How do we ensure that people are paid enough?

Allsorts

It really worries me that people who work hard, harder than some people in well paid cushy numbers,, but hard manual work and long hours, also care workers, yet they cannot support their families . it is a great injustice and we should be ashamed.

I agree. It is impossible for some people to earn as much through paid work as others do from interest on capital or owning property.

PippaZ

I think the childcare problem should be looked at outside the box too. More flexible hours, working from home where possible and even a shorter working day. We have see that productivity generally goes up if there is a level of flexible working.

My guess is that some of the biggest users of paid childcare are health and education workers (it was certainly the case when my children were in full-time nurseries). It's not easy to work from home or have a shorter working day, if your job is in a school or hospital.

It really worries me that people who work hard, harder than some people in well paid cushy numbers,, but hard manual work and long hours, also care workers, yet they cannot support their families . it is a great injustice and we should be ashamed.

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 just Amazon. Many of our utility companies and transport, healthcare and even education providers are foreign-owned. It's true that work is provided in the UK, but the profits are leached off overseas. The only way to ensure that their workers are paid reasonably is to impose and enforce a minimum pay level. Otherwise, the UK becomes no different from Indian call centres, where work is outsourced for financial reasons. Unfortunately, there is then the risk that work will be outsourced to countries with cheaper labour costs, which is why it's important that UK workers have skills which can't be outsourced.

I think the childcare problem should be looked at outside the box too. More flexible hours, working from home where possible and even a shorter working day. We have see that productivity generally goes up if there is a level of flexible working.

GrannyGravy13

Ilovecheese

I do think that single parents should be made a special case, at least for a couple of years because of the effect of single parenthood on the children. When children have lost a parent being in the home whether through death or separation, the last thing they need is for the remaining parent to be absent for more hours of the day than they were previously. I think looking after the mental health of children pays dividends in later years and probably saves the state money in the long run.

Totally agree.

I think every parent is a special case in the first year. All countries are seeing a drop in births. Norway pays 100% of income for a year or 80% for, I think it is 15 months and I think it can be divided how the parents choose but I would need to check that.

MaizieD

PippaZ

We seem to have moved on to childcare rather than how we can ensure all employers pay a proper living wage. Perhaps it is because of childcare but I am not sure that it is.

Well, that's part of it. isn't it? What would you expect a 'proper living wage' to enable people to buy? Is there a point in working just to pay off a huge chunk of wages in childcare?

Anyway, now I'm going to try to explain economics to EP...

I haven't gone into that in detail Maizie but it would think something like the JRT calculates would be close.

It wasn't the amount I was comenting on, it was the fact that no one checks how unequal the incomes are in the companies where people need to claim benefit? How much are other company employees getting including any bonuses and how much are the shareholders getting?

If that company can pay more by leveling out one or more of those areas then they should be - not expecting the government to basically top up extremely high incomes.

Re the £20 uplift. My money is they will take it off in the budget - saying it cannot be continued as it was "only and emergency measure" or similar, and then immediately alter the UC so most (but I doubt all) are still in the same position. It's all smoke and mirrors and lies about how an economy works.

It is an interesting subject although I am a Conservative voter I do not think the £20 uplift should be removed at this present time.
As for the minimum wage in my opinion it is far to low and should be increased to at least £10 per hour but ideally £12
Times have changed so much from when we got married now quite honestly in average jobs both parents have to work and ideally provide for their children regardless of if they live together or are separated
My granddaughter is in childcare and has been since she was 6 months old but if my daughter and her husband had minimum paid jobs this would be out of the question.
I have my granddaughter one day a week to help out
Although when we first stated our married life and brought our first home one of us had to have a pretty reasonable income to make this possible

Ilovecheese

I do think that single parents should be made a special case, at least for a couple of years because of the effect of single parenthood on the children. When children have lost a parent being in the home whether through death or separation, the last thing they need is for the remaining parent to be absent for more hours of the day than they were previously. I think looking after the mental health of children pays dividends in later years and probably saves the state money in the long run.

You may be right, but as I said, there are couples earning less than single people, so subsidising single parents (as opposed to parents) is divisive. There are plenty of couples working round the clock to keep the family afloat (as represented by the couple in Sorry We Missed You), and it would be very unfair to make a special case of a single parent who is, say, a lawyer, and not them.

Ilovecheese

I do think that single parents should be made a special case, at least for a couple of years because of the effect of single parenthood on the children. When children have lost a parent being in the home whether through death or separation, the last thing they need is for the remaining parent to be absent for more hours of the day than they were previously. I think looking after the mental health of children pays dividends in later years and probably saves the state money in the long run.

Totally agree.

GrannyGravy13

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?

Amazon employ thousands of workers, they are paid a salary which they spend in the economy.

And of course these employees pay tax.

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?

Amazon employ thousands of workers, they are paid a salary which they spend in the economy.

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?

I do think that single parents should be made a special case, at least for a couple of years because of the effect of single parenthood on the children. When children have lost a parent being in the home whether through death or separation, the last thing they need is for the remaining parent to be absent for more hours of the day than they were previously. I think looking after the mental health of children pays dividends in later years and probably saves the state money in the long run.

MaizieD

PippaZ

We seem to have moved on to childcare rather than how we can ensure all employers pay a proper living wage. Perhaps it is because of childcare but I am not sure that it is.

Well, that's part of it. isn't it? What would you expect a 'proper living wage' to enable people to buy? Is there a point in working just to pay off a huge chunk of wages in childcare?

Anyway, now I'm going to try to explain economics to EP...

The tax and benefit systems in any civilised economy recognises that people have differing needs at various stages of life. The IFS did a study on this (which I can't find at the moment), but showed that for most people it's swings and roundabouts. Obviously, there are some losers and some winners overall and there needs to be some tweaking, but for the majority, it works. Incidentally, about 70% of people are "takers" from the system of a lifetime, while 30% are net "givers".

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 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.

PippaZ

We seem to have moved on to childcare rather than how we can ensure all employers pay a proper living wage. Perhaps it is because of childcare but I am not sure that it is.

Well, that's part of it. isn't it? What would you expect a 'proper living wage' to enable people to buy? Is there a point in working just to pay off a huge chunk of wages in childcare?

Anyway, now I'm going to try to explain economics to EP...

I did say I hadn't really worked it out!

When I started thinking about it I was waltzing off into the realms of how our working patterns are still something of a product of Victorian factory work requirements; then into the dreaded 'Protestant Work Ethic' and why should parents be kept apart from their children during their very early development and why is looking after someone else's child valued through payment, when the work of a parent (or grandparent), doing the same thing, not regarded as having any monetary value.. Just musing rather than a fully thought out concept

I wasn't thinking of state creches or kibbutzim! (Although we entrust the state with our children's education...)

We seem to have moved on to childcare rather than how we can ensure all employers pay a proper living wage. Perhaps it is because of childcare but I am not sure that it is.

MaizieD

^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.^

I find it quite bizarre that you have to work to earn the money to pay other people to look after your child. Why should parents be penalised if they want to spend part of their time looking after their own children?

I do realise that this is a very simplistic view and that the position is very complex, but it would be interesting to think about how some sort of 'childcare allowance' might be devised for parents who want to do their own childcare (even if it were only one or two days a week).

No reason why not - but any allowance should go to all, IMO. Not just people who become single parents through no fault of their own, and not just to single parents - there are plenty of couples earning less than one single parent, but paying two lots of tax, NI, commuting charges and so on.

It does seem bizarre that you have to work to pay someone else to look after your child, but unless we have kibbutzim or state creches (neither of which would get my vote) then people have to look after their own children, or pay someone else to do so.

A 'childcare allowance' paid as a top-up to those who could afford not to work and choose to stay at home would be most unfair on those who have no choice but to go to work, as they would be subsidising the better off. Wraparound care before and after school (available to all) would be a better option, IMO.

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).

MaizieD

^Sky News this morning had Kay Burley talking to a government minister - it might have been an earlier recording I am not sure - and I might not have caught it right but he was saying something like not reducing Universal Crediit would put a penny on income tax and I think he might have added a bit extra about something.^

The government minister is talking nonsense. 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.

If the £6 billion p.a that it costs were to be taken from the higher paid as tax, it would still be removing £6billion from the economy, just from different people in the economy. Which means people in dire poverty and no compensatory growth.

I do hope people understand my reasoning.

Thinking of the national budget in the same way as a household budget is wrong.

Unfortunately I don't.

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

So if they got some of the money indirectly from a better off person via the government, then ultimately the richer person has less money to either spend or save for later as he or she chooses between the two.

So the richer person loses a bit but some poor person or their child gets more than they would otherwise get.

So what is the problem with that?

^ (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?