Minimum wage vs pension & benefits levels

[chem1st]

You believe that someone on their first day of work ever should be given at least as much as someone who has (hopefully) worked and paid into the system for most of their life.

What makes you think that this would be fair? Why does an unskilled, inexperienced person new to the job market deserve as much as someone retiring?

 

Pension credit is paid to people regardless of whether they have worked or not. These people may not have worked a single day in their lives. It's more than minimum wage when associated benefits are taken into account.

 

Somebody who is working deserves at least the same as what is paid to someone whom might have never ever worked. Especially when they are the ones whom are paying for the others pension.

[Greybeard]

Of course - they're means tested. We're deciding how to blow our nest egg as I write.

 

 

Don't be too hasty. In fact you can now have £10k in savings without losing any of your pension credit. Above that figure for each £500 of savings you're deemed to receive an income of £1/week and your pension credit will be reduced by that amount.

 

A basic outline of the rules here...

 

http://www.saga.co.uk/money/pensions/savings-and-pension-credit.asp

 

How savings levels affect CBT and HB isn't explained and this will probably be more important for poor pensioners than the loss of a pound or two from their pension credit.

[iansheff]

if your 60 or near 60 heading north is correct you just answer questions on the phone and providing you have less than £6000 in savings you will recieve pension credit

 

Yes and then the employment figures fall don't they? from what I understand from someone who was told to take pension credits you are no longer classed as unemployed. Also if you are almost pensionable age and unemployed and have a mortgage protection scheme paying your mortgage this stops if you take pension credits, so some people cannot afford to take them.

[Obelix]

I don't see anyone on here making excuses for being skint or moaning about their pension. Most of us are very happy ... 100 years ago we'd probably have been picking oakum or slaving doing washing in a workhouse for our keep, rather than being freely given £250 towards our fuel costs.

 

I agree with MsMacBeth. It'd be much cheaper and easier to administer to dispense with all the universal and means tested freebies, make the pension up to a reasonable living 'wage', and then claw any excess back in tax from people who either have independent wealth, a pp or carry on working.

 

Scuse me, but I'm paying into a private penison now, but I fully expect to get my state pension as well since I'm paying my NI stamps too. If you want to make it so I don't get a state pension because - unlike the feckless Gordo - I was prudent enough to save in the good times, well if you want to do that I'd like those stamps back please so I can stick them in my pension.

[Guest]

It raised the pay for many many jobs when it was introduced, but you claim that it was already too low.

Whenever I hear this sort of claim it just makes the claimee sound like they expect more than they're skills are worth.

What does your son do that makes you think it's worth more than NMW as it stands?

 

It raised the pay for many jobs because those people were working for slave labour wages - this still doesn't mean that NMW was set at a reasonable level when it was introduced - it was too low.

 

There are people who's educational or skill levels are quite low - not everyone is ultra intelligent. Do you mean that these people should be kept on low wages & exploited all their lives through no fault of there own. Skilled jobs are not the only ones which are useful to society - we can't all be brain surgeons but a man who empties the bins etc is still performing a worthwhile and much needed service and should be properly remunerated for it. There are many jobs which have low skill levels but are still important.

 

My son is a qualified tradesman working for a well known firm of consultants who, believe it or not, are comparable with an employer out of a Charles Dickens book such as "Scrooge". We dont THINK he's worth more - we KNOW he's worth more.

[Guest]

To be fair, this is rubbish in that you appear to be infering that all who are pensioners today worked, there are many of penionable age today who where workshy when of work age and able, just as there are some who choose to work past pensionable age

 

You may not know this but there was actually a law in the old days which could make you work - "refusing to maintain yourself" - and I recall reading the odd court case when someone was jailed for this.

 

However, in the 50's 60's and most of the way through the 70's, there were plenty of jobs (albeit, some very low paid) and almost everyone worked until our governments, in their wisdom, allowed or actively encouraged (as in the case of the miners) many industries to go to the wall. I only recall knowing ONE person who never worked in those days so it's your theory which is a load of rubbish.

[ratter71]

You may not know this but there was actually a law in the old days which could make you work - "refusing to maintain yourself" - and I recall reading the odd court case when someone was jailed for this.

 

However, in the 50's 60's and most of the way through the 70's, there were plenty of jobs (albeit, some very low paid) and almost everyone worked until our governments, in their wisdom, allowed or actively encouraged (as in the case of the miners) many industries to go to the wall. I only recall knowing ONE person who never worked in those days so it's your theory which is a load of rubbish.

 

"in those days" refering to the 50s/60s/70s/?? what about the 80s/90s/00s?

I refuse to believe ( in fact i know its not true) that not one person who is drawing state pension today was workshy and chose benefits when able to work

[Bulgarian]

I refuse to believe ( in fact i know its not true) that not one person who is drawing state pension today was workshy and chose benefits when able to work

 

"in the old days" didn't lots of women choose to stay at home and raise their kids rather than work ?

[Guest]

"in those days" refering to the 50s/60s/70s/?? what about the 80s/90s/00s?

I refuse to believe ( in fact i know its not true) that not one person who is drawing state pension today was workshy and chose benefits when able to work

 

When referring to the 80's onwards, yes the picture does change a bit but, as I said, many industries were closing down and throwing workers on the scrapheap.

I haven't claimed that "not one person" was workshy but that the majority worked if they could. Many older men with specialised skills were thrown onto a job market which could do nothing for them.

 

If you want everyone working which, is the ideal, then stop picking on pensioners and have a go at the government to start creating some jobs.

Despite what Cameron says, you cannot get people off benefits if there are no jobs to put them into. There are too many selfish people who are doing very nicely but resent providing the help which is needed for those at the bottom of the pile.

[Cyclone]

You could argue that NMW should exist because of time.

 

Whatever you do, if you do 8 hours a day, you do 8 hours a day. So whatever your job, you have lost the same amount of time. NMW should reflect this, it should be a minimum payment for the amount of time you have worked, and then any payment above NMW should be with regards to their skills, or lack thereof.

 

That's how it currently is. It's not an argument for raising the level though.