Minimum wage would have to DOUBLE to cover cut tax credits
The minimum wage would have to be increased to almost £12 an hour for families to have an acceptable standard of living without tax credits, George Osborne has been warned.
However, a new analysis by the independent think tank the Resolution Foundation has found the minimum wage would have to increase to the equivalent of £22,700 a year if the state top ups were withdrawn.
It found that even the much higher living wage – currently set at £9.15 an hour in London – would not 'permit households to cope without in-work support'.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3150897/Minimum-wage-DOUBLE-12-hour-families-live-without-tax-credits.html#ixzz3f7wEyF6v
All the while Osborne helps push up house prices even further.
However, a new analysis by the independent think tank the Resolution Foundation has found the minimum wage would have to increase to the equivalent of £22,700 a year if the state top ups were withdrawn.
It found that even the much higher living wage – currently set at £9.15 an hour in London – would not 'permit households to cope without in-work support'.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3150897/Minimum-wage-DOUBLE-12-hour-families-live-without-tax-credits.html#ixzz3f7wEyF6v
All the while Osborne helps push up house prices even further.
0
Comments
And to cover what's he's doing to social housing.
Even the increase of the lower tax bracket so nobody full time working on NMW pays any tax - thereby increasing the money that the worker has and reducing the roundabout of people being taxed only to get the money back in the form of tax credits (assuming they meet the deadline to apply in the first place).
Of course it does, Tories are not going to raise minimum wage and risk businesses losing profits.
Why should the taxpayer subsidise the wages of private businesses? The minimum wage has not increased in line with inflation, so increasing it will not harm businesses.
The question therefore is how many of these businesses will go to the wall when their workers walk to somewhere better paid or into unemployment when work becomes unaffordable
I expect that is the final solution, yes.
So what will be the solution or replacement or are they happy to push even more people into poverty?
Nobody will be in poverty as the definition of poverty is being redefined.
Hi Jol,
Do you have a link to the original report from the Resolution Foundation? I can't find it on their website.
All seems like a load of bonkers speculation to get the Daily Mail crowd and anti-Tory brigade excited.... I am shocked you fell for it.
However it does also say "'The rate for a lone parent with two kids would need to be over £14, while for a childless couple it falls to well below the national minimum wage at under £5."
Are you in favour of the minimum wage being dropped to below £5 for some adults? That's what happens when you pick and choose statistics.
Most of the quotes from the Daily Mail are from this article:
http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/media/blog/will-wages-fill-the-tax-credit-gap-dont-budget-for-it/
Interesting:
"...the Living Wage set at a level that would permit households to cope without in-work support. Its calculation is predicated on full take-up of tax credits, housing benefit and so on. If in-work support is cut then, as night follows day, the Living Wage will rise.
For example, if we exclude in-work support then the level of the London Living Wage leaps from £9.15 to £11.65; 80 per cent higher than the current minimum wage. Anyone thinking that something like this might happen anytime soon needs to take a long walk."
Those figures include currently available 'in-work' support, so include benefits received based on 2014 data. In other words, that level of wages plus benefits.
The government and tax payer has and does props up the housing market causing prices to be out of reach of ordinary working people.. The Tories seem to throw the free market out the window when it comes to property.
Thank you, not sure why I couldn't locate it. I guess it's a vaguely interesting blog piece on a hypothetical situation. Meaningless for the budget however.
Don't leave it there... let's hear how buyers are being manipulated by the government to offer more than they would like for houses that they want to buy.
Since you are making this political can you remind us of the change in property prices under Labour from 1997 to 2010?
Governments of both parties distort the free market to suit them. On property alone they're cut from the same cloth - both champion handouts to homeowners and BTLers (landlords' benefit, help to buy, tax incentives) while doing next to nothing about the lack of supply.
You do realise that most of the house price boom that we're experiencing today, happened during the Labour government? Houses were much more affordable in 1997 than in 2010, and it hasn't got that much worse for most of the country in the last 5 years.
This would go against your idea of "Tory toff fat cat banker's bonuses bullingdon bad, Labour marvellous, wonderful, good"
If we can;t stop them coming then we have to make it to expensive to come.
If the jobs are being created then you need workers, workers need a home. You might as well blame the government and buisness for creating the jobs, and not the migrant workers. Unless you want the government and buisnesses to turn down investment in jobs,
Or people could just work harder and longer if they can't get a decent job.