real living wage' to rise to £9 an hour - MSE News

gettingtheresometime

Comms69 wrote: »

Here's the link: https://www.litrg.org.uk/tax-guides/tax-credits-and-benefits/tax-credits/how-do-i-calculate-tax-credits


Benefits have been frozen for a long time. yes they need a catch up.

But isn't that the whole idea of the minimum/living wage - ie it's businesses that are forced to pay a wage so that people earn a wage that can be lived on rather than force governments to subsidise low wages?

Comms69

gettingtheresometime wrote: »

But isn't that the whole idea of the minimum/living wage - ie it's businesses that are forced to pay a wage so that people earn a wage that can be lived on rather than force governments to subsidise low wages?

Totally agree with you. There shouldn't be a minimum wage - because for many it's a maximum wage.

VT82

gettingtheresometime wrote: »

But isn't that the whole idea of the minimum/living wage - ie it's businesses that are forced to pay a wage so that people earn a wage that can be lived on rather than force governments to subsidise low wages?

I don't think the government minds subsidising low wages to a fairly big extent. It's the government's way of saying to businesses 'we know you can't afford to employ everyone at high wages and still be profitable, but we want your business to be profitable and succeed, as overall that's a very good thing for the economy'. And it's still cheaper for the government to subsidise the wages of someone on low pay, than it is to pay someone who is unemployed their jobseekers' allowance and all the other benefits they would get, which in most cases would be the alternative. That's why in work benefits actually exist, otherwise they would never have been a thing.

The tech company who provides the software for the department where I work shows off that it is a 'real living wage employer'. It's got 20 odd staff, all at least with a job title like Software Developer or Business Development Manager, so all on good salaries. To be able to show off that it's a 'real living wage employer', all it's got to do is pay the cleaner who comes in for 5 hours a week an extra quid an hour. Bosh, why not, eh?

Paying the 'real' living wage is just a way for companies that already pay higher wages for higher skills to virtue signal about how virtuous they are on pay.

Comms69

VT82 wrote: »

I don't think the government minds subsidising low wages to a fairly big extent. It's the government's way of saying to businesses 'we know you can't afford to employ everyone at high wages and still be profitable, but we want your business to be profitable and succeed, as overall that's a very good thing for the economy'. And it's still cheaper for the government to subsidise the wages of someone on low pay, than it is to pay someone who is unemployed their jobseekers' allowance and all the other benefits they would get, which in most cases would be the alternative. That's why in work benefits actually exist, otherwise they would never have been a thing.

The tech company who provides the software for the department where I work shows off that it is a 'real living wage employer'. It's got 20 odd staff, all at least with a job title like Software Developer or Business Development Manager, so all on good salaries. To be able to show off that it's a 'real living wage employer', all it's got to do is pay the cleaner who comes in for 5 hours a week an extra quid an hour. Bosh, why not, eh?

Paying the 'real' living wage is just a way for companies that already pay higher wages for higher skills to virtue signal about how virtuous they are on pay.

And maybe not even that. The cleaner is not likely an employee/

rmg1

Comms69 wrote: »

Here's the link: https://www.litrg.org.uk/tax-guides/tax-credits-and-benefits/tax-credits/how-do-i-calculate-tax-credits


Benefits have been frozen for a long time. yes they need a catch up.

I fully agree that the thresholds need updating..
It looks like coincidence that she's lost the same amount as the pay rise.

We sat and worked it out and she would be better off unemployed rather than working.

SuperPikachu

rmg1 wrote: »

We sat and worked it out and she would be better off unemployed rather than working.

I still know of people who are better off than me doing this.

This sounds nice news though for anyone on low pay that will benefit from it.

I don't really get tax credits though - a good 8/10 years ago or whatever when I was doing a job on 15K a year I "qualified" for them and think I ended up getting about £1k or something over the year (which I desperately needed at the time).

I then changed to a slightly better paid job, think it was then 18K at the time and they made me pay back the full £1k(!). Plus they made out like I was some sort of scrounging cheat when I spoke to them on the phone. Utterly pointless to give people money when they need it then demand it back when they still aren't well off.

Comms69

SuperPikachu wrote: »

I still know of people who are better off than me doing this.

This sounds nice news though for anyone on low pay that will benefit from it.

I don't really get tax credits though - a good 8/10 years ago or whatever when I was doing a job on 15K a year I "qualified" for them and think I ended up getting about £1k or something over the year (which I desperately needed at the time).

I then changed to a slightly better paid job, think it was then 18K at the time and they made me pay back the full £1k(!). Plus they made out like I was some sort of scrounging cheat when I spoke to them on the phone. Utterly pointless to give people money when they need it then demand it back when they still aren't well off.

It's based upon tax years, so if you claimed in April/May and changed jobs shortly there after that might be why

rmg1

Isn't it a ridiculous state of affairs where you're better off unemployed than working?

In the case of my OH, she's still on low wage (just not as low as she was), still needs the help but is getting less help than she needs.

spadoosh

rmg1 wrote: »

Isn't it a ridiculous state of affairs where you're better off unemployed than working?

In the case of my OH, she's still on low wage (just not as low as she was), still needs the help but is getting less help than she needs.

That just seems impossible to me.

Ive just put the figures for a household which is mortgaged 2 adults, 1 child, earning NMW, working full time. The outcome was they where entitled to £20.70 child benefit on entitledto, no UC payments. On the old system they wouldve got an extra £350 a year.

So, how many hours a week does your OH work? I cant help but think the help she needs will be available to her through full time work.

Comms69

spadoosh wrote: »

That just seems impossible to me.

Ive just put the figures for a household which is mortgaged 2 adults, 1 child, earning NMW, working full time. The outcome was they where entitled to £20.70 child benefit on entitledto, no UC payments. On the old system they wouldve got an extra £350 a year.

So, how many hours a week does your OH work? I cant help but think the help she needs will be available to her through full time work.

The issue that is often raised is that child care costs end up bringing the actual amount below what they'd get on benefits.