Taxpayers subsidising low paid supermarket staff to the tune of £11bn!

2456711

Comments

  • elfcurryelfcurry Posts: 3,232
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tassium wrote: »
    It's part of the mental make-up of some people to not realise they were lucky in getting whatever they got in life.

    It all came from their efforts! Not their parents! not the state! Me me me!

    And they are "me me me" in other ways as well. No time for society, no time for others...

    They can't help it, it's just the way they are.

    People with a more individualistic outlook are more likely to be right-wingers and probably attribute any success to their own character and hard work as they perceive it. They may not be the best judges of course.

    I'm not sure what happens to those born with an individualistic outlook who don't experience success. Will they still have right-wing views? Will they blame themselves for their relative lack of success despite their efforts? Will they be optimistic about the value of hard work or get depressed at their failure?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 9,720
    Forum Member
    Supermarkets are taxpayers. They pay tax on profits, VAT on electricity, duty on fuel, business rates, etc., etc.

    Although admittedly they could be paying more corporation tax here.
  • TRIPSTRIPS Posts: 3,714
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Jobs should be there for us, not us there for jobs.

    The lowest pay should be decent enough to live on, and then prices for good should reflect that.

    The capitalist idea of paying the lowest a boss can get away with paying is outdated and should not be condoned in a decent society.
    The OP is right about one thing .people were willing to fight to get a better standard of living those days, Thatcher changed all that thinking.
    Only have to read the many posts on here to realise anyone whose opinion is the workers should be treated more fairly is labeled a Left wing socialist. that is said for one reason only. as an insult.
    The working class are there own worst enemy, they started to believe all the unions are bad, all the people fighting to maintain a decent standard of living are just troublemakers who want to cripple the country with strikes. the result was everyone was left to fend for themselves, no protection or rights.
    The reality is all people want is a job that pays the bills, there nothing left wing or militant about that.nobody want's to cripple the country with strikes. it's just an insult to paint them as troublemakers.
  • NosediveNosedive Posts: 6,600
    Forum Member
    80sfan wrote: »
    If the UK leaves the European Union, then supermarkets wouldn't have a constant flow of cheap disposable labour available that they can pay next to nothing and get away with it.

    Cheap disposable labour from countries with under performing economies in eastern europe that make our minimum wage levels seem like gold dust. Let's not talk about that though as the main three parties would say.
  • Phil 2804Phil 2804 Posts: 21,846
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Zaphodski wrote: »
    You couldn't make it up!

    I think the phrase only in the UK has made 'only in America' redundant....

    I'm no fan of the European experiment however with the current freedom of movement to find jobs people should go looking (globally) to find suitably paid work and live a happier life elsewhere. Why on earth are taxpayers handing over all this money, most of it probably going to foreign and private UK landlords? These wages are too low because too many people are chasing the jobs and are not prepared to move (why lose housing benefit? :o).

    The minimum wage only adds to ever spiralling living costs, especially rents, which will rise to meet the money (benefits) available.

    Get rid of minimum wage, housing benefit etc and let people stand on their own two feet (where ever in the world that may be) and EARN a living!


    Ah gotta love Tory supporters. Its not the fault of the multibillion corporations employing these people, no its the feckless low paid for not seeking the better paid jobs that apparently exist (which in reality they don't).

    Classic recent example after Tesco's massive accounting fiddle was exposed one of the first responses Tesco had was to close its staff pension fund. As if Tesco's illegal practices were the fault of the ladies and students manning the tills and filling the shelves.
  • OLD HIPPY GUYOLD HIPPY GUY Posts: 28,199
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ragnarok wrote: »
    I know some lefty is about to walk in and say well the minimum wage should be higher, well maybe everything is just too damned expensive, not least house prices! All recent and most world governments are just to hell bent on inflation and QE, de-valuing currency to make the national debt more manageable.

    What makes it worse is that everyone with any sort of sizeable amount of money is looking for somthing to invest in that will hold value like property.
    THIS lefty says "I told you so, first they came for the unemployed, then the sick and the disabled, then they went for the low paid workers, then the spare room criminals who could also belong to any or several of the groups already mentioned.
    With the threat of yet more to come.

    I have been predicting that those "hard working people" who the LIAR Cameron claims to "support" would be next in line for the Tory hate campaign, I predicted this soon after they invented the "spare room subsidy" by convincing the eager to hate that they were "subsidising" a "spare" room for "scroungers" despite the fact that there was no such thing as a spare room subsidy" because no one in social housing is charged rent 'by the room' nor has housing benefit ever been paid by the room.
    I pointed out that the eager to hate had no problem whatsoever with obeying their beloved leaders instruction to hate the spare room scroungers, yet seemed to be perfectly happy to "subsidise" multi millionaire multi million pound profit making company owners incomes through 'in work benefits' I mean, why pay my workers a decent wage when I can be a parasite and scrounge off the benefits system and the tax paying suckers right? Right.
    I predicted that when the keen to hate noticed this little double standard that their sick and twisted logic would cause them to BLAME the "hard working people" who are "trying to do the right thing"
    Ya know, the very people that the liar Cameron claims to "support"? They certainly would NOT blame the multi millionaire company owners for being parasites scrounging from the benefits system.
    Because that goes against their conditioning.
  • TankyTanky Posts: 3,647
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    In my opinion, tax subsides should only be reserved to the manufacturing sectors. This is due to the nature of a global economy, and businesses choose to manufacture goods and content, in places they can make the most money. By having tax subsides, it makes it more attractive to come to this country over others, bring in jobs.

    However in the case of supermarkets, they are reliant on the spending of the population, There's just no need for subsidies, as they aren't going to more away or uproot their business.

    Tesco alone, even with a decrease in profits from previous years, still made about £3.3bn in profit last year. There's only one thing that comes to mind, and that's greed! They are making massive profits and yet pay their workers cheaply.

    I believe, either the supermarkets increase the pay of their workers to a reasonable wage or the government needs to introduce a tax. A tax on companies over a certain size and earning a certain amount, for every working that they employ who needs in-work benefits.
  • nomad2kingnomad2king Posts: 8,415
    Forum Member
    And when exactly were shop workers highly paid? If the minimum wage didn't increase their wages, what did it do, reduce them?

    The over generous benefits eg tax credits and housing benefits(which Labour actually admitted to) will be mainly responsible for any increase. The housing benefit bill will be increased by the various "invasions" of benefit claimants.
  • jcafcwjcafcw Posts: 11,282
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Credit has been the problem.

    It has prevented the market finding its true value. With 100% mortgages, credit options which are more than people's annual salary and ever increasing limits then the market has been unable to adjust to the fact that people's wages are not rising in line with expenses. In my parent's days we would have to do without if we could not afford it now we can put in on a card.

    Credit was relaxed to help party donating businessmen in all countries to make more profits without having to raise wages. We saw the danger of if in 2008 but we will not heed its warnings. We will continue to put personal wealth above the good of the global economy. It won't be terrorism that will destroy the western civilisation it will be greed.
  • MajlisMajlis Posts: 31,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Phil 2804 wrote: »
    Ah gotta love Tory supporters. Its not the fault of the multibillion corporations employing these people, no its the feckless low paid for not seeking the better paid jobs that apparently exist (which in reality they don't).

    Well it is the Single Market working as it was intended - what did you think was going to happen? :confused:
  • jcafcwjcafcw Posts: 11,282
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Majlis wrote: »
    Well it is the Single Market working as it was intended - what did you think was going to happen? :confused:

    The market is not working as it was intended though. Credit has prevented the market from working properly.
  • nomad2kingnomad2king Posts: 8,415
    Forum Member
    It was the nonsense of getting on the "property ladder" that has created the problems. This was promoted as an easy way for everybody and their cat to make easy money by rising house prices. Buying a house was deemed almost an absolute right and not something to aspire and work towards. The notion of "property ladder" is just to make that easy money, not to own your home.
  • TassiumTassium Posts: 31,639
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    elfcurry wrote: »
    People with a more individualistic outlook are more likely to be right-wingers and probably attribute any success to their own character and hard work as they perceive it. They may not be the best judges of course.

    I'm not sure what happens to those born with an individualistic outlook who don't experience success. Will they still have right-wing views? Will they blame themselves for their relative lack of success despite their efforts? Will they be optimistic about the value of hard work or get depressed at their failure?

    I think they blame someone else. Conservatism, as it's currently practised, is about never taking personal responsibility.

    It's crazily ironic when you consider the rhetoric these people come out with.
  • koantemplationkoantemplation Posts: 101,293
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    nomad2king wrote: »
    It was the nonsense of getting on the "property ladder" that has created the problems. This was promoted as an easy way for everybody and their cat to make easy money by rising house prices. Buying a house was deemed almost an absolute right and not something to aspire and work towards. The notion of "property ladder" is just to make that easy money, not to own your home.

    Too true.

    Of course those who bought their council homes in the early days made money, but in effect it was a pyramid scheme that would soon run out of steam.

    Homes should be for living in, not for making money from.

    Council housing and a rent that is affordable should be the first priority.
  • silentNatesilentNate Posts: 84,079
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    clinch wrote: »
    Crazy. To make matters worse the big supermarkets are now trying to make us serve ourselves so they can make even more cash. Serve yourself and someone gets thrown out of a job. I always go to a staffed till.

    This. End of.

    It comes down to greed.

    That said... there are a lot of personal carers that work part-time as it will effect their benefits so supermarkets may be using part-time workers in a similar way :(
  • nomad2kingnomad2king Posts: 8,415
    Forum Member
    Too true.

    Of course those who bought their council homes in the early days made money, but in effect it was a pyramid scheme that would soon run out of steam.

    Homes should be for living in, not for making money from.

    Council housing and a rent that is affordable should be the first priority.
    At that time home ownership was still an aspiration and the notion of a "property ladder" didn't exist. They bought the council houses to live in. There was no reliance on rising house prices.
  • TRIPSTRIPS Posts: 3,714
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Tanky wrote: »
    In my opinion, tax subsides should only be reserved to the manufacturing sectors. This is due to the nature of a global economy, and businesses choose to manufacture goods and content, in places they can make the most money. By having tax subsides, it makes it more attractive to come to this country over others, bring in jobs.

    However in the case of supermarkets, they are reliant on the spending of the population, There's just no need for subsidies, as they aren't going to more away or uproot their business.

    Tesco alone, even with a decrease in profits from previous years, still made about £3.3bn in profit last year. There's only one thing that comes to mind, and that's greed! They are making massive profits and yet pay their workers cheaply.

    I believe, either the supermarkets increase the pay of their workers to a reasonable wage or the government needs to introduce a tax. A tax on companies over a certain size and earning a certain amount, for every working that they employ who needs in-work benefits.

    That's probably one of the best idea ive heard in years.
    The argument will be they will obviously pass this increased costs onto the public and this has to be recognized, are people really willing to pay the cost to have a fair standard of living for all in this country.
    I would say, It took years to reach the stage we are today if we are going to change things then we have to do it slowly,it will take years for the country to change, the consequences will be horrific if we try to change things too quickly.
    High inflation as the increased cost is passed onto the consumer I imagine.
    I don't know all the answers to be honest. on one hand things have to change, on the other how do make sure inflation doesn't go through the roof, not sure if that's possible. unless we do it slowly.
  • Sarah777Sarah777 Posts: 5,058
    Forum Member
    BBC News:
    Supermarket workers paid the national minimum wage are forced to claim state benefits totalling £11bn a year, according to a charity.
    Citizens UK said the employers of five million workers in the UK were being "subsidised" by the taxpayer.
    The minimum wage is £6.50 an hour for people over 21, while the living wage calculated by the Living Wage Foundation is £7.85 (£9.15 in London).News:


    Does anyone know how many of these jobs were created since 2010?.
  • ShaunIOWShaunIOW Posts: 11,303
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Tanky wrote: »
    In my opinion, tax subsides should only be reserved to the manufacturing sectors. This is due to the nature of a global economy, and businesses choose to manufacture goods and content, in places they can make the most money. By having tax subsides, it makes it more attractive to come to this country over others, bring in jobs.

    However in the case of supermarkets, they are reliant on the spending of the population, There's just no need for subsidies, as they aren't going to more away or uproot their business.

    Tesco alone, even with a decrease in profits from previous years, still made about £3.3bn in profit last year. There's only one thing that comes to mind, and that's greed! They are making massive profits and yet pay their workers cheaply.

    I believe, either the supermarkets increase the pay of their workers to a reasonable wage or the government needs to introduce a tax. A tax on companies over a certain size and earning a certain amount, for every working that they employ who needs in-work benefits.

    I've said this before - the government should recover all tax credits paid to a companies employees, from that companies pre-tax profits with a 5% admin fee on top to encourage the companies to pay a proper wage to save that 5%.
  • nomad2kingnomad2king Posts: 8,415
    Forum Member
    When was this mythical time when grocery shop workers were highly paid?
  • koantemplationkoantemplation Posts: 101,293
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    nomad2king wrote: »
    At that time home ownership was still an aspiration and the notion of a "property ladder" didn't exist. They bought the council houses to live in. There was no reliance on rising house prices.

    They were already living in the council homes.

    Of course they wanted to sell them on later when prices increased.
  • jcafcwjcafcw Posts: 11,282
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    nomad2king wrote: »
    When was this mythical time when grocery shop workers were highly paid?

    The point that people are repeatedly trying to get through to you is that they didn't have to paid high wages to get by in the past. Now they need benefits to keep their head above water. Do you think that is progress?
  • nomad2kingnomad2king Posts: 8,415
    Forum Member
    They were already living in the council homes.

    Of course they wanted to sell them on later when prices increased.
    But they didn't buy them purely with the intention of making a profit. That just happened anyway.
  • nomad2kingnomad2king Posts: 8,415
    Forum Member
    jcafcw wrote: »
    The point that people are repeatedly trying to get through to you is that they didn't have to paid high wages to get by in the past. Now they need benefits to keep their head above water. Do you think that is progress?
    So it is benefits that have gone unreasonably UP and NOT wages kept unreasonably low.
  • Mark_Jones9Mark_Jones9 Posts: 12,728
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Zaphodski wrote: »
    [Taxpayers subsidising low paid supermarket staff to the tune of £11bn!
    You couldn't make it up!
    Obviously you could or at least Citizens UK could.
    As the figures appear to be made up and not even for just supermarket staff but for the entire UK population.
Sign In or Register to comment.