|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Feb 6, 2023 14:53:11 GMT
Yep, you've kind of answered this.
1. Minimum wage is over £5,000 below survival level. I. E. minimum wage has not kept up with basic living needs.
2. Agree about the tax credits. Whilst we'll intentioned, they have essentially become a subsidy for employers low wages. That should not be what our tax money is spent on, this is unsustainable.
3. We can't have a society where low paid workers cannot afford to have kids.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 6, 2023 15:10:18 GMT
Yep, you've kind of answered this. 1. Minimum wage is over £5,000 below survival level. I. E. minimum wage has not kept up with basic living needs. 2. Agree about the tax credits. Whilst we'll intentioned, they have essentially become a subsidy for employers low wages. That should not be what our tax money is spent on, this is unsustainable. 3. We can't have a society where low paid workers cannot afford to have kids. Well yes, basically tax payers are topping up wages on behalf of employers, and yes I agree tax payers should not be subsidising low wages, in essence the tax payers are contributing towards employers who aren't paying wages above the poverty line, so it's topped up with 'tax credits' which is funded by the tax payers, so employers are getting off lightly. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Feb 6, 2023 15:33:59 GMT
That's good, we both agree there on point 2.
What about points 1 and 3?
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 6, 2023 15:49:41 GMT
If you put the two parts of Andrew's position together -
1) everyone has a right to enter the UK.
2) Everyone in the uk has a right to be supported in their reproductive choices by the taxpayer.
You get this -
Everyone on the planet has a right to enter the UK and create a family at the expense of the UK taxpayer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 6, 2023 15:52:01 GMT
Yep, you've kind of answered this. 1. Minimum wage is over £5,000 below survival level. I. E. minimum wage has not kept up with basic living needs. 2. Agree about the tax credits. Whilst we'll intentioned, they have essentially become a subsidy for employers low wages. That should not be what our tax money is spent on, this is unsustainable. 3. We can't have a society where low paid workers cannot afford to have kids. Well yes, basically tax payers are topping up wages on behalf of employers, and yes I agree tax payers should not be subsidising low wages, in essence the tax payers are contributing towards employers who aren't paying wages above the poverty line, so it's topped up with 'tax credits' which is funded by the tax payers, so employers are getting off lightly. 1. Minimum wage is down to the employer not the government, the government can take employers to court for not complying, but the employer will use the 'loophole' of zero hours contracts as a way round it.
3. We can't have a society where people keep popping kids out and expect the tax payers to foot the bill for them, it comes down to taking responsibility for your actions, the government have brought in a 'minimum wage' to tackle low paid workers. Employer's who appear to be taking advantage of loopholes are the big conglomerates who are taking advantage of loopholes so the tax payers subsidise their employees. Time the government came down hard on the these leaches, the same leaches who claimed millions of tax payers money in furlough.
That's good, we both agree there on point 2. What about points 1 and 3? I hope this clears up points 1 & 3, I am afraid you are blaming the government for why parents of children are in poverty, I suggest you target the real offenders and culprits, employer's who taking advantage of their employees, and the tax payers. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Feb 6, 2023 16:29:07 GMT
Well yes, basically tax payers are topping up wages on behalf of employers, and yes I agree tax payers should not be subsidising low wages, in essence the tax payers are contributing towards employers who aren't paying wages above the poverty line, so it's topped up with 'tax credits' which is funded by the tax payers, so employers are getting off lightly. 1. Minimum wage is down to the employer not the government, the government can take employers to court for not complying, but the employer will use the 'loophole' of zero hours contracts as a way round it.
3. We can't have a society where people keep popping kids out and expect the tax payers to foot the bill for them, it comes down to taking responsibility for your actions, the government have brought in a 'minimum wage' to tackle low paid workers. Employer's who appear to be taking advantage of loopholes are the big conglomerates who are taking advantage of loopholes so the tax payers subsidise their employees. Time the government came down hard on the these leaches, the same leaches who claimed millions of tax payers money in furlough.
That's good, we both agree there on point 2. What about points 1 and 3? I hope this clears up points 1 & 3, I am afraid you are blaming the government for why parents of children are in poverty, I suggest you target the real offenders and culprits, employer's who taking advantage of their employees, and the tax payers. You can't forget all those who will only make themselves available to work for a maximum of 16 hours a week and refusing all offers of work above that . That way they are still entitled to claim full welfare benefits and do so with relish and it's nothing to do with employers or poor wages This showed that a single-mother-of-two, paying £2,000 a month in rent in London, would receive £36,663 a year in tax-free Universal Credit if she worked 16 hours a week at £9.50 an hour – bringing her gross income to £44,567.60.
But if she decided to work three days a week instead of two, because she would lose some of her Universal Credit entitlement, her gross income would only edge up by £2,172 a year to £46,348 - equivalent to £34 extra a week. Add in childcare and transport costs, and the money she earned from that third day of work would be wiped out.
The disincentive to work is almost as strong for couples with children. If each parent works for one day a week, they could expect to take home a joint income of £46,856, of which almost £39,000 would be paid from the public purse. But if those parents worked three days a week between them, their gross income would also only increase by £34 a week.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/09/britains-jobless-crisis-fuelled-benefits-loophole-encourages/
|
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 6, 2023 16:30:58 GMT
1. Minimum wage is down to the employer not the government, the government can take employers to court for not complying, but the employer will use the 'loophole' of zero hours contracts as a way round it.
3. We can't have a society where people keep popping kids out and expect the tax payers to foot the bill for them, it comes down to taking responsibility for your actions, the government have brought in a 'minimum wage' to tackle low paid workers. Employer's who appear to be taking advantage of loopholes are the big conglomerates who are taking advantage of loopholes so the tax payers subsidise their employees. Time the government came down hard on the these leaches, the same leaches who claimed millions of tax payers money in furlough.
I hope this clears up points 1 & 3, I am afraid you are blaming the government for why parents of children are in poverty, I suggest you target the real offenders and culprits, employer's who taking advantage of their employees, and the tax payers. You can't forget all those who will only make themselves available to work for a maximum of 16 hours a week and refusing all offers of work above that . That way they are still entitled to claim full welfare benefits and do so with relish and it's nothing to do with employers or poor wages This showed that a single-mother-of-two, paying £2,000 a month in rent in London, would receive £36,663 a year in tax-free Universal Credit if she worked 16 hours a week at £9.50 an hour – bringing her gross income to £44,567.60.
But if she decided to work three days a week instead of two, because she would lose some of her Universal Credit entitlement, her gross income would only edge up by £2,172 a year to £46,348 - equivalent to £34 extra a week. Add in childcare and transport costs, and the money she earned from that third day of work would be wiped out.
The disincentive to work is almost as strong for couples with children. If each parent works for one day a week, they could expect to take home a joint income of £46,856, of which almost £39,000 would be paid from the public purse. But if those parents worked three days a week between them, their gross income would also only increase by £34 a week.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/09/britains-jobless-crisis-fuelled-benefits-loophole-encourages/
Spot on, I never even addressed that issue. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Feb 6, 2023 16:36:22 GMT
You can't forget all those who will only make themselves available to work for a maximum of 16 hours a week and refusing all offers of work above that . That way they are still entitled to claim full welfare benefits and do so with relish and it's nothing to do with employers or poor wages I think this is the biggest problem at the present time - the welfare system disincentivises people from work. Until the draw of not working is solved I dont see any progress being made. |
|
|
|
Post by Fairsociety on Feb 6, 2023 16:39:24 GMT
1. Minimum wage is down to the employer not the government, the government can take employers to court for not complying, but the employer will use the 'loophole' of zero hours contracts as a way round it.
3. We can't have a society where people keep popping kids out and expect the tax payers to foot the bill for them, it comes down to taking responsibility for your actions, the government have brought in a 'minimum wage' to tackle low paid workers. Employer's who appear to be taking advantage of loopholes are the big conglomerates who are taking advantage of loopholes so the tax payers subsidise their employees. Time the government came down hard on the these leaches, the same leaches who claimed millions of tax payers money in furlough.
I hope this clears up points 1 & 3, I am afraid you are blaming the government for why parents of children are in poverty, I suggest you target the real offenders and culprits, employer's who taking advantage of their employees, and the tax payers. You can't forget all those who will only make themselves available to work for a maximum of 16 hours a week and refusing all offers of work above that . That way they are still entitled to claim full welfare benefits and do so with relish and it's nothing to do with employers or poor wages This showed that a single-mother-of-two, paying £2,000 a month in rent in London, would receive £36,663 a year in tax-free Universal Credit if she worked 16 hours a week at £9.50 an hour – bringing her gross income to £44,567.60.
But if she decided to work three days a week instead of two, because she would lose some of her Universal Credit entitlement, her gross income would only edge up by £2,172 a year to £46,348 - equivalent to £34 extra a week. Add in childcare and transport costs, and the money she earned from that third day of work would be wiped out.
The disincentive to work is almost as strong for couples with children. If each parent works for one day a week, they could expect to take home a joint income of £46,856, of which almost £39,000 would be paid from the public purse. But if those parents worked three days a week between them, their gross income would also only increase by £34 a week.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/09/britains-jobless-crisis-fuelled-benefits-loophole-encourages/
I wonder how many striking public sector workers, including the NHS are actually guilty of this ^^^ |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Feb 6, 2023 16:50:33 GMT
You can't forget all those who will only make themselves available to work for a maximum of 16 hours a week and refusing all offers of work above that . That way they are still entitled to claim full welfare benefits and do so with relish and it's nothing to do with employers or poor wages This showed that a single-mother-of-two, paying £2,000 a month in rent in London, would receive £36,663 a year in tax-free Universal Credit if she worked 16 hours a week at £9.50 an hour – bringing her gross income to £44,567.60.
But if she decided to work three days a week instead of two, because she would lose some of her Universal Credit entitlement, her gross income would only edge up by £2,172 a year to £46,348 - equivalent to £34 extra a week. Add in childcare and transport costs, and the money she earned from that third day of work would be wiped out.
The disincentive to work is almost as strong for couples with children. If each parent works for one day a week, they could expect to take home a joint income of £46,856, of which almost £39,000 would be paid from the public purse. But if those parents worked three days a week between them, their gross income would also only increase by £34 a week.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/12/09/britains-jobless-crisis-fuelled-benefits-loophole-encourages/
I wonder how many striking public sector workers, including the NHS are actually guilty of this ^^^ Whenever the excuse that many on benefits are working but need to top up their wages is rolled out many will be these 16 hour workers who refuse to work more hours |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Feb 6, 2023 17:40:11 GMT
Well yes, basically tax payers are topping up wages on behalf of employers, and yes I agree tax payers should not be subsidising low wages, in essence the tax payers are contributing towards employers who aren't paying wages above the poverty line, so it's topped up with 'tax credits' which is funded by the tax payers, so employers are getting off lightly. 1. Minimum wage is down to the employer not the government, the government can take employers to court for not complying, but the employer will use the 'loophole' of zero hours contracts as a way round it.
3. We can't have a society where people keep popping kids out and expect the tax payers to foot the bill for them, it comes down to taking responsibility for your actions, the government have brought in a 'minimum wage' to tackle low paid workers. Employer's who appear to be taking advantage of loopholes are the big conglomerates who are taking advantage of loopholes so the tax payers subsidise their employees. Time the government came down hard on the these leaches, the same leaches who claimed millions of tax payers money in furlough.
That's good, we both agree there on point 2. What about points 1 and 3? I hope this clears up points 1 & 3, I am afraid you are blaming the government for why parents of children are in poverty, I suggest you target the real offenders and culprits, employer's who taking advantage of their employees, and the tax payers. No, I think we agree. And I entirely blame the employers. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Feb 6, 2023 17:42:42 GMT
If you put the two parts of Andrew's position together - 1) everyone has a right to enter the UK. 2) Everyone in the uk has a right to be supported in their reproductive choices by the taxpayer. You get this - Everyone on the planet has a right to enter the UK and create a family at the expense of the UK taxpayer.As a moderator, you'll be able to point out where I have said either of those things? Or maybe you are just making stuff up which everyone else on this forum seems to do. 😕 |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 6, 2023 17:44:20 GMT
1. Minimum wage is down to the employer not the government, the government can take employers to court for not complying, but the employer will use the 'loophole' of zero hours contracts as a way round it.
3. We can't have a society where people keep popping kids out and expect the tax payers to foot the bill for them, it comes down to taking responsibility for your actions, the government have brought in a 'minimum wage' to tackle low paid workers. Employer's who appear to be taking advantage of loopholes are the big conglomerates who are taking advantage of loopholes so the tax payers subsidise their employees. Time the government came down hard on the these leaches, the same leaches who claimed millions of tax payers money in furlough.
I hope this clears up points 1 & 3, I am afraid you are blaming the government for why parents of children are in poverty, I suggest you target the real offenders and culprits, employer's who taking advantage of their employees, and the tax payers. No, I think we agree. And I entirely blame the employers. As long as employers pay their staff the minimum wage or above they are whithin the law. That is why the law was introduced. |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Feb 6, 2023 17:46:31 GMT
No, I think we agree. And I entirely blame the employers. As long as employers pay their staff the minimum wage or above they are whithin the law. That is why the law was introduced. I agree. But the problem is, as Fairsociety has already pointed out, that the legal minimum wage is not enough for basic living needs. By about £5,000. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 6, 2023 17:51:51 GMT
As long as employers pay their staff the minimum wage or above they are whithin the law. That is why the law was introduced. I agree. But the problem is, as Fairsociety has already pointed out, that the legal minimum wage is not enough for basic living needs. By about £5,000. So how much more are you prepared to pay for these work shy arseholes? |
|
