I'm not sure raising the minimum wage is the right way to go. It just makes hiring workers even more expensive for businesses who could open a factory in Mumbai and pay workers £6 a week rather than £6 an hour.
What should happen is that companies can hire people on a low wage but the employee should be allowed to keep some of their benefits as well, making it more profitable to work than to not work and while not being too much of a financial burden on the employer. This would, say, allow companies to train up new employees at a minimal cost who can then work for a full wage once trained. Then you have both a skilled workforce, a profitable business and less people on the dole.
I'm not sure raising the minimum wage is the right way to go. It just makes hiring workers even more expensive for businesses who could open a factory in Mumbai and pay workers £6 a week rather than £6 an hour.
What should happen is that companies can hire people on a low wage but the employee should be allowed to keep some of their benefits as well, making it more profitable to work than to not work and while not being too much of a financial burden on the employer. This would, say, allow companies to train up new employees at a minimal cost who can then work for a full wage once trained. Then you have both a skilled workforce, a profitable business and less people on the dole.
The trouble is that with low skilled jobs the companies would then let the staff go and move on to the next batch of subsidised staff. Business' are ruthless when it comes to cutting costs.
I'm not sure raising the minimum wage is the right way to go. It just makes hiring workers even more expensive for businesses who could open a factory in Mumbai and pay workers £6 a week rather than £6 an hour.
What should happen is that companies can hire people on a low wage but the employee should be allowed to keep some of their benefits as well, making it more profitable to work than to not work and while not being too much of a financial burden on the employer. This would, say, allow companies to train up new employees at a minimal cost who can then work for a full wage once trained. Then you have both a skilled workforce, a profitable business and less people on the dole.
A fair compromise, I still think people earning more would moan about their taxes subsidising the lower class.
The trouble is that with low skilled jobs the companies would then let the staff go and move on to the next batch of subsidised staff. Business' are ruthless when it comes to cutting costs.
Yes, you would have to ensure that businesses enrolled in apprentice / training schemes must offer, say, a minimum 12 month contract to trained workers. In return the company could perhaps enjoy tax concessions proportionate to the number of hired employees.
In the event that a worker loses their job they are at least trained and could hopefully get a job elsewhere, which might at least alleviate the problem of being jobless and not trained for any work.
The trouble is that with low skilled jobs the companies would then let the staff go and move on to the next batch of subsidised staff. Business' are ruthless when it comes to cutting costs.
You didn't qualify for HB or CTB, due to lots of savings?
To be fair, you weren't the typical JSA claimant.
I got nothing else and yes I wasnt the typical JSA claimant but I was still a claimant so dont assume all claimants have money thrown at them, they dont. If I had no savings I would have qualified for the interest on my £175pm mortgage and CT benefit. All the rest of my bills would have had to be covered from the £67pw.
I am at uni now accruing a huge debt in course fees and living expenses to change my career because the last one was dead. On the side, like you am working in a job which pays min wage but I dont have 50 hours.
Yes, you would have to ensure that businesses enrolled in apprentice / training schemes must offer, say, a minimum 12 month contract to trained workers. In return the company could perhaps enjoy tax concessions proportionate to the number of hired employees.
In the event that a worker loses their job they are at least trained and could hopefully get a job elsewhere, which might at least alleviate the problem of being jobless and not trained for any work.
It was in 2011...it actually went up from £65 to £67 during the time I claimed. Whoopy do...£71, I could really have done with that extra £4 per week.
Exactly ,A lot of us on here have been trying to explain ,that the majority of people on JSA/ESA have nowhere near the figures being bandied about by some to live on :mad:
An example being a single person or couple on JSA with no dependants only have £71.00 or £100.00 (in the case of a couple) to pay all utilities,TV Licence,Food clothing etc ,so nowhere near living the life of riley as some people believe :mad: But barely scraping an exsistence
I'm only 24 and earn 15000 a year before tax. This equates to 1100 take home after. I get commission but it's a couple of hundred a month.
Now 500 a week equates to 2250 a month in the pocket of claimants pockets. A lot more than I am on!
I can't get why they are complaining! It's nearly double my money and they don't even do any work for it!
It's my hard earned cash going in their back pockets!
This attitude of living off the state saddens me. Get up and do some work!!
Well have lots of kids you cannot support and have no intention of, move to central London and place yourself at the mercy of a central London borough's housing department - won't work of course if you are a UK national!
Who knows - you might get lucky. No point working hard and trying to pay your own way - its a mugs game!
I'm only 24 and earn 15000 a year before tax. This equates to 1100 take home after. I get commission but it's a couple of hundred a month.
Now 500 a week equates to 2250 a month in the pocket of claimants pockets. A lot more than I am on!
I can't get why they are complaining! It's nearly double my money and they don't even do any work for it!
It's my hard earned cash going in their back pockets!
This attitude of living off the state saddens me. Get up and do some work!!
I am nearly 24 and earn roughly the same amount as you do too. I am not complaining about my wage. I have always been taught about money. I save quite a bit and don't spend it on stupid things. I am happy with my wage but suppose I am forunate enough to still live with my parents and only pay a small amount of rent a month.
There should be a cap on benefits. Some families do struggle and try and save and use their money wisely. Others still have bloody pets or Sky TV! Or have to try and fork out the latest things for their sprogs. TOUGH. If you can't afford it you shouldn't get it.
I am nearly 24 and earn roughly the same amount as you do too. I am not complaining about my wage. I have always been taught about money. I save quite a bit and don't spend it on stupid things.
There should be a cap on benefits. Some families do struggle and try and save and use their money wisely. Others still have bloody pets or Sky TV! Or have to try and fork out the latest things for their sprogs. TOUGH. If you can't afford it you shouldn't get it.
Yes, how dare they own a pet or Sky tv!! honestly!
Any cap introduced should be rolling, it is unfair to cap a family of 8 the same as a couple with no children, the cap is there to punish families and thats what it will do. This cap will make families homeless, they will not be able to pay their rent, poverty will worsen and more children will suffer.
Comments
You only get £147 for 50+ hours work?? :eek:
he was counting that after taking off rent etc.
What should happen is that companies can hire people on a low wage but the employee should be allowed to keep some of their benefits as well, making it more profitable to work than to not work and while not being too much of a financial burden on the employer. This would, say, allow companies to train up new employees at a minimal cost who can then work for a full wage once trained. Then you have both a skilled workforce, a profitable business and less people on the dole.
The £67 I got was ALL I got so like I say, it depends on who he is comparing himself to.
The trouble is that with low skilled jobs the companies would then let the staff go and move on to the next batch of subsidised staff. Business' are ruthless when it comes to cutting costs.
The £67 was to cover Rent and CT, as well as all your other expenses?
Yes....I had to use savings accrued during a 30+ year career to breach the gap.
You didn't qualify for HB or CTB, due to lots of savings?
To be fair, you weren't the typical JSA claimant.
JSA for over 25+= £71.00 per week now ,so no-one would be getting £67 like when you claimed it ,under 25 only get £56.25 :eek:
A fair compromise, I still think people earning more would moan about their taxes subsidising the lower class.
Its not always been that much...
Yes, you would have to ensure that businesses enrolled in apprentice / training schemes must offer, say, a minimum 12 month contract to trained workers. In return the company could perhaps enjoy tax concessions proportionate to the number of hired employees.
In the event that a worker loses their job they are at least trained and could hopefully get a job elsewhere, which might at least alleviate the problem of being jobless and not trained for any work.
Unfair dismissal would cover that surely?
Hence why i said ,like when you claimed it
I got nothing else and yes I wasnt the typical JSA claimant but I was still a claimant so dont assume all claimants have money thrown at them, they dont. If I had no savings I would have qualified for the interest on my £175pm mortgage and CT benefit. All the rest of my bills would have had to be covered from the £67pw.
I am at uni now accruing a huge debt in course fees and living expenses to change my career because the last one was dead. On the side, like you am working in a job which pays min wage but I dont have 50 hours.
It was in 2011...it actually went up from £65 to £67 during the time I claimed. Whoopy do...£71, I could really have done with that extra £4 per week.
You cant claim until you have a year under your belt before you can claim unfair dismissal
...but you reduce the job market further.
Exactly ,A lot of us on here have been trying to explain ,that the majority of people on JSA/ESA have nowhere near the figures being bandied about by some to live on :mad:
An example being a single person or couple on JSA with no dependants only have £71.00 or £100.00 (in the case of a couple) to pay all utilities,TV Licence,Food clothing etc ,so nowhere near living the life of riley as some people believe :mad: But barely scraping an exsistence
Well have lots of kids you cannot support and have no intention of, move to central London and place yourself at the mercy of a central London borough's housing department - won't work of course if you are a UK national!
Who knows - you might get lucky. No point working hard and trying to pay your own way - its a mugs game!
I am nearly 24 and earn roughly the same amount as you do too. I am not complaining about my wage. I have always been taught about money. I save quite a bit and don't spend it on stupid things. I am happy with my wage but suppose I am forunate enough to still live with my parents and only pay a small amount of rent a month.
There should be a cap on benefits. Some families do struggle and try and save and use their money wisely. Others still have bloody pets or Sky TV! Or have to try and fork out the latest things for their sprogs. TOUGH. If you can't afford it you shouldn't get it.
? I'm not sure I understand what you mean....
Yes, how dare they own a pet or Sky tv!! honestly!
Any cap introduced should be rolling, it is unfair to cap a family of 8 the same as a couple with no children, the cap is there to punish families and thats what it will do. This cap will make families homeless, they will not be able to pay their rent, poverty will worsen and more children will suffer.
I don't assume that.
And that is what I'm basing my calculations on.
If I were currently on JSA, I'd be getting my Rent and CT paid, and be receiving £71 cash.
Therefore, subtracting my Rent and CT (and the £71) from my take home salary, leaves me about £80pw better off.