How do we ensure that people are paid enough?

JaneJudge

If private landlords were forced to lower their rents then less housing benefit would need to be paid.

Lets see how unpopular that statement is...

I don't think lettings should be left to the market at all. We need more community owned not-for-profit housing.

SueDonim

I think that part of ensuring people are paid enough would be for consumers to not want to buy everything at the cheapest price. I look at the food in shops and sometimes wonder how farmers can afford to pay their workers anything when you can buy a pack of tomatoes from Spain for 75p or less.

My son-in-law farms and the rewards are very small for the hours that he puts in.

But they want to buy everything at the cheapest price because they don't have much money.

SueDonim

MaizieD how does that work if people spend money on, say, Amazon, who pay little tax and the profits go overseas? How does the money feed back into the UK economy?

It's not good and Amazon should be paying taxes on what it earns in this country. But the tax system is skewed in favour of the massive corporations' tax avoidance schemes. That needs sorting. As I recall, the EU was aiming to do something about this...

OTOH, I wonder how much money people in poverty would actually spend with Amazon?

The extra £20 uplift is stimulating the economy, to the tune of £6billion a year. It all returns to the treasury by way of taxation because none of it is saved by the recipients, it's desperately needed to buy food and necessities. I agree and tried to get that point across in a previous thread. The money received by families on UC goes into the local economy in particular, not much chance of saving that £20 a week in an account in the Cayman Islands!

Doodledog

100% of the mother's income, or the father's?

I think it's a good idea to give the parents time with the baby, and I think the government should pay, rather than the employer. It might be better if it were based on an average of both partners, though, and based on their NI contributions, rather than length of service with their employer at the time of the birth.

The one who has chosen to be off, I imagine Doodledog.

I wouldn't want anything to be based on NI as it is a tax. If you start their you will soon be saying we should add up all we have paid in taxes (low paid alway going to have paid less - if anything). That has to be the least progressive way of helping parents I can think of

It is much simpler to make a replacement of pay at the time they have the child.

JaneJudge

If private landlords were forced to lower their rents then less housing benefit would need to be paid.

Lets see how unpopular that statement is...

We used to have rent control. That was until we commoditised everything we could and treated it as a market place or, more often, a gambling casino.

GillT57

^The extra £20 uplift is stimulating the economy, to the tune of £6billion a year. It all returns to the treasury by way of taxation because none of it is saved by the recipients, it's desperately needed to buy food and necessities^. I agree and tried to get that point across in a previous thread. The money received by families on UC goes into the local economy in particular, not much chance of saving that £20 a week in an account in the Cayman Islands!

I agree with you and Maizie about UC. Johnson was spouting nonsense when he claimed it would cost an extra £6 billion (or whatever figure he pulled out of the ether).

The thing is, when something is very cheap, someone somewhere is paying the price for it, whether it’s Uighur cheap labour in China or fruit pickers living in appalling, demeaning circumstances in Scotland.

If people had a reliable living wage that would mitigate needing cheap food. I’ve long been interested in the concept of a Universal Income, too.

PippaZ

Doodledog

100% of the mother's income, or the father's?

I think it's a good idea to give the parents time with the baby, and I think the government should pay, rather than the employer. It might be better if it were based on an average of both partners, though, and based on their NI contributions, rather than length of service with their employer at the time of the birth.

The one who has chosen to be off, I imagine Doodledog.

I wouldn't want anything to be based on NI as it is a tax. If you start their you will soon be saying we should add up all we have paid in taxes (low paid alway going to have paid less - if anything). That has to be the least progressive way of helping parents I can think of

It is much simpler to make a replacement of pay at the time they have the child.

No, I wouldn't be saying that ?.

I meant that a grant shouldn't be based on 'time served' at a company, to avoid the possibility of women being sacked when they get pregnant, or a regular turnover of female staff so that none of them rack up enough time.

I see what you mean Doodledog. This is why such things should be paid by the government out of (I know Maisie) taxes.

SueDonim

The thing is, when something is very cheap, someone somewhere is paying the price for it, whether it’s Uighur cheap labour in China or fruit pickers living in appalling, demeaning circumstances in Scotland.

If people had a reliable living wage that would mitigate needing cheap food. I’ve long been interested in the concept of a Universal Income, too.

Nobody has ever shown me why it wouldn't be better SueDonim. It would certainly cover the choices parents want to make about staying at home.

It answers the question my OP asked too. With a Basic Income your choice of work, learning or staying at home with your children becomes so much more possible.

Doodledog

PippaZ

GrannyGravy13

Alegrias1 nursery is currently free for single parents from the term after they reach two, (not sure how many sessions)

Better more affordable nursery provision is definitely needed as the costs are exorbitant here in the South East.

I do worry though that if someone suddenly becomes a single parent through no fault of their own that they would be guilt tripped into working full time when maybe part-time would be more suitable for a variety of reasons.

I wondered if that was a reply to my post as I can't find one from Alegrais - except saying she hasn't posted.

I wouldn't want anyone to be "guilt-tripped". However, sometimes needs must and not getting back to work and possibly making a career for yourself can affect the whole of a women's life and her children's.

It shouldn't matter whether someone becomes a single parent through no fault of their own or by deliberate design. We don't want to go back to deserving and undeserving poor, do we?

I think that a lot of people would like to work part-time and let the state pay for the rest of the week, but unless that option is open to all, I don't see why it should be the prerogative of single parents. Either coupled-up parents and the child-free should have the option too, or it should not be available at all.

ElderlyPerson, if a 15/16 year old is not able to be alone in the house for an hour or two after school I would be worried about them, to be honest. At 16 they can marry or join the army - they need to be gaining independence long before then. I suggested 12 for childcare credits, but I suppose if parents were unhappy with leaving them older than that they could come to arrangements with friends - I really don't see why we should all be paying for teenagers to go into childcare.

Having said that, in areas where there are problems with gangs, maybe it would help - but it would have to be compulsory if it is to reach the teenagers who most need help, and I just can't see that being acceptable to parents or children, really.

I was not advocating childcare for teenagers. I was advocating supporting parents who want to look after the children by being at home rather than working.

And just because some children can do things at 16 does not mean that every child can do such things at that age.

PippaZ

SueDonim

The thing is, when something is very cheap, someone somewhere is paying the price for it, whether it’s Uighur cheap labour in China or fruit pickers living in appalling, demeaning circumstances in Scotland.

If people had a reliable living wage that would mitigate needing cheap food. I’ve long been interested in the concept of a Universal Income, too.

Nobody has ever shown me why it wouldn't be better SueDonim. It would certainly cover the choices parents want to make about staying at home.

It answers the question my OP asked too. With a Basic Income your choice of work, learning or staying at home with your children becomes so much more possible.

I expect the devil is in the detail.How much would you give people?

ElderlyPerson You are right that teens with special needs should get support of whatever kind they need.

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?

Unless the support is very generous (which would be even less popular with those without children), it would predominantly be taken up by those with a partner to support them, and paid for by those who are not in that position.

I don't think that the state should interfere with personal choices, or privilege one lifestyle over another (eg married person's allowance) and I just can't see how that would be fair.

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.

When we lived in Cornwall 25 years ago my husband used to claim family credit. It raised low wages to a livable level and lasted for 6 months before you had to apply again. The best thing about it was that if you got a better paying job during the 6 months you could still collect the benefit until it needed renewing. The downside was that it was the accepted way for businesses to pay minimum wages because they knew you could claim Family Credit.

I think that UBI is good in principle, but only if those who work don't find that their pay is wiped out by tax. If that happens there will be no incentive, and if everyone stays at home things will grind to a halt.

That means that the level of UBI would probably have to be less than the lowest rate of pay. It would be people with higher paid work who are more likely to work because they enjoy it - many minimum wage jobs would find no takers unless the minimum wage were higher than UBI.

Doodledog

ElderlyPerson You are right that teens with special needs should get support of whatever kind they need.

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?

Unless the support is very generous (which would be even less popular with those without children), it would predominantly be taken up by those with a partner to support them, and paid for by those who are not in that position.

I don't think that the state should interfere with personal choices, or privilege one lifestyle over another (eg married person's allowance) and I just can't see how that would be fair.

I have no children but I have always been of the opinion that children should get a decent start in life and I have been happy to pay taxes to do help that happen.

For many years I did not need to have any prescriptions, but I considered at the time that everybody should get a prescription dispensed at no cost and would be happy to pay more tax to achieve that.

I have never understood the logic, if there is any, of the concept of a fixed prescription charge but paid only by those who need prescriptions. My opinion is that I was for many years gloriously fortunate in not needing any medicine and so was therefore as a result of my good fortune quite ready to pay towards the prescription costs of those who needed medicine.

The system seems to assume that everyone will take a mean spirited attitude to anything that helps others, but lots of people are not like that.

I'm sure that a lot of people would be willing to help others, but to support people to stay at home for upwards of sixteen years is a big ask.

I don't think it's being mean-spirited to think that it's unfair to expect the child-free to support parents to that extent. Pay for education, maternity care and pay, nurseries, yes - but more than sixteen years of staying at home whilst children are at school is asking a lot, and not wanting to do so is not at all synonymous with not wanting children to have a decent start in life.

Children also learn by example, and if they see their mothers working to support them, and getting satisfaction from a career or job (or just from being independent), it could be argued that that is giving them a good start, too.

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.

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.

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?

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.
^

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.

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