Minimum wage increase

Durhamjen

Why am I mixing up the Living Wage and Minimum Pay??????

Even if it is raised the minimum wage is still not necessarily a living wage. I know there are all the arguments about small businesses not being able to afford the increase, but it just seems wrong that, in a world where some people are paid obscene amounts, others can work all week and yet not support their families.

Yes, my pensions are just over £13000 after tax.
When I had part time employees I always made sure that they earned enough for me and them to have to pay NI, as otherwise they would not get sick pay or pensions. I still say that if anyone cannot afford to pay his/her workers a decent wage then perhaps he/she should not have any.
There is no point in just raising the tax threshhold. That benefits people about the threshhold, but not those well below it who will still have to rely on benefits to live reasonably well.
Another appalling thing I have heard on the local news is that food banks in the North East have run out of supplies and had to get food from other food banks. How perverse is that?
I have just had an email from www.change.org about MPs pay rises. Someone has done an epetition to ask MPs to pay their interns rather than have a pay rise. That's worth signing up to as is anything to do with the living wage. The difference between the minimum and the living wage outside London is £16.87 a week, a lot to people on the minimum wage.

Sorry meant to add that Zero hour contracts are disgraceful and should not be allowed.

I am sure we have had this discussion many times before but anyway here we go again......... To say that "we should not have to top up low pay and that's what the living wage would stop" is not true at all. The proposed minimum wage of £7 per hour is still only £262.50 based in an average 37.5 hours. Not forgetting of course that there would be tax and Ni deductions from that also. The proposed living wage would not be very much better would it? Do the sums. How a family could survive on this meagre amount without any benefit top ups is beyond me.

IMVHO if any government or political party wanted to help the lower paid they would take them all out of the tax bracket altogether. It sickens me that someone earning just over £12,000 per year has to pay tax (and indeed NI) .

Let's not forget also that employers are liable to pay the jobs tax (employers NI ) on top of any wage they pay which to me should be known as an employment prevention tax ! Oh and just one more thing before I go.... I speak as a small employer but for the record we do not pay minimum wage.

Mamacaz, if I want to know anything like that I look at the Fullfact website.
fullfact.org
Unfortunately at the moment the search on the website is not working, but they are trying to fix it.
When the minimum wage was brought in lots of companies said they would not be able to pay it, but they have. Unfortunately there are also unscrupulous employers who pay less, or reduce hours to zero so they do not have to pay even the minimum wage. Mamacaz, you are coming from the wrong angle. We should not have to top up low pay. That's what the Living Wage would stop. You usually find that those who do not want to pay the minimum wage do not want to pay benefits either.
Pogs, you are making the same mistake as Grant Shapps, mixing up the living wage with the minimum wage. I have had two businesses and I always paid above the minimum wage at the time.
Sentamu is on the Living wage commission. He said the living wage if it had kept up would be £19. It's £8.80 in London, I think.

Does anyone know how many minimum wage earners would actually be better off if there was an increase?
In other words, what percentage of them do not have their income topped up by benefits?

I have no idea, but would be interested to know!

Absent

Thank you.

Basket case compared with Italy, compared with Greece, compared with Ireland? It was a completely misleading and untruthful phrase.

Absent

That point cannot be denied but it is not small potatoes to find 10% extra for wages to small and medium companies. If 10% became the norm we would be back to the 'Basket Case of Europe' scenario pretty damned quick.

POGS Given that the "top" people in large companies have been taking an increase of as much as 40% of their already inflated salaries year on year, 10% of £6.45 per hour seems pretty small potatoes.

The fact is ''IF' the minimum wage 'IS' increased to £7 that is an increase equivalent to almost 10%. That is a large increase percentage wise for companies to deal with. Yes, larger companies may find ways to pay 10% but there will be many small and middle size businesses that it will hard. The Chancellor will have to give something back to companies or there could well be a conflict and even job losses which will obviously be a tragedy.

I think there would be whoops from the general working population if they were told they are getting 10% pay rise.

As for councils paying the living wage that may well be true, but there are also those who are not and also have been using zero hours contracts for longer then the present government have been in.

To say that if a company cannot afford to pay £7.50 an hour then it should not be in business is a statement that I find quite lacking. There are many good small and medium size businesses trying to keep their heads above water. Some of whom have mortgaged themselves up to the hilt, for what, if that is the attitude that is thrown at them.

Did not Sentamu also say on Question Time that he agreed with some person or report of some sort that the minimum wage should be £19!!!!! Something like that, quite ridiculous shows a total lack of financial credibility.

It's better than being paid £6.45 an hour, but it's only going up to £7 if the government win the next election.
I noticed it was announced by Osborne in time for Grant Shapps to mention it on Question Time last night, but he forgot to say that the Tories had voted against it the day before in parliament. That must be the quickest u-turn yet.
Some local authorities pay the living wage, which makes more sense. That's what Sentamu was talking about.Companies that cannot afford to pay £7.50 an hour perhaps should not be in business.
It's good that Osborne has noticed that it will not cost the government any more. It's only taken him nearly four years to notice that. And ethics never comes into his thinking.

My feeling is that small amounts on an already poverty level income will make very little difference. Also, the economy seems to adjust itself to higher income levels and prices go up accordingly. It's interesting that since parents have been given financial help towards childcare, nursery fees have gone up 20%.

My feeling that income should be more equally distributed through income tax. However poor someone is, they still have to pay 20% VAT and I think it is disgusting.

Good or bad for the economy, big business, small business, low earners etc. in financial terms or good or bad in ethical terms?

You have summed it up very well. Basically I think it's a good thing, but
suspect it will bring as many problems as it solves, sadly.