UK to receive "living wage" by 2020 £9 per hour minimum wage.

a reply to: nonspecific
I laughed when I saw that this won't come into effect until 2020 - because who knows how inflation will hit us when the bank interest rates go up - and they will if the mutterings in the professional financial mags are correct.

The tv presenters waxed lyrical with gleaming smiles at this news - patronising lot - but when you take the removal of the tax credits etc does one balance out the other and leave people actually no better off, except of course those who will benefit from the cut in corporation tax and their increased dividends eh! cameron and clan.

£1,000,000 inheritance tax again, if you look at the average house prices outside london again its only for the wealthy and those lucky enough to have held onto a property in london and other wealthy spots.

I suspect little of this actually will help ordinary people and especially the young.

I am honestly cringing at the thought of either boris hound-dog or that smarmy osborne being the next PM here anyone else want the sick-bucket? Imagine it being poorer and having to tolerate one of them Oh dear!

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I think the figure should be based on the cost of living in the particular country or even region of country.

I don't think you can say that the figure should be the same for the uk and Usa as there are so many variables.

As a case in point a 2 bed house in the area I live is around £700-£800 pcm to rent. If I go 200 miles north the same property would be around £450. If I go to London I shudder to think.

a reply to: Shiloh7

Agreed theres a lot of sneaky stuff being hidden by the wonderwull news of increased minimum wages.

50% increase on insurance policiy tax coming as well.

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: Subaeruginosa
As a case in point a 2 bed house in the area I live is around £700-£800 pcm to rent. If I go 200 miles north the same property would be around £450. If I go to London I shudder to think.

That aspect is irreverent imo.

For example.... I 'choose' to live in a regional city far away from a major city lifestyle, there for the rent is cheap... Yet, my brother 'chooses' to live in East Hawthorn in the inner eastern suburbs of Melbourne. Its a choice his made to live in a major city and its only fair that he pays for that choice.

Minimum wage should fall within the range of generic basic living needs, not personal choices.

a reply to: Subaeruginosa

Maybe things are a little different down under then.

The problem with that is that here in the UK we tend to have most of our houses in cities, that is kind of what makes them cities so it is not practical for everyone to move to where the rent is cheaper.

If they tried it would create a property boom in that area as demand would outstip supply.

Also most of the work is in cities so people need to live in them in order to have a job.

a reply to: nonspecific

The Institute for Fiscal Studies have given their verdict on the changes and it don't look good for those effected with 13 million families loosing on average £260.00 a year , that takes into account the higher wages.

Tax credit changes could hit three million families, which are likely to lose an average of £1,000, it said.
Even taking into account higher wages, people receiving tax credits would be "significantly worse off," said Paul Johnson, director of the IFS.
The chancellor said most workers would be better off under Budget changes.
The biggest impact on families will come from the freeze in working age benefits and the changes to tax credits, said Mr Johnson.
"It will reduce the incentive for the first earner in a family to enter work," he said.
www.bbc.co.uk...

Tories , still looking after the rich and kicking the poor after all these years , a leopard can't change its spots.

originally posted by: Shiloh7

£1,000,000 inheritance tax again, if you look at the average house prices outside london again its only for the wealthy and those lucky enough to have held onto a property in london and other wealthy spots.

#ing bollocks

The price of property in our rainy # hole is so bloody high in areas with work that its piss easy to find one with a propert over 500k. I live in a 3 bedroom house worth 400k! Yeah 400 #ing grand!

To get any half decent prices you have to either live in some northern crap whole 200 miles from the nearest job or some ghetto area where you don't mind being stabbed.

Plus to tax one on DEATH is immoral.

Back to the minimum wage from the OP.I think this blind-sided Labour and the SNP! They don't seem to be happy!

Osborne did say that people on the min wage would not pay tax, so that's good too.

To be honest, I thought the budget seemed OK. I neither win, nor lose. I do think welfare needs to be sorted out and the waste and dependency on welfare is a joke to people like me who work like a dog! Labour and the SNP seem incapable of grasping that fact!

And NO, I don't read the Daily mail or watch Benefit Street!

Unfortunately, without realising it, Labour has fostered and supported a benefits 'wage' policy – those who receive more and more benefits become reliant on them to the point that they see getting a job will have a negative impact on their earnings.

Benefits have always meant to provide a prop to support you while you look for work, raise a child before school, pay essential bills while ill, or in the case of disability, provide for your care. It was never meant to be permanent or dissuade you from working when you were able. The amount of benefits now in circulation, and especially under Labour, were financially not viable by those who paid taxes.

When young people see what they could earn in an unskilled job versus what they could receive in benefits, they nearly always choose the latter. This simply cannot go on forever.

The average UK salary is currently £26k pa. Of that, £3200 is paid in income tax.
When the maximum benefit cap of £20k pa applies, this will still mean it will take 6.25 average tax payers to pay for one person on the maximum allowable benefits package. It's difficult to work out the average paid in benefits, but it is estimated that it would still take 4 average tax payers to pay for one average benefit applicant. If you think that this is sustainable, I think you have some thinking to do.

a reply to: 321Go

The question I was asking was not about benifits and sustainability but the issue of minimum wage and tax credits combined with the cost of living.

The average wage is just that an average and not really an effective means to assess the situation.

The latest figures I could find suggest that around 5% or 1.3 million people in the uk are on minimum wage of £6.50.

Thats around 11,700 per year after deductions. this is why the current tax credit system is needed.

a reply to: 321Go

those who receive more and more benefits become reliant on them to the point that they see getting a job will have a negative impact on their earnings.

The biggest losers in the budget are working families on low income , as pointed out by the IFS 13 million families stand to loose on average £260.00 a year.

It's easy to blame the unemployed for the ills of the world but the fact is it's not them who put the country in the state it's in , seems to me there's a witch hunt going on instigated by the Tories.

The rich get richer the poor eat cake.

a reply to: gortex

It will not just be those on the bottom rung that will feel it.

Next time you go for a pint have a think how much it will cost you when the barmans on £9 per hour, or the waitress or builders mate building your nice new extension.

I'm pretty sure theres lots of jobs out there that are well under £9 per hour and anyone that thinks that the companies will take the hit are deluded.

originally posted by: nonspecific
Next time you go for a pint have a think how much it will cost you when the barmans on £9 per hour, or the waitress or builders mate building your nice new extension.

No labourers in my area get out of bed for less than £60 cash a day right now, except a few Eastern Europeans I know.

What might well happen is that labourers demand more in a knock on effect where the thinking would be why the # should I bust my balls shoveling and digging etc when the pay is the same as someone on a till at Tesco.
...but then more Eastern Europeans will fill their places.

originally posted by: 321Go

When the maximum benefit cap of £20k pa applies, this will still mean it will take 6.25 average tax payers to pay for one person on the maximum allowable benefits package. It's difficult to work out the average paid in benefits, but it is estimated that it would still take 4 average tax payers to pay for one average benefit applicant. If you think that this is sustainable, I think you have some thinking to do.

Problem is with these welfare monkeys is that they DONT think.

There brain powers extends as far as putting out there hands to beg for more.


Only budget that would make these people happy is if Osborne handed each one £1 million in person and even then they would still demand more.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: 321Go

those who receive more and more benefits become reliant on them to the point that they see getting a job will have a negative impact on their earnings.

The biggest losers in the budget are working families on low income , as pointed out by the IFS 13 million families stand to loose on average £260.00 a year.

It's easy to blame the unemployed for the ills of the world but the fact is it's not them who put the country in the state it's in , seems to me there's a witch hunt going on instigated by the Tories.

The rich get richer the poor eat cake.

The rich get richer, and the poor poorer. That is true.

Please show me one economic system anywhere in the world that exists now or has existed where this is not true. One example please.

This whole idea is fallacy and fantasy and is perpetrated by socialists, but even their system contains it, and arguably produces even more of an imbalance – every single economy produces poorer and richer people. There is no exception at all.

a reply to: nonspecific

The Minimum Wage is due to rise in October to £6.70 rising by 20p , the new living wage will start at £7.20 which is a modest but acceptable rise of 50p, if you add yearly rises of 20 or 30p then you get to around the £9.00 figure so I don't think it's really a problem , everybody else's wages will have risen by more than that.

The £9 per hour figure is clever spin.

originally posted by: grainofsand

originally posted by: nonspecific
Next time you go for a pint have a think how much it will cost you when the barmans on £9 per hour, or the waitress or builders mate building your nice new extension.

No labourers in my area get out of bed for less than £60 cash a day right now, except a few Eastern Europeans I know.

What might well happen is that labourers demand more in a knock on effect where the thinking would be why the # should I bust my balls shoveling and digging etc when the pay is the same as someone on a till at Tesco.
...but then more Eastern Europeans will fill their places.

I think thats what will happen, £9ph is 72 per day and although thats not a lot if you think of all the guys that have a monkey on hand to mix stuff and run back and forth to the van fetching tools and holding ladders there going to have to think twice or put there rates up.

I work for guys at less than £9 per hour as if I don't then the jobs are not viable to anyone including the customer.

a reply to: crazyewok

Haha, agreed, I know loads of lazy bastards who actually don't want to work.
Wait for the bleeding hearts to say 'oh attack the bankers not the scroungers' and I do agree with taxing the rich, but also cutting benefits for lazy bastards.

I smiled when the 2 child limit was announced for new claims for tax credits in 2017. They should have made it a year from now because I bet all my money a load of women in the UK are gonna get pregnant with their 3rd child before the rules kick in. Lazy scrounging bastards.

Another thing the 2 child tax credit rule will stop is the women who get pregnant with another child before their youngest reaches the age when they are required to seek work for their benefits. Scamming lazy bastards.
Go on flame me, I couldn't give a toss. If you can't see them out there you are blind or in denial.

...and yes, let's tax the rich heavily and crack down on tax avoidance/evasion. So don't throw that pathetic boring line at me because I'm slating lazy bastards[/rant]

originally posted by: nonspecific
a reply to: 321Go

The question I was asking was not about benifits and sustainability but the issue of minimum wage and tax credits combined with the cost of living.

The average wage is just that an average and not really an effective means to assess the situation.

The latest figures I could find suggest that around 5% or 1.3 million people in the uk are on minimum wage of £6.50.

Thats around 11,700 per year after deductions. this is why the current tax credit system is needed.

True, but the point I was trying to make is that for every one claimant, several ordinary working people have to support them, on average.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: nonspecific

The Minimum Wage is due to rise in October to £6.70 rising by 20p , the new living wage will start at £7.20 which is a modest but acceptable rise of 50p, if you add yearly rises of 20 or 30p then you get to around the £9.00 figure so I don't think it's really a problem , everybody else's wages will have risen by more than that.

The £9 per hour figure is clever spin.

Minimum wage tends to rise at around 17-20 per year so by 2020 it would be around £7.50 but tax credits would not have been abolished.

I'm not saying it's not spin just that it does not seem like it will be of benifit to the average bloke on the street as it were.