Millibrain does not have a clue about ordinary people. £8 by 2020 is just a rise of about 30p an hour for each of the next 5 years , seriously. Is the living wage not around £7.60 at the moment.
Meanwhile back in la la land the MPs have just received a pay rise of around £11 000 pa
How about a maximum wage that stops people (footballers) from earning obscene amounts of money.
If someone offered you £200,000 a week for kicking a ball around a field would you refuse it? Of course not.
Same goes for actors, writers and singers. They are paid what the market says they are worth. If someone wins a TV talent show and sells a million records then why shouldn't they get a fair cut of that income? If you become the next JK Rowling and sell tens of millions of books then why should you be limited by a maximum wage?
So it's going up 19p to £6.50 shortly. Let's assume it goes up by 25p for 2015-2020 (they keep saying the minimum wage will start to increase faster, ha!), that's £7.75. by 2020. So what they're actually offering is 25p an hour extra....not exactly as flashy as the headline figure.
If they said "we'd whackup Min wage to £8 by next October, then I'd be the first to give them credit, unfortunately with Labour, they promise you something that sounds great but you have to wait 5years for it and by then you'd almost have it by default anyways.
Its odder than that.
Labour are now saying its self financing by tax take, credits and benefits unpaid. But, if thats even partly true, it can't be a substanial net gain for the people earning the new wage.
If it was a gain, someone on 40 hours a week would pocket £ 3000 a year.
You might argue that would bring out some social group D and E voters to vote for Labour.
However, Milliband also opens himself up to attack on the equity front - because he now looks as if he is just giving things away to Labour voting groups like Scots and now the poorly paid . . As everyone just above the limit will be facing price rises to pay for the extra pay, and wage differentials will be collapsing, it hardly offers much to anyone earning more than £8. A campaign manifesto of - Scots get Barnett and voting rights - England gets nothing and pays the bill. Very poor get £3k- and squeezed middke gets squeezed more - looks unlikely to succeed.
Worse, it opens up the ground for attacks on other fronts. UKIP will point out that many of the people gaining the £3k will be poor, unqualified, immigrants. Its going to attract a lot of negative attention from that angle. People in the south will note that it fails to meet their greater costs - making Labour look pro-north - as well as pro Scots, anti- middle class and pro immigrant. Add on the Welsh voters angry at Scots getting more money and more powers, and Milliband's appeal outside the North looks likely to be a major election issue.
Its also a policy that can be overmatched by a more ambitious and imaginative counter. The Liberals can offer a bigger bribe and extend it to more voters. The Conservatives could match it to income tax allowances and offer more, to more. Indeed, you could tie it to devolution, and follow the logic that minimum wages, or setting a living wage, might be an obvious issue to devolve to national or local level.
. So you have finally said if Labour keep the LPC it should follow its recommendations and yet you castigate Osborne for doing just that. I think the point I made about duplicity earlier in the thread was well made
I think it is pretty obvious to every person on this thread (except 1) than I am attacking Osbourne for telling us that £7 is affordable and then doing nothing about it. (FACT). He accepted the recommendation for each previous year...
What is the point of having a policy which allows the Chancellor to accept or reject the recommendation and then not rejecting it in the year that he says he wants £7?? I look forward to hearing your views after you ponder your own argument. LOL.
It seems pretty clear that he had no intention of increasing the NMW. I will therefore put him in same category as the scumbags who voted to stop the NMW and thus keep millions of women on wages of £1.50 or £2 an hour and thus condemned to eat Pet Food to stay alive.
I will be reminding the forum of this at every opportunity.
Thank goodness they failed.
Good luck with your pathetic defence of the indefensible.
I think it is pretty obvious to every person on this thread (except 1) than I am attacking Osbourne for telling us that £7 is affordable and then doing nothing about it. (FACT). He accepted the recommendation for each previous year...
What is the point of having a policy which allows the Chancellor to accept or reject the recommendation and then not rejecting it in the year that he says he wants £7?? I look forward to hearing your views after you ponder your own argument. LOL.
It seems pretty clear that he had no intention of increasing the NMW. I will therefore put him in same category as the scumbags who voted to stop the NMW and thus keep millions of women on wages of £1.50 or £2 an hour and thus condemned to eat Pet Food to stay alive.
I will be reminding the forum of this at every opportunity.
Thank goodness they failed.
Good luck with your pathetic defence of the indefensible.
Gosh, you're an incredibly angry person aren't you? Does anyone ever really bother to reply your posts? You need to take a chill pill and start relaxing a bit more. Too much anger is bad for blood pressure.
Btw, Osborne was advised by the Low Pay Commission that by increasing the NMW to £7 this year could cause damage to the economy due to businesses restricting the amount of staff they take on and pay. Whilst large companies could afford the increase, many smaller companies are still struggling as our economy grows. It is still the Conservatives intention to raise the NMW if they are elected at May's GE.
I think it is pretty obvious to every person on this thread (except 1) than I am attacking Osbourne for telling us that £7 is affordable and then doing nothing about it. (FACT). He accepted the recommendation for each previous year...
What is the point of having a policy which allows the Chancellor to accept or reject the recommendation and then not rejecting it in the year that he says he wants £7?? I look forward to hearing your views after you ponder your own argument. LOL.
It seems pretty clear that he had no intention of increasing the NMW. I will therefore put him in same category as the scumbags who voted to stop the NMW and thus keep millions of women on wages of £1.50 or £2 an hour and thus condemned to eat Pet Food to stay alive.
I will be reminding the forum of this at every opportunity.
Thank goodness they failed.
Good luck with your pathetic defence of the indefensible.
Would those scumbags be the same as the ones who voted a pension increase of 75 pence per week ? No thought not. Seems scumbags come in all colours of the political rainbow.
As to what you are attacking well to be fair it is varied throughout the thread. You are now back on your hobby horse of blaming Osborne for accepting the LPC recommendation although you have admitted you would expect Labour to do the same unless they abolished the LPC. You are not really thinking this through are you. Imagine if Osborne had abolished the LPC to introduce the £7 minimum wage now, you would be incandescent with rage.
You can remind the forum of what you want but you only remind them of your gullibility in that you have swallowed hook line and sinker Milliband’s promise for six years hence – and we all know how reliable politicians promises are don’t we. And as has been pointed out the rate he promises for six years hence is broadly in line with what it will be with normal inflation rises. Miliband himself has said the cost will be met by reduced benefit payments and increased taxation so hardly a boon to low paid workers.
You appeared to be saying that if companies were to pay their highest earners less, there would be less money in circulation and the relative spending power of the lowest paid would rise.
Is that what you meant?
No, that's not what I was saying - and that would be plain daft. Currency is only ever printed (or these days created electronically), exchanged or destroyed. It doesn't cease to exist because it's idle.
Your original statement was worded "...if they had less" and made no mention of pay, salaries or companies - or any method you might use to reduce the net worth of the rich. I thought you were making a hypothetical argument that someone wealthier than you becoming worse off doesn't make you any wealthier. You didn't say "... if they were paid less that doesn't mean you're paid more" which would be an entirely different line of argument.
I'm still not quite sure what point you're actually trying to make.
Gosh, you're an incredibly angry person aren't you? Does anyone ever really bother to reply your posts? You need to take a chill pill and start relaxing a bit more. Too much anger is bad for blood pressure.
.
No - Not at all. Judge me over a longer period. If you still think that later I will listen carefully to you.
But I do respond to threads which contain angry posts. Feminism. Immigration. Asylum. Poverty. And I am more than aware that my questions and points are made forcefully......and make people angry.
Believe it or not, there used to be a maximum wage for footballers. It was a long time ago mind.
Yes there was. It was the players union (lead by Jimmy Hill) who got rid of it. The owners were getting rich from football while the income of those who did the work was limited.
I don't care what Labour do with the recommendations. I want them to close the gap between the NMW and the Living Wage. How they administer the yearly increases....I don't care. I just want them to do it.
The only position I have detected from you so far is that you wish to give credit to George Osbourne for "advocating" a £7 minimum wage (and thus creating a little bit of hope among the low paid).
You seem somehow to have missed the important bit ( rather important to those who currently earn £6.31 per hour) . He did not deliver. If he was a member here he would have noticed many comments from me suggesting exactly how he could deliver.
George Osbourne did not deliver.
Can I ask you if you often use the phrase: "Yes but It's the Thought That Counts"
Yes there was. It was the players union (lead by Jimmy Hill) who got rid of it. The owners were getting rich from football while the income of those who did the work was limited.
If we all belonged to a union which was as effective as the PFA, this country would be a very different place.
I'm voting for Labour for now unless another party can atleast match or better it. This is the deal clincher for me.
Minimum wage right now is a joke. Why should people who go to work and earn a honest living live less comfortably than people on benefits? doesn't make sense and shouldn't happen, these people shouldn't be losing homes the goverment needs to protect those people.
Ed raising the stakes in the election campaign, and it might tilt the tide in Labour's favour with the working class (majority) in shite jobs.
Miliband has played a blinder here I feel (and he gets a lot of stick some of it justified). It's about time the minimum wage rose as it's a joke and fair play Labour are the first to plan radical changes to the current flawed system.
Not many fans of Miliband on this forum (I'm not either), but you have to give credit where credit is due. He's willing to make radical (and I feel many people unless you are living on a fortune will feel positive) changes.
Miliband has played a blinder here I feel (and he gets a lot of stick some of it justified). It's about time the minimum wage rose as it's a joke and fair play Labour are the first to plan radical changes to the current flawed system.
Do you really think that promising that the NMW will be £8/hr by 2020 - which it would be anyway due to inflation - is "playing a blinder"? Will your rent, food, fuel bills, transport costs and other expenditure go up by less than inflation in that time? The result will be that if you stick in your NMW job you will be worse off in 2020 than you are now.
No, that's not what I was saying - and that would be plain daft. Currency is only ever printed (or these days created electronically), exchanged or destroyed. It doesn't cease to exist because it's idle.
Your original statement was worded "...if they had less" and made no mention of pay, salaries or companies - or any method you might use to reduce the net worth of the rich. I thought you were making a hypothetical argument that someone wealthier than you becoming worse off doesn't make you any wealthier. You didn't say "... if they were paid less that doesn't mean you're paid more" which would be an entirely different line of argument.
I'm still not quite sure what point you're actually trying to make.
To clarify, this discussion is about pay and not wealth.
Just heard on the news that it based on how the low income commission have raised it in the past, the NMW would have exceeded £8 per hour by 2020 anyway.
It is absurd that working people have to claim benefits
When people claim benefits when working it us a subsidy to the company they are working for and harms companies that are paying decent wages as their taxes will pay for the subsidy of other companies
Do you really think that promising that the NMW will be £8/hr by 2020 - which it would be anyway due to inflation - is "playing a blinder"? Will your rent, food, fuel bills, transport costs and other expenditure go up by less than inflation in that time? The result will be that if you stick in your NMW job you will be worse off in 2020 than you are now.
I agree that a rise which simply mirrors inflation would be completely pointless as there would be no change.
Surely we should wait for the details in the Labour Manifesto. Labourlist are reporting that the policy is for £8 by 2020. (not in 2020).
People will hate on anything Miliband does, he can't win even when he tries to do right. He gets a hard time, but can you suggest any better solutions?
Comments
Meanwhile back in la la land the MPs have just received a pay rise of around £11 000 pa
How would that make you better off?
If someone offered you £200,000 a week for kicking a ball around a field would you refuse it? Of course not.
Same goes for actors, writers and singers. They are paid what the market says they are worth. If someone wins a TV talent show and sells a million records then why shouldn't they get a fair cut of that income? If you become the next JK Rowling and sell tens of millions of books then why should you be limited by a maximum wage?
Its odder than that.
Labour are now saying its self financing by tax take, credits and benefits unpaid. But, if thats even partly true, it can't be a substanial net gain for the people earning the new wage.
If it was a gain, someone on 40 hours a week would pocket £ 3000 a year.
You might argue that would bring out some social group D and E voters to vote for Labour.
However, Milliband also opens himself up to attack on the equity front - because he now looks as if he is just giving things away to Labour voting groups like Scots and now the poorly paid . . As everyone just above the limit will be facing price rises to pay for the extra pay, and wage differentials will be collapsing, it hardly offers much to anyone earning more than £8. A campaign manifesto of - Scots get Barnett and voting rights - England gets nothing and pays the bill. Very poor get £3k- and squeezed middke gets squeezed more - looks unlikely to succeed.
Worse, it opens up the ground for attacks on other fronts. UKIP will point out that many of the people gaining the £3k will be poor, unqualified, immigrants. Its going to attract a lot of negative attention from that angle. People in the south will note that it fails to meet their greater costs - making Labour look pro-north - as well as pro Scots, anti- middle class and pro immigrant. Add on the Welsh voters angry at Scots getting more money and more powers, and Milliband's appeal outside the North looks likely to be a major election issue.
Its also a policy that can be overmatched by a more ambitious and imaginative counter. The Liberals can offer a bigger bribe and extend it to more voters. The Conservatives could match it to income tax allowances and offer more, to more. Indeed, you could tie it to devolution, and follow the logic that minimum wages, or setting a living wage, might be an obvious issue to devolve to national or local level.
I think it is pretty obvious to every person on this thread (except 1) than I am attacking Osbourne for telling us that £7 is affordable and then doing nothing about it. (FACT). He accepted the recommendation for each previous year...
What is the point of having a policy which allows the Chancellor to accept or reject the recommendation and then not rejecting it in the year that he says he wants £7?? I look forward to hearing your views after you ponder your own argument. LOL.
It seems pretty clear that he had no intention of increasing the NMW. I will therefore put him in same category as the scumbags who voted to stop the NMW and thus keep millions of women on wages of £1.50 or £2 an hour and thus condemned to eat Pet Food to stay alive.
I will be reminding the forum of this at every opportunity.
Thank goodness they failed.
Good luck with your pathetic defence of the indefensible.
Gosh, you're an incredibly angry person aren't you? Does anyone ever really bother to reply your posts? You need to take a chill pill and start relaxing a bit more. Too much anger is bad for blood pressure.
Btw, Osborne was advised by the Low Pay Commission that by increasing the NMW to £7 this year could cause damage to the economy due to businesses restricting the amount of staff they take on and pay. Whilst large companies could afford the increase, many smaller companies are still struggling as our economy grows. It is still the Conservatives intention to raise the NMW if they are elected at May's GE.
Would those scumbags be the same as the ones who voted a pension increase of 75 pence per week ? No thought not. Seems scumbags come in all colours of the political rainbow.
As to what you are attacking well to be fair it is varied throughout the thread. You are now back on your hobby horse of blaming Osborne for accepting the LPC recommendation although you have admitted you would expect Labour to do the same unless they abolished the LPC. You are not really thinking this through are you. Imagine if Osborne had abolished the LPC to introduce the £7 minimum wage now, you would be incandescent with rage.
You can remind the forum of what you want but you only remind them of your gullibility in that you have swallowed hook line and sinker Milliband’s promise for six years hence – and we all know how reliable politicians promises are don’t we. And as has been pointed out the rate he promises for six years hence is broadly in line with what it will be with normal inflation rises. Miliband himself has said the cost will be met by reduced benefit payments and increased taxation so hardly a boon to low paid workers.
Face it you have been sold a pup.
No, that's not what I was saying - and that would be plain daft. Currency is only ever printed (or these days created electronically), exchanged or destroyed. It doesn't cease to exist because it's idle.
Your original statement was worded "...if they had less" and made no mention of pay, salaries or companies - or any method you might use to reduce the net worth of the rich. I thought you were making a hypothetical argument that someone wealthier than you becoming worse off doesn't make you any wealthier. You didn't say "... if they were paid less that doesn't mean you're paid more" which would be an entirely different line of argument.
I'm still not quite sure what point you're actually trying to make.
Believe it or not, there used to be a maximum wage for footballers. It was a long time ago mind.
Ah... So you ARE making the point that if wealthy person A has their net worth reduced it doesn't benefit poorer person B?
Am I understanding you correctly?
No - Not at all. Judge me over a longer period. If you still think that later I will listen carefully to you.
But I do respond to threads which contain angry posts. Feminism. Immigration. Asylum. Poverty. And I am more than aware that my questions and points are made forcefully......and make people angry.
Yes there was. It was the players union (lead by Jimmy Hill) who got rid of it. The owners were getting rich from football while the income of those who did the work was limited.
I don't care what Labour do with the recommendations. I want them to close the gap between the NMW and the Living Wage. How they administer the yearly increases....I don't care. I just want them to do it.
The only position I have detected from you so far is that you wish to give credit to George Osbourne for "advocating" a £7 minimum wage (and thus creating a little bit of hope among the low paid).
You seem somehow to have missed the important bit ( rather important to those who currently earn £6.31 per hour) . He did not deliver. If he was a member here he would have noticed many comments from me suggesting exactly how he could deliver.
George Osbourne did not deliver.
Can I ask you if you often use the phrase: "Yes but It's the Thought That Counts"
Minimum wage right now is a joke. Why should people who go to work and earn a honest living live less comfortably than people on benefits? doesn't make sense and shouldn't happen, these people shouldn't be losing homes the goverment needs to protect those people.
Ed raising the stakes in the election campaign, and it might tilt the tide in Labour's favour with the working class (majority) in shite jobs.
Miliband has played a blinder here I feel (and he gets a lot of stick some of it justified). It's about time the minimum wage rose as it's a joke and fair play Labour are the first to plan radical changes to the current flawed system.
Not many fans of Miliband on this forum (I'm not either), but you have to give credit where credit is due. He's willing to make radical (and I feel many people unless you are living on a fortune will feel positive) changes.
Do you really think that promising that the NMW will be £8/hr by 2020 - which it would be anyway due to inflation - is "playing a blinder"? Will your rent, food, fuel bills, transport costs and other expenditure go up by less than inflation in that time? The result will be that if you stick in your NMW job you will be worse off in 2020 than you are now.
To clarify, this discussion is about pay and not wealth.
Hope that clears things up.
One is a function of the other, is it not?
There goes that policy.
When people claim benefits when working it us a subsidy to the company they are working for and harms companies that are paying decent wages as their taxes will pay for the subsidy of other companies
I agree that a rise which simply mirrors inflation would be completely pointless as there would be no change.
Surely we should wait for the details in the Labour Manifesto. Labourlist are reporting that the policy is for £8 by 2020. (not in 2020).
How do you tax someone's wealth anyway? Stick your billions in an account in the Cayman Islands and there's nothing HMRC can do about it.