National living wage will destroy jobs says ex-sainsburys chief

[adrea]

Eh?

wage £13963 + benefits £10430 = gross £29,195

Her take home pay is £12,582 + £10,430 IWB = £23,012 net income, meaning she needs a gross income of £29,195 to stop her dependence on state support.

 

No she shouldn't be paid double her wage, but no-ones arguing that she should, nor should either of the couple be paid less than her.

 

The benefits she receives are a stupidly high amount in proportion to her hours/wage but they are a consequence of the society we live in.

Running those figures through entitled to, produces a weekly rent of £120,

So approx;

1.5k-tax

6k -rent

1k -energy

1k -council tax

.3k -water

 

I'm nearly at 10 thousand already! add in food(4k), transport (?), clothes,(?)

and the other million little bits of cost modern life throws at you..

 

That's why she should be paid £7.20 ph,

That's why the likes of Justin king has no concept of what he's talking about.

He's a rich man and all good to him for it, but his concern is for the profit a business can make and as such his opinion should be treated accordingly.

 

Paying her £7.20 an hour won't make her any better off and won't stop her needing state support. It will make those workers that don't need state support better off though.

 

---------- Post added 31-08-2015 at 11:42 ----------

 

the opposite is true. The hourly wage isnt high enough And it doesnt matter about hours...qualify tax credits are 30 hours +, while part time workers have benefits slashed So work doesnt pay.

So both sets of low wage workers have a problem. The only way currently for retail staff etc is to work lots of hours. Great for supermarkets being fed state subsidies, bad for workers.

 

16 hours if you have kids and no qualifying hours for HB and CTB.

 

A single person living in rented accommodation with no kids and working full time on MW will get no benefits.

If they only work 30 hours they get WTC, HB, and CTB.

If they only work 10 hours they still get HB and CTB.

 

---------- Post added 31-08-2015 at 11:48 ----------

 

Yes, but that's not an accurate description of how/why housing in this country is at silly prices.

 

The housing stock in the country is artificially controlled and manipulated to an extent it bears little correlation with 'reality'.

The removal of social housing, and the restrictions on building are primary reasons why the prices are unrealistic.

 

for example I've bought an ex council house at over 100k. It probably cost

<£1000 in materials and labour to build, it probably paid for itself many times over, it would have cost about £200 a month to rent off the council.

I pay over £600/m in mortgage payments.

 

I should never have had the opportunity to buy it.

 

It's a self fulfilling prophecy for obvious reasons, throw in btl and %50 of minimum wage soon starts going on rent.

 

The sale of council houses to their long standing tenants didn't cause house prices to rise.

How many immigrants will come to live in the UK next year?

Where will they want to live?

These will need an answer so that you can plan where to build the new houses needed to accommodate the increase in population size.

 

---------- Post added 31-08-2015 at 12:02 ----------

 

In the uk its caused by state subsitence. If the state stopped in work benefits tomorrow the housing market would collapse.

That's right and it falls under affordability which I mentioned.

 

 

The proposals are flawed as a living stabdards rise...if the real living wage was introduced people would be 'better off'. But thats not what this is about.

Everyone apart form the people claiming IWB would be better off.

 

 

As it stands all osborne is doing is decreasing the state bill and placing the emphasis on business to pick up the slack.

Business won't just need to pay more to those workers claiming IWB though, so their costs will go up by more than is saved, they will either pass those costs on, increasing the cost of living, or reduce costs by reducing the number of employees, lower profits also mean they will pay less tax.

 

 

People will not be better off. Maybe the same in some cases.

 

People that don't claim IWB will be better off until the cost of living increases to compensate for increased business costs or they loose their job.

[psynuk]

The sale of council houses to their long standing tenants didn't cause house prices to rise.

How many immigrants will come to live in the UK next year?

Where will they want to live?

These will need an answer so that you can plan where to build the new houses needed to accommodate the increase in population size.

 

by your own reasoning the sale did cause house prices to rise- supply and demand.

The 'long standing tenant' bit is just a squirmy answer.

 

Immigration plays a part as does, increasing student numbers, more divorce, longer living, land banking, council demolition etc etc. Council sell off, and btl investing are key reasons.

 

No matter how you try and spin it, the likelihood is someone doing a min wage job equivalent a few decades ago would be in subsidised council housing

the rent would be affordable to them.

Now, someone who is on min wage gets a handout because they are being priced out of the rental market, because their energy, food and water bills are forever spiralling up, but the wage isn't.

 

The difference ironically is the council didn't really have a an interest in pushing up rent prices, but investors do and now that chickens come home to roost because their still paying for it through wtc etc.

[gomgeg]

Unfortunately we've always had "low paid workers" and always will have, the term is relative, if the NMW was raised to £20 per hour inflation would quickly errode it back to the same level that it was before, also unfortunately we on here won't solve it, if we could we'd be in government.

[TJC1]

Unfortunately we've always had "low paid workers" and always will have, the term is relative, if the NMW was raised to £20 per hour inflation would quickly errode it back to the same level that it was before, also unfortunately we on here won't solve it, if we could we'd be in government.

 

Nobody is saying 20 quid

The Rowntree institute put it at about 8 quid

[psynuk]

true, but I think his point is there's always going to be someone at the bottom and if there isn't then things will change until there is.