Is Ann Widdecombe right about females age of reirement?

It’s purely hypothetical

I did not say that it was applicable now. Can you read?

Where is the thread? I haven't seen it.

Excellent news, but I still think it should be more like £15 an hour!

When the minimum wage was introduced small businesses complained that it would ruin them. Some of us socialists are very aware of this problem and if in power we pledge to support these owners with subsidies etc. It is the big corporations which make huge profits, avoid paying tax, and pay meagre wages - behaving as the system encourages. Hence the necessity of another way of production and distribution!

GG started a separate thread on this - still not true no matter how often it’s repeated

Minimum wage went up to £8.21 for over 25s in April this year. I don't know where you got £9.61 from, GG54. It certainly isn't applicable now.

www.mirror.co.uk/money/new-minimum-wage-april-2019-13499754

www.thesun.co.uk/news/2085051/national-living-wage-uk-2019-budget-2018-increase-minimum-wage-16-18-25-year-olds/

Note that the National Minimum Wage (now mendaciously called the National Living wage) is not the same as the Real Living Wage which is calculated by a charity and is more than the official one. This is £9.00 per hour outside London and, as the news story says, some employers are committed to paying it. But this is voluntary, not statutory. Still not £9.21 per hr

www.thesun.co.uk/money/7656977/real-living-wage-pay-rise/

grannypauline
Philip Hammond has announced s rise in the minimum wage to £9.61ph = £320 net for a 38hr week, the highest in the world.
No more poverty.
There will still be people who spend that and more and have nothing up show for it.
It's called budgeting.
There will still be

If we all followed that path of saving for retirement and spending the least possible, shops and businesses would close and that would be worse for the economy.

Ahaa. The penny is dropping.

Re-reading your comment, although there are very valid points, you write that you spend little and don't eat out etc.
If we all followed that path of saving for retirement and spending the least possible, shops and businesses would close and that would be worse for the economy.
There must be another way.

grannypauline
£15ph seems reasonable. £600 for a 40 hour week. If someone doing those hours can't manage on £24k+ net then....
I personally can't see employers voting for that as a starting point.
I read today that a large call centre is cutting staff hours from a 5 day to a 4 day week with the same pay.
He said that it's to look after the mental health of his workers. A considerate boss.

I have mixed views on this. I think there should be equality, everyone should save for retirement. I think state pensions were only meant to last a max of 5 years but due to life expectancy increasing people are often claiming for a lot longer, maybe 20 years. It is not sustainable. Men and women should have same retirement age and also should be carers equally to women. Men doing tough physical jobs are usually paid more than someone in an easy job, to allow for the fact they won’t work as long. Society today is all about buying stuff, everyone expects new this and new that. They say they deserve it because they work hard. I work hard too, as I am sure most people do, but I spend little and save for retirement. I also have insurance. I would love to only do 6 hours without a break!! My days are usually 12-14 hours without any break at all!! I have worked more than 1 job since I left school at 16, before that I worked as well. I have an old car, I rarely eat out and find cheaper things to enjoy. I have a daughter I look after and an elderly parent also. Why would I complain about pensions? It is harder for young people today, I don’t expect them to pay me with their taxes, for 20 or 30 years of retirement.

With regard to subsidising wages: in some areas only low paying jobs are available (even to those well qualified). This situation is unlikely to change under the present system because income and housing benefits enable employers to pay less than a real living wage.

Many companies locate themselves offshore and so leave taxpayers to make up the difference. Some people say we should stop the benefits but I would like to see a good wage paid to all employees - maybe at least £15 and hour.

gillybob
Thank you. It was generous of you to apologise.
I was sorry that your parents felt uncomfortable (with the visitors comments) esecially your mother who felt she had to remove herself from the room.
Harsh, at times, I might be but never heartless.

If I have interpreted your comments incorrectly GabriellaG then I sincerely apologise

we've had tax changes here ,a penny in the ound when you earn over 35k and a penny off it if you're at a lower level.We also pay a higher council tax rate because our house is worth more.I have only heard one person complain about the tax ..Nurses have had a rise of 9 % ,Police personnel a rise of around the same + new officers start at over £4k more and teachers are getting 13% over two years.
THATS why we voted for SNP ,because they look after the folk who should be looked aftre.A rise in carers allowance ,providing free personal care to the disabled UNDER pension age as well as those who already had it.I truly dont understand why they get a bad press down south...I'll wait for Jane to mention education...47% of scots now have a degree ...that seems like a pretty good number

gilkybob gillybob

**

gilkybob
The attitude to which I referred was that of the rich person who visited your father and his gloat/bragging visit. You have interpreted the comment in your own way, not how it was written.
I was commiserating with you on the attitude of the rich visitor.

MaizieD
I understand your points but I was simply putting forward suggestions as to what any government of the day could consider as a way to take some of the population out of 'poverty'.
You, on the other hand, are looking for ways to negate any suggestions.
A nursery nurse's take home pay would be £14,583 (according to Google) which equates to £280pw.
When you take up employment, you surely take into account the salary/ wages on offer and your living costs.
If expenditure is the higher of the two amounts, why take a job which doesn't keep your head above water and expect other taxpayers to make up the difference by paying government more tax.
As for training etc...why would GNers decry government measures to help people to help themselves? I thought most of the comments actually endorsed government help for the poorest in society but that does not always mean simply giving them more money.
Sometimes it is more helpful to enable them to obtain better paid work by learning different skills or better education, something that they may not have had in their younger years.
That can only be a good thing.

I think also perhaps you should also look up the word abhorrent which is the kind of word I would reserve for the behaviour of vile racists, child abusers, murderers etc.

Your last paragraph shows a very sad state of affairs and that attitude is abhorrent gillybob

I’m so sorry you think “My attitude is abhorrent” GG of course you know me and my extended family so well don’t you ? It is most definitely a sad state of affairs when one of the last people we have left on one side if the family chooses his money over his last remaining relative ( my dad ) . Being in the best possible position to help He would never dream of it . Might cost him some petrol. The same person who told my late mum that she wasted her money on a new carpet for a council house. Horrible individual .

The government coffers, by stopping their wasteful spending on HS2, computer systems that don't work, jollies abroad to discuss climate change and a 1001 other ridiculous and wasteful misappropriations of people's taxes.
I already pay enough via normal taxes, corporation tax, VAT and council tax on 2 properties.
My spending also adds to their coffers. No more.

Get a foot on the ladder to better paid employment by offering free skills workshops and/or adult education facilities for a couple of half days per week which offer free nursery places.

That would still leave a large number of jobs paying very low wages (including those of the Nursery Nurses who will provide the care in the 'free' nurseries). You will still have people who are not earning enough to take them out of poverty.

The 'skills workshops' will need to be paid for , of course GG54. Are you expecting the tories (whose objective is to slash public expenditure) to fund this?

Of course, a good public education system would be very useful but that's been cut to the bone, too.

If any government did put money into education and training I would forsee a welter of posts on Gnet bemoaning the government's profligracy and trying to prove that the said services were wasting money left right and centre (on the authority of a friend of a friend who was a school dinner lady, of course )

I do love your parting shot, GG54

I'm not in favour of my income being taxed at a higher rate to enable the above

Who would you like to pay for it, then?

I'm not in favour of my income being taxed at a higher rate to enable the above.

Your last paragraph shows a very sad state of affairs and that attitude is abhorrent gillybob
I'm all for the government coming up with ways to help those on low incomes to either:
1) Get a foot on the ladder to better paid employment by offering free skills workshops and/or adult education facilities for a couple of half days per week which offer free nursery places.
2) Stop employers from handing out zero hours contracts
3) targeting people who are able to work but have not made headway, by setting up interviews with employers and guaranteeing both sides a 6 month contract.
If the employee fails to turn up their benefits are cut.