Housing benefit costs more than £25 billion. Tax credits cost £30 billion. That is because wages have not kept pace with the basics. Either wages should go up substantially or the cost of housing should come down substantially, or a combination of the two. The current situation is not sustainable.
And you think that all this should be paid for by pensioners?
So why doesn't Corbyn just announce a policy to bring in the living wage? Doesn't sound too difficult, does it.
I suppose this policy would make the public sector exempt from the "living wage" as there are no shareholders or dividends to be paid. That would save the government billions in payroll costs.
It is entirely relevant. Low wages are supported by taxpayers' money.
Current minimum wages are insufficient to meet housing and other costs.
Shareholders are currently being subsidised by taxpayers. Their dividends result from companies paying wages that are so low they have to be subsidised from the public purse.
Far too gross a generalisation. You don't know which companies are involved, how many employees within those companies are involved, the dividend pay out etc.
Do you mean the real living wage or the Government's pretend living wage?
Simple question, complicated answer from me so apologies.
Firstly I'd want to keep this cost neutral, and I'd probably want to phase it in with say annual increases to find the sweet spot.
My ultimate goals would be to to get to a point where if a company has a bad year then no one loses their jobs and in work benefits are picking up the slack. So we need to keep some money in the IWB pot.
But (and after the costs) I'd rather the rest of that money is funnelled to successful companies that are willing to look after their employees. I don't want a culture where bad companies are perpetually propped up by tax taken from the good companies. Taking money off a company to give back to their employees as a benefit seems a poor way to work. Continually taking money of a company to give to the employees of their competitors as a benefit is just daft.
I see three scenarios
1) The In work benefit pot can cover the real living wage
2) The in work benefit pot doesn't cover the living wage
3) The in work benefit pot can cover the real living wage and buy a spare aircraft carrier(s)
In scenario 1 then yep I'd target reaching the real living wage, say over the course of a parliament
In scenario 2 then I'd probably use the pretend living wage as a target. Once we hit it let's run the numbers again and see how much more we need to / can afford to put in. there are lots of variables at play but if it has moved things in the right direction why not invest more to see if it pays back?
In scenario 3, where it turns out we've a lot more money to play with - again I'd go with a government set rate rather than the "real living wage", but it wouldn't stop when it reached the level of the real living wage. I'd like to think that if we're encouraging the right sort of company to flourish we keep ploughing that money into the companies and their employees till we hit the level where in-work benefits are only needed as a helping hand of last resort
Big business has been busily sowing the seeds of Labours return as the "party of the working people"
And not just business, but the Conservative Party itself with it's various attacks on people in work.
Labour can talk about working people getting a fair deal and people will listen, even those on larger income can see how unfair it is that working people have to go begging to the government just to stay alive.
Shareholders are currently being subsidised by taxpayers. Their dividends result from companies paying wages that are so low they have to be subsidised from the public purse.
The top 5 companies in the FTSE 100 are
Royal Dutch Shell
HSBC
BP
Vodafone Group
GlaxoSmithKline
What percentage of employee of each of those are on the minimum wage and need to claim in work benefits? Vodafone may have a lot of call centre workers but I don't know many poorly paid people who working the oil industry, banking or pharmaceutical research.
Royal Dutch Shell
HSBC
BP
Vodafone Group
GlaxoSmithKline
What percentage of employee of each of those are on the minimum wage and need to claim in work benefits? Vodafone may have a lot of call centre workers but I don't know many poorly paid people who working the oil industry, banking or pharmaceutical research.
It's not actually very honest to point to the un-usual and say "that's the typical situation!".
Also different industrial areas get different things from this government. Some get cheap labour, some get law which allows them to rip off the general public.
In essence the common theme is the public are exploited to ensure big profits.
What a disgusting attack on pensioners. Pension funds are a huge part of the shareholder community, these pay for the pensions of normal people. Those dividends are a critical part of millions of peoples finances
It's the lack of service to the public which increasingly defines the right-wing these days.
Nothing wrong with businesses making big profits, I think many people would applaud that, it's the exploitation of both the customer and the employee which is the problem.
Serve the public, then go head and make your big profits!
Exploit the public/worker, then we have a problem with you making big profits on the back of that.
Royal Dutch Shell
HSBC
BP
Vodafone Group
GlaxoSmithKline
What percentage of employee of each of those are on the minimum wage and need to claim in work benefits? Vodafone may have a lot of call centre workers but I don't know many poorly paid people who working the oil industry, banking or pharmaceutical research.
You can be earning £50,000 or more and still get in-work benefits, so how does that work as a minimum or living wage? The main factors for getting in-work benefits are having children and/or part-time work. Tax allowances are also a form of in-work benefit. In fact that is how adjustments for having children used to be done, ie by increasing the tax allowance.
Why should a boss earn less simply because the business they run is supplying 1,000 cleaners or other low-paid workers.
The minimum wage should be a low-level starting point. A way for people and businesses to start off from and better their position. If it's at too high a level then start-up costs for businesses also becomes too high with the higher risking of failing.
The living wage is based upon the "Minimum Income Standard". It equates a single childless person with a couple with 4 children. How is that right?
The nine non-pensioner households used in MIS are single-unit households (i.e. single adults or couples living with or without dependent children, but nobody else), with up to three children for lone parents and up to four children for couples.
They come up with figures ranging from £181.39 to £623.99 for the 9 groups. How can that sensibly be merged into a single figure? And that is just the starting point.
Even the "Living Wage" doesn't pretend to not need in-work benefits.
OK, how many people working in banking, oil or pharmaceuticals are earning at the "living" wage? They are three of the best sectors for high skilled high paid jobs.
"Too much of the proceeds of growth have accumulated to those at the top," he said.
"Not only is this unfair, it actually holds back growth. A more equal society is not only fairer, it does better in terms of economic stability and wealth creation.
Who could disagree with that?
Personally I think JC would have wanted to go for the universal Living Wage option - but I think this compromise has been dictated by the Labour Right, which he is having to constantly mollify.
This doesn't seem thought out. By barring dividends from being paid it could have a knock on effect with SMEs. I am somewhat limited in my knowledge on the living wage changes by the government but I can imagine this could effect:
1 - Pensioners?
2. SME's struggling find the money to pay a living wage?
"Too much of the proceeds of growth have accumulated to those at the top," he said.
"Not only is this unfair, it actually holds back growth. A more equal society is not only fairer, it does better in terms of economic stability and wealth creation.
Who could disagree with that?
Personally I think JC would have wanted to go for the universal Living Wage option - but I think this compromise has been dictated by the Labour Right, which he is having to constantly mollify.
OK, how many people working in banking, oil or pharmaceuticals are earning at the "living" wage? They are three of the best sectors for high skilled high paid jobs.
Most (if not all) of the main banks have already signed up to the Living Wage - thus they would be unaffected by these proposals.
Labour are targeting those sectors that have many low paid employees in their ranks, and yet pay handsome dividends - retail springs to mind as an example.
Big business has been busily sowing the seeds of Labours return as the "party of the working people"
And not just business, but the Conservative Party itself with it's various attacks on people in work.
Labour can talk about working people getting a fair deal and people will listen, even those on larger income can see how unfair it is that working people have to go begging to the government just to stay alive.
There was no bigger attack on working people than Labour doubling the lowest rate of income tax
This doesn't seem thought out. By barring dividends from being paid it could have a knock on effect with SMEs. I am somewhat limited in my knowledge on the living wage changes by the government but I can imagine this could effect:
1 - Pensioners?
2. SME's struggling find the money to pay a living wage?
Most (if not all) of the main banks have already signed up to the Living Wage - thus they would be unaffected by these proposals.
Of course the banks have signed up to it since it doesn't affect them. When you have graduate starting salaries at £30-40k then it really doesn't matter what the government says the minimum/living wage is since the vast majority (if not all) of staff will be earning way over that level anyway.
Comments
And you think that all this should be paid for by pensioners?
I suppose this policy would make the public sector exempt from the "living wage" as there are no shareholders or dividends to be paid. That would save the government billions in payroll costs.
Far too gross a generalisation. You don't know which companies are involved, how many employees within those companies are involved, the dividend pay out etc.
Unfortunately I think I'd get a better welcome in the Tory party these days.
Simple question, complicated answer from me so apologies.
Firstly I'd want to keep this cost neutral, and I'd probably want to phase it in with say annual increases to find the sweet spot.
My ultimate goals would be to to get to a point where if a company has a bad year then no one loses their jobs and in work benefits are picking up the slack. So we need to keep some money in the IWB pot.
But (and after the costs) I'd rather the rest of that money is funnelled to successful companies that are willing to look after their employees. I don't want a culture where bad companies are perpetually propped up by tax taken from the good companies. Taking money off a company to give back to their employees as a benefit seems a poor way to work. Continually taking money of a company to give to the employees of their competitors as a benefit is just daft.
I see three scenarios
1) The In work benefit pot can cover the real living wage
2) The in work benefit pot doesn't cover the living wage
3) The in work benefit pot can cover the real living wage and buy a spare aircraft carrier(s)
In scenario 1 then yep I'd target reaching the real living wage, say over the course of a parliament
In scenario 2 then I'd probably use the pretend living wage as a target. Once we hit it let's run the numbers again and see how much more we need to / can afford to put in. there are lots of variables at play but if it has moved things in the right direction why not invest more to see if it pays back?
In scenario 3, where it turns out we've a lot more money to play with - again I'd go with a government set rate rather than the "real living wage", but it wouldn't stop when it reached the level of the real living wage. I'd like to think that if we're encouraging the right sort of company to flourish we keep ploughing that money into the companies and their employees till we hit the level where in-work benefits are only needed as a helping hand of last resort
And not just business, but the Conservative Party itself with it's various attacks on people in work.
Labour can talk about working people getting a fair deal and people will listen, even those on larger income can see how unfair it is that working people have to go begging to the government just to stay alive.
The top 5 companies in the FTSE 100 are
Royal Dutch Shell
HSBC
BP
Vodafone Group
GlaxoSmithKline
What percentage of employee of each of those are on the minimum wage and need to claim in work benefits? Vodafone may have a lot of call centre workers but I don't know many poorly paid people who working the oil industry, banking or pharmaceutical research.
Just watching him giving a speech on Sky News now moaning about how life isn't "fair" though not saying a lot about how it would be all paid for.
What a scruff too. I wouldn't dare turn up at work dressed like that never mind appear on TV representing my organization.
It's not actually very honest to point to the un-usual and say "that's the typical situation!".
Also different industrial areas get different things from this government. Some get cheap labour, some get law which allows them to rip off the general public.
In essence the common theme is the public are exploited to ensure big profits.
Classic stuff, Meepers!
Nothing wrong with businesses making big profits, I think many people would applaud that, it's the exploitation of both the customer and the employee which is the problem.
Serve the public, then go head and make your big profits!
Exploit the public/worker, then we have a problem with you making big profits on the back of that.
What has the NMW got to do with the Living Wage?
Why should a boss earn less simply because the business they run is supplying 1,000 cleaners or other low-paid workers.
The minimum wage should be a low-level starting point. A way for people and businesses to start off from and better their position. If it's at too high a level then start-up costs for businesses also becomes too high with the higher risking of failing.
The living wage is based upon the "Minimum Income Standard". It equates a single childless person with a couple with 4 children. How is that right? They come up with figures ranging from £181.39 to £623.99 for the 9 groups. How can that sensibly be merged into a single figure? And that is just the starting point.
Even the "Living Wage" doesn't pretend to not need in-work benefits.
OK, how many people working in banking, oil or pharmaceuticals are earning at the "living" wage? They are three of the best sectors for high skilled high paid jobs.
"Not only is this unfair, it actually holds back growth. A more equal society is not only fairer, it does better in terms of economic stability and wealth creation.
Who could disagree with that?
Personally I think JC would have wanted to go for the universal Living Wage option - but I think this compromise has been dictated by the Labour Right, which he is having to constantly mollify.
1 - Pensioners?
2. SME's struggling find the money to pay a living wage?
Please correct me if I am wrong!
Anyone who does not know how business works.
Indeed, it would be much simplier than this proposal but it doesn't sound as anti-capitalist.
Most (if not all) of the main banks have already signed up to the Living Wage - thus they would be unaffected by these proposals.
Labour are targeting those sectors that have many low paid employees in their ranks, and yet pay handsome dividends - retail springs to mind as an example.
Some SMEs are already signed up to the LW.
Well, if you are happy to have a few wallowing in riches while many struggle to put food on the table so be it.
That is the result of how business should not work.
It is, quite simply, nor fit for purpose.
So therefore the rest who haven't brought in a living wage would be barred from distributing dividends?
Correct?
Of course the banks have signed up to it since it doesn't affect them. When you have graduate starting salaries at £30-40k then it really doesn't matter what the government says the minimum/living wage is since the vast majority (if not all) of staff will be earning way over that level anyway.