Too many British families are hungry!

Paying in what you can is a difficult concept, surely entirely subjective and most unlikely to be enshrined in law. I expect many of us could pay more tax, but who is to be the arbiter of how much that is for each individual or company? The word proportionate suggests to me that you would favour a return to the extremely high taxes of the past - around 90% in the 50s and 60s - for high earners.

The answer, then, must be to alter what is correct tax, and make it a proportionate contribution to society. No loopholes. Nothing that accountants can find by way of chances to avoid paying up. If everyone pays in when they can, everyone can take out when they need to.

How do you ‘go after’ a company which legally avoids tax? What do you mean by ‘go after’? Are you talking about civil insurrection?

What evidence do you have that HMRC does not take action against companies which do not pay the correct tax?

EloEthan
Germanshephersldsmum

When it's a given fact that there are a small percentage (though rising!) of people on this planet who could make the hugest difference and virtually alleviate poverty/hunger/ whatever else you want to call it, but choose not to, is tough to get my head around. Do I think they should donate every penny they don't need? No. Do I think they should do more? Absolutely.

We should be going after the companies who either don't pay the correct taxes or avoid them all together. People who actively avoid paying their taxes should be hounded until they pay up. Is it legal to avoid tax? Sadly, yes. Is it morally correct? Absolutely not. Pay your way like everyone else has to.

Or maybe we should just be more French!

Germanshepherdsmum Some billionaires have more money than small countries. When a disproportionately small number of individuals have vast amounts of money and continue to use that money to influence governments and companies to do their bidding, so that they can accrue even greater wealth unhindered, of course billionaires bear some responsibility.

It is truly a terrible state of affairs that there are people, and particularly children, elderly and disabled people, in this country who are severely malnourished and housed in such appalling conditions that it threatens their lives.

Primrose People who are getting by OK are generally the ones that we see. If you have no money there is no point in going to the shops as you can't afford to buy anything other than absolute necessities and you certainly don't have the money to eat out.

I agree with both of you.

Perhaps the businesses could look at cutting their profit margins slightly to accommodate the wage rises...

I'd rather pay a bit more for something if it meant others could eat! Some of the problem today is that folk want everything cheap and now! Throwaway fashion which costs next to nothing, being made the other side of the world by people who have few or no worker's rights.

A whole other thread in itself.

Most of all, we have a government which doesn't care about our most vulnerable members of society.

Yes, I know . It doesn't make it right though.

Doodledog

And worse that others can defend the situation.

It's been happening for centuries, Dd. Adam Smith notes it in his mid 18th C study of political economy. Employees arguing that they couldn't possibly increase their workers' wages because then they'd have to put their prices up...

Doodledog

If it’s not enough to live on (and eat) then it needs to be increased.

This!

And worse that others can defend the situation.

It is shameful that people are working for less than they need to live on.

The national minimumwage, although it is known as a Living wage, is actually less than what has been calculated to be the real living wage. This was over £12 per hr a year ago, so must be more than that now.

That is not to say that April's increase won't be welcome, but it may not be sufficient.

www.livingwage.org.uk/

If it’s not enough to live on (and eat) then it needs to be increased.

Agreed.

The Low Pay Commission estimates that there were around 1.6 million workers paid at or below the minimum wage in April 2022, around 5% of all UK workers.

commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7735/

The lowest-earning employees tend to be younger, aged between 16 and 21 years, and in the elementary occupations or in the hospitality industry.

www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/bulletins/lowandhighpayuk/2023

From April 2024 the National Living Wage will rise to £11.44 per hour and be extended to people age 21 and over - currently 23 and over.

www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-rates

The 'minimum wage' was introduced in the UK in 1988 and has had no noticeably adverse effect on inflation. It may have caused some price rises in affected sectors, but clearly there were not enough people receiving below the minimum wage for its introduction to have an adverse over all effect.

Claiming that it will have a knock on effect to the extent that people will still be unable to afford food presupposes that far, far, more workers are paid at minimum wage level than actually are.

Maths rather than memes is the key here...

But if the minimum living wage increases and that has a knock-on effect on prices, how does that mean that everyone can afford to eat?

Germanshepherdsmum

Prices will increase if the minimum living wage increases.

Better that everyone can afford to eat than that only some can afford less essential items though. It’s not just about that (important though it is) though. It’s that when people receive benefits they become dependent on a punitive state, and lose the right to earn more or even get personal gifts without penalty.

Anyone doing a full week’s work should be paid enough to keep a roof over their heads and food on their table without having to declare their bank accounts to the authorities.

Germanshepherdsmum

Prices will increase if the minimum living wage increases.

I do agree GSM, but at least in some areas there’s an element of choice of how we spend our income. Living wages are the fairest way to pay people.

Doodledog

Doesn't it make more sense to raise wages so that UC top-ups are not necessary? That way, more tax will go into the economy, and people's domestic situations (ie whether or not they have children) are irrelevant to their take-home pay. Everyone doing a job should be paid the same as everyone doing the same job regardless of their situation, and their pay should be enough to live on without handouts that handicap their progress.

It makes complete sense! UC and prior to that Working Tax Credits subsidise large companies, corporations and public sector workers. Just pay EVERYONE a living wage, don’t let anyone who is working rely on govt “top ups” to have a reasonable (not luxurious) standard of living. Not doing so not only means a higher welfare bill but results in the situation we have now, shortages of nurses/teachers/carers and it would also help to unfreeze and raise the personal allowance!

Prices will increase if the minimum living wage increases.

Doesn't it make more sense to raise wages so that UC top-ups are not necessary? That way, more tax will go into the economy, and people's domestic situations (ie whether or not they have children) are irrelevant to their take-home pay. Everyone doing a job should be paid the same as everyone doing the same job regardless of their situation, and their pay should be enough to live on without handouts that handicap their progress.

TinSoldier

A band 5 entry-level nurse with 1-2 years experience earns £28,407. That’s monthly take-home pay of £1,970.

Rent for a no-frills one-bedroom flat here in the suburbs, two miles from the hospital on a bus route is £1,350 per month.

The council tax is £155 per month (say £116 if he or she lives alone). Energy and water say £100 a month averaged over the year. Broadband and phone say £40. Home insurance £15. Four-weekly bus pass £85.

That's only £264 left for food, toiletries, household cleaning, clothing and everything else for a month - £66 per week.

Hardly enough to manage on if someone is to have any kind of life outside of work and no car.

An NQT will start on £30,000 so they have take home pay of £2064 so £94 a month more.

Depending on circumstances, some will get UC top ups for housing costs etc.

The threshold for working families can be quite high.

I know I said I was finished......

BUT

I was earning more 20 years ago (as an hourly rate) than I ever did over the past 6 years. I totally appreciate the need for a national minimum wage, but it did scr3w mine up! (Weekend enhancements excepted)