How do we ensure that people are paid enough?

MaizieD?

I know that minimum wage was brought in to stop workers being taken advantage of but basically companies that used to pay good money started to pay everyone minimum wage. I was made redundant in 2009 and from then onward, I was only paid MW. In fact I was paid more per hour 25 years ago than I ever got post-2009. Also, people used to get at least time and half, or even double time for working the Graveyard Shift (nights) but since the MW came in it's all the same which I think is unfair to those willing to works nights.

alig99

There is so many people on hear who say stuff on hear which is at best misinformed or completely wrong. Particularly about free child care and single parents. ?

Surely, it would be to better purpose to explain in what way it is wrong and what it actually is?

Doodledog

Maisie, as I remember it, the Labour Party talk about the Living Wage, and it was higher than the minimum wage, but the Tories started to use the same term for both (and of course the figure to which they refer is that of the minimum wage).

I thought that was the case, Doodledog. Thanks for confirming it. The govt website I linked to seems to deliberately confuse/conflate the two...

alig99

There is so many people on hear who say stuff on hear which is at best misinformed or completely wrong. Particularly about free child care and single parents. ?

I think that people are making suggestions as to what they think should happen, alig99, not what they think is happening.

There is so many people on hear who say stuff on hear which is at best misinformed or completely wrong. Particularly about free child care and single parents. ?

I worked in a small shop, no set hours, no n.insurance, holidays or sick money paid. I was expected to jump when my employer asked me to, mostly weekends when she didn't want to work and got paid £6.93 an hour. She went on her holidays in the summer leaving me to manage the place, but I didn't get anymore money for doing it. I'm in my 50s, I had just wanted a little part time job to pay some bills as I have some savings to help top me up, but I finally realised it wasn't right and you can't treat people like that. She was so rude to me one day I handed her the keys and left. I'm lucky that I could do that, but a lot of people can't, so some money grabbing employers are happy to pay below the living wage to people who work hard for them.

Maisie, as I remember it, the Labour Party talk about the Living Wage, and it was higher than the minimum wage, but the Tories started to use the same term for both (and of course the figure to which they refer is that of the minimum wage).

Don't know how that will fit with people who are in work and just outwith the benefit level.

These 'just about managing' people are the ones who always lose out, aren't they?

I think the key is to legislate so that the living wage has to be paid to everyone. Not the over 25s or whatever the cut-off is, and not just for established business with more than x number of employees - no excuses allowed. The government could pay allowances to small businesses for the first couple of years of trading, but always with the expectation that they pay the living wage ASAP - the workforce should not be subsidising the future profits of the business owners.

That, coupled with childcare allowances for those with small children and wraparound care before and after school, should make life a lot easier for everyone. Shift work is really difficult to manage, though. I don't know how people with children are supposed to deal with that.

4allweknow

Basically, there should be a minimum hourly rate for all workers. Some jobs do attract a high rate of pay but no one should be below the basic rate. Honestly I have lost track of all the allowances constantly banded about for low earners, unemployed, those with children of certain ages. The whole system needs simplified but no idea how. Scotland has introduced a £10 a week for each under 6 year old with the same planned for those up to 16 years old. This is for those on certain benefits. Don't know how that will fit with people who are in work and just outwith the benefit level.

There is a minimum wage rate for all workers, though it is lower for under 21s.

It seems to have been rebadged as the National Living Wage. Whether it actually is a Living Wage is probably debateable.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-national-minimum-wage-in-2021

Basically, there should be a minimum hourly rate for all workers. Some jobs do attract a high rate of pay but no one should be below the basic rate. Honestly I have lost track of all the allowances constantly banded about for low earners, unemployed, those with children of certain ages. The whole system needs simplified but no idea how. Scotland has introduced a £10 a week for each under 6 year old with the same planned for those up to 16 years old. This is for those on certain benefits. Don't know how that will fit with people who are in work and just outwith the benefit level.

ElderlyPerson

MaizieD

If the poorer people get to keep the extra money as they have been, then clearly it has to come from somewhere.

They get it from the state. The state which, contrary to what most of the population believes, does not need taxation to be able to spend anything.

What does happen is that the money that the state spends on things such as wages and benefits is spent in the local economy, thus supporting lots of private businesses, large and small. The money the state has spent eventually returns to the state as it is taxed away on nearly every transaction. The state loses nothing and the economy gains.

Now, if the money is retained by the UC claimants but taken directly and immediately from wealthier people via taxation then it doesn't get to circulate in the economy at all because they don't have it to spend, instead. You've put £6billion 'in' and immediately taken £6billion 'out'.

It's a sum which comes to zero, whichever way you look at it, mine or yours, but in my scenario the £6billion helps to grow the economy while on its way back to the treasury. (It's called the 'multiplier effect')

I don't understand.

The poorer people get more to spend, the richer people get less.

But the same amount of money circulates, just from different people than it otherwise would have done.

I don't like the idea of people being poor and children having less than a good start in life, so I am happy to pay more tax to help.

I don't understand how the economy is affected by society taking a kinder attitude to people and their children.

It’s because one person with £1000000 spends a hell of a lot less than ten thousand people with £100. Money spent goes back into the economy. Simple, really.

Buttonjugs

Doodledog

MaizieD

^ (or looks after the vulnerable and has been paid for by the tax and NI of everyone in work, including those using the foodbanks).^

I'm sorry, Doodledog, but I do not understand this sentence at all. Can you clarify what you were saying?

Sorry. Yes, I'll try (believe it or not, English is my first language ?. I'm multi-tasking, though.)

People donating to foodbanks are helping to keep others in work. In some cases (eg when the users are Amazon delivery drivers) this helps them to stay in work to boost the profits of the rich. In others (eg when the users are carers or nurses) this helps to keep them in work in an NHS that has already been paid for by everyone (including the people donating to and using the foodbanks).

Except the richer people don’t just spend their money, they save it. So it’s not going into the economy. People on
UC have to spend all their money to exist.

I think I quoted the wrong post, sorry!

Doodledog

MaizieD

^ (or looks after the vulnerable and has been paid for by the tax and NI of everyone in work, including those using the foodbanks).^

I'm sorry, Doodledog, but I do not understand this sentence at all. Can you clarify what you were saying?

Sorry. Yes, I'll try (believe it or not, English is my first language ?. I'm multi-tasking, though.)

People donating to foodbanks are helping to keep others in work. In some cases (eg when the users are Amazon delivery drivers) this helps them to stay in work to boost the profits of the rich. In others (eg when the users are carers or nurses) this helps to keep them in work in an NHS that has already been paid for by everyone (including the people donating to and using the foodbanks).

Except the richer people don’t just spend their money, they save it. So it’s not going into the economy. People on
UC have to spend all their money to exist.

Landlords tend to vote Conservative, there is no incentive for the Tories to reduce he housing benefit bill.

basicallygrace12

what the tax payer is mainly subsidising is private landlords. Even in a relatively well paid job rents are so high benefits need to be claimed. More investment in social housing at affordable rents would decrease the benefit bill in long term. But yes wages do need to go up, to many people are living well below the poverty line whilst the few (growing) are raking in large sums.

You're right. A number of economists have been pointing out for years that the UK has a shift in wealth from those who work for their living to those who control the rents.

I read somewhere that we now have the highest amount of "inactive" capital ever known. It's estimated to be about 70%.That's money which is essentially paid to people who produce nothing of value. There's an opportunity cost, so that the money/wealth is traded and not used to invest in services and goods which would be of use.

what the tax payer is mainly subsidising is private landlords. Even in a relatively well paid job rents are so high benefits need to be claimed. More investment in social housing at affordable rents would decrease the benefit bill in long term. But yes wages do need to go up, to many people are living well below the poverty line whilst the few (growing) are raking in large sums.

So many issues to resolve. The cost of meeting private rents is crippling local authorities who work hard to try and keep families housed, sacrificing Council tax income to do so. The cost of childcare is crippling for single parents, even with the current voucher scheme. So many rogue landlords and employers go unchallenged. Staff stuck on minimum wage after years of loyal service, keeping wages below a 'living' minimum. A family of 2 parents and 2 children, with parents working full time earning minimum wage, cannot afford the basics of rent, council tax, energy bills, food and clothing. This is surely not how it was meant to be.

I well remember the last time I was made redundant and had to sign on at the job centre for two years, until retirement age, to obtain the stamp, as is called, In that time my savings went drastically down, as I received no benefit whatsoever, from the state, but, the annoying thing, was, that at the end of the first year I received a letter telling me that they had paid me as much as I was entitled to, there being at that time a no Dole Money allowed policy. The amount that they had actually paid me was "Not One Penny", either new or old. How about that then folks!

Now I mention the stopping of the marriage allowance in tax relief, which I assume that those already on, still are getting, whilst the tax man has now been generous enough to allow
a miniscule amount compared to the original,
How about that as well then folks!
Fortunately I do have a moderately good memory for such things.
I could tell more, but, refuse to bore you now. Cheers!

GrannyGravy13

I agree, but with the exception of those who are only able to work part-time (single parents) an employer is never going to pay someone that works 16 hours or under the same amount as someone working 30+ hours. This is an area where in work benefits are needed and justifiable.

The hourly rate for your job should be the same however many hours you are able to work. SME’s who employ many millions of the U.K. workforce often work on very narrow profit margins, so any increase in wages would be passed on to the end user. The large multi-nationals have larger profit margins on the whole and can/could probably absorb the increase in salaries.

(Hope this makes sense)

The Part Time Workers Directive (a really good piece of EU legislation adopted as required by the U.K.) means no employer is legally allowed to pay someone working 16 hours a week a lower hourly rate than someone doing the same job full time.
That’s the sort of protection (especially for women) that we could lose under Brexit

For once, I agree with you Doodldog. The level of UBI would have to be high enough so that people could realistically stay at home. I hesitate to put an exact figure on that, but it would probably need to be about £150+pw plus housing costs, so somewhere in the region of £400pw per person (£20,800pa). The median income in the UK is £25,000 before tax and NICs. I know I wouldn't be happy to go out to work for an extra £4,000 a year.

If the UBI weren't enough to live, people would be forced to go out to work. As you wrote, the only people who would benefit are those who could afford to stay at home and they would probably do that anyway.

It's an interesting idea in principle, but I have never seen any details about how it could work in practice.

I don't like the idea of people being poor and children having less than a good start in life, so I am happy to pay more tax to help.

That is really sweet of you, EP, but it isn't particularly necessary. The government does not fund its spending from taxation. It isn't a business or a household; it doesn't have to 'earn' money nor does it have a set amount of money that it cannot exceed in spending. It can actually create its own money; it did it in very large amounts in 2008, 2016 and 2020. It hasn't borrowed it; it hasn't taken it from people as tax. it doesn't need to pay it back to anyone.
Government spending stimulates the economy. It's basic Keynesian economic stuff.

The poorer people get more to spend, the richer people get less.

Only if the rich are taxed to pay for the money given to the poor (which is your idea, not mine) . It is worth noting too, that the poor actually do spend into the economy while the rich tend to put theirs in 'investments' to make more money for themselves. Very little of it goes into the day to day economy which supports private businesses, both large and small. The 'rich' give very little to society...

But the same amount of money circulates, just from different people than it otherwise would have done.

No, it doesn't. In your scenario there is only £6billion to circulate. In my scenario there is initially £12billion, the 6 that the rich don't have taxed off them and the 6 that the poor get. The 'poor's' 6billion diminishes as it circulates and tax is taken from it over a period of time, but it works to help the economy while it's still in circulation.
^

I just don't think it will go down well, but who knows?

Sorry - that should say 'would go down well', and I should have said that 'it' refers to sixteen or more years of being paid to stay at home?

Well, let's wait until it happens and see what people say?

I know when I was at work there were lots of people who never missed a chance to complain when someone with children was off work to look after them, or wanted to take their leave in the school holidays. I lost count of the number of times I heard people complaining about maternity pay, and about maternity leave (which is not lounging about either) and saying that they too should be able to have a year off with pay. I had a colleague (who was often off sick with stress) say that she would love to have a year to spend with her cats, and it wasn't fair that some women got time off with each baby. I'd put money on her stress-related sickness adding up to at least three lots of maternity leave over the course of her career, but she bitterly resented working mothers (fathers, not so much, but that's another thread).

I just don't think it will go down well, but who knows?

When it comes to carers coming to the house, however, you wouldn't be paying for others if they had a house to sell, or money in the bank - they would have funded it themselves.

Also, looking after the house and bringing up the children is also done by those who go out to work (as you'll know if you worked when yours were young). When the children are at school they don't need looking after.

Doodledog asks :"How would you answer someone with no children who is working long hours, perhaps for little pay, who asks why they should pay tax to allow someone else to stay at home for sixteen years - longer if they have more than one child"

Because that is how society works, we pay towards things that we may never need for ourselves. I could say that why should I, as a person whose parents didn't live long enough to go into a nursing home or need to have carers coming in, why should I pay for other people's parents to receive care. But I don't say that, I pay my Council Tax and begrudge other people's parents nothing.
Besides which, bringing up children is not lounging around at home it is a very worthwhile and undervalued job.
I say that as someone who has worked while my children were quite small.