[sidicks]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

he is 100% correct in that most available jobs are low paid "leave people in greater finacial unstability with the low pay leaving them even poorer"Not rocket science is it?

Even poorer than not having a job??

If that is the case, then that is exactly why benefits need to be reduced to ensure that work pays....

Sidicks

[Berties]

If that is the case, then that is exactly why benefits need to be reduced to ensure that work pays....

Or wages need to go up? Anyone here on NMW with own place, transport and able to buy food that isn't in reduced section all the time, eating gruel and generally being hungry all the time? With just pennies left?

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by Berties

Or wages need to go up? Anyone here on NMW with own place, transport and able to buy food that isn't in reduced section all the time, eating gruel and generally being hungry all the time? With just pennies left?

Why do they need their own place if they have no means of paying for it ?

[John F]

Originally Posted by sidicks

Why do they need their own place if they have no means of paying for it ?

I see you have not responded to my questions again.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by John F

What do you class as a low wage? Anyone working fulltime (37.5h) on nmw will be paying income tax and ni. If they have a family they will get child tax credit & working tax credit.

They may also be entitled to help with their housing cost's and council tax. Is it any wonder we have whole families looking at what they would be left with after paying bill's etc and deciding not to work.

They would only be paying a small amount of tax as they would not be that far over the threshold.

So someone full time on minimum wage might also get tax credits, housing benefits and council tax benefits?

Sounds like if they are still worse off than someone on benefits that the benefits are too high...

Originally Posted by John F

What bugs me as much as this is, because a lot of the UK's largest firm's are paying nmw or just above we are not only subsidising working people we are also subsidising these large firms and their shareholders.

Unfortunately for many people the cost of employing them is higher than the value they add, when they are paid minimum wage.

Originally Posted by John F

I would rather than these firms payed their workers a sensible liveable wage and payed less tax than the way we do it now. But we all know this will never happen.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg....?

If benefits weren't so high then taxes could be reduced and then maybe it would be much easier to employ people on low wages at a 'sensible liveable wage', whatever that means.....


Sidicks

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by sidicks

Even poorer than not having a job??

If that is the case, then that is exactly why benefits need to be reduced to ensure that work pays....

Sidicks

what needs to be done, and I reiterate ,is to target some of the benefit to those who find work, therefore making it more worthwhile.The benefits themselves only look generous for people with largish families , otherwise they are very paltry. i know families who have had to survive on them ,aand its no picnic thats for sure.They were fortunate in some ways because they had family and friends willing to help them out.I myself gave one single parent daughter of a friend a dvd player and did some garden work for her gratis so the kids could play.
I would also like to see more flexibilty allowing claimants to work more than 16 hours pw.Its really about making the system work in a positive way and not allowing anyone to drop below a certain level , be they at work or not.To my mind it should be possible to ensure a person takes home £250-300 pw inc benefits.With outgoings of ,say, £200 inc food rent utility bills ,it should leave him enough to save for a nice holiday in Spain and a few luxuries.C oupks living together could effectively double their spending power and have some sort of quality of life

[la gran siete]

Originally Posted by sidicks

Why do they need their own place if they have no means of paying for it ?

you rather they live in a tent?

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

you rather they live in a tent?

Yes, of course, that's the only alternative...


When I first started work, I couldn't afford a place of my own, so I shared with other people.

It seems a fairly reasonable and straightforward approach for someone living at the expense of the taxpayer to have to do the same....

It would also increase availability of houses for other people, and thereby potentially reduce rents. Of course from a selfish persepctive you'd be against this as you have 2 houses rented out....



Sidicks

[John F]

Originally Posted by sidicks

They would only be paying a small amount of tax as they would not be that far over the threshold.

So someone full time on minimum wage might also get tax credits, housing benefits and council tax benefits?

Sounds like if they are still worse off than someone on benefits that the benefits are too high...


Unfortunately for many people the cost of employing them is higher than the value they add, when they are paid minimum wage.


Which came first, the chicken or the egg....?

If benefits weren't so high then taxes could be reduced and then maybe it would be much easier to employ people on low wages at a 'sensible liveable wage', whatever that means.....


Sidicks

I have heard some right wing clap trap in my time but you take the biscuit. Companies are making billions profit and paying the workers nmw. Reduce the profits and give their staff a decent liveable wage and they work not have to claim working benefits. That way more money into the economy creates more jobs and more people into work, tax receipts go up.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by John F

I have heard some right wing clap trap in my time but you take the biscuit.

I've heard some insulting left wing whingers in my time, and you still have a long way to go...

Originally Posted by John F

Companies are making billions profit and paying the workers nmw.

Some companies might be - plenty are not.

That profit is taxed.

1. Billion profit means billions in tax.
2. That profit belongs to the shareholders who have invested in the business and taken on the risks involved.

Originally Posted by John F

Reduce the profits and give their staff a decent liveable wage and they work not have to claim working benefits. That way more money into the economy creates more jobs and more people into work, tax receipts go up.

If you pay unskilled workers more then skilled workers rightly demand more etc etc - so the company doesn't make enough money and hence has to close....

Sidicks

[GAZBEROTTEN]

Originally Posted by John F

I have heard some right wing clap trap in my time but you take the biscuit.

This is exactly what me and la gran siete have been putting up with for months

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by GAZBEROTTEN

This is exactly what me and la gran siete have been putting up with for months

Alternatively, we've been putting up with your ill-informed ignorance for the same ampunt of time.

I'll ask again, what are your extensive qualifications that you believe entitle you to higher wages??

Sidicks

[GAZBEROTTEN]

Originally Posted by sidicks

Alternatively, we've been putting up with your ill-informed ignorance for the same ampunt of time.

I'll ask again, what are your extensive qualifications that you believe entitle you to higher wages??

Sidicks

Let me get this straight you think anyone without any extensive qualifications should not receive a higher wage?.


From that reply its clear you never stopped to take into consideration on the job training or the governments funding available to employers to train these people for getting that job. Oh look i just posted something that isn't ill informed.

I wont answer your question because guess what i don't have to and even if i did you would still find a way to disagree.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by GAZBEROTTEN

Let me get this straight you think anyone without any extensive qualifications should not receive a higher wage?.

I didn't say that. What I would say is that people with no useful skills should set their wage expectations accordingly.....

Originally Posted by GAZBEROTTEN

From that reply its clear you never stopped to take into consideration on the job training or the governments funding available to employers to train these people for getting that job. Oh look i just posted something that isn't ill informed.

???
As people become more skilled, they can command higher wages (which is one of the key motivations for people to improve their lot through training)...

As you have pointed out, it is available through the employer and through government (which means taxpayers) training programs, leaving people with fewer excuses to blame others....

Originally Posted by GAZBEROTTEN

I wont answer your question because guess what i don't have to

I think your silence on the matter says all we need to know!

Sidicks

[GAZBEROTTEN]

Originally Posted by sidicks

I didn't say that. What I would say is that people with no useful skills should set their wage expectations accordingly.....


I think your silence on the matter says all we need to know!

Sidicks

Did you read my whole post because it looks like you just didn't do so

And again i am under no obligation to reveal what qualifications i have got.

Originally Posted by sidicks

As people become more skilled, they can command higher wages (which is one of the key motivations for people to improve their lot through training)...

Originally Posted by sidicks

I'll ask again, what are your extensive qualifications that you believe entitle you to higher wages??

Sidicks

Are you sure you didn't ask that because your above post imply's so to me.

[John F]

Originally Posted by sidicks

I've heard some insulting left wing whingers in my time, and you still have a long way to go...


Some companies might be - plenty are not.

That profit is taxed.



If you pay unskilled workers more then skilled workers rightly demand more etc etc - so the company doesn't make enough money and hence has to close....

Sidicks

Typical ******, opps I mean banker's response. I have no political standing of any persuasion and if you taken the time to read any of my posts you would see that. There are plenty of companies making billions profit and the state is supporting them and their shareholders including letting them have people working for them for nothing on government sponsered get back to work scheme's .

I have already said by giving the workers a decent liveable wage, that would reduce the said companies profits so would reduce their tax burden and instead of the profits going to the shareholders et al would go straight back into the economy as people would have more money to spend, therefore the more people spend the more profits increase and so more jods are created.

It does not follow suit that because unskilled workers get a rise the skilled workers would, all it does is narrow the gap.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by John F

Typical ******, opps I mean banker's response. I have no political standing of any persuasion and if you taken the time to read any of my posts you would see that. There are plenty of companies making billions profit and the state is supporting them and their shareholders including letting them have people working for them for nothing on government sponsered get back to work scheme's .

Suggest you stop hurling iinsults, or you'll be warned and potentially get the thread closed.

Originally Posted by John F

I have already said by giving the workers a decent liveable wage, that would reduce the said companies profits so would reduce their tax burden and instead of the profits going to the shareholders et al would go straight back into the economy as people would have more money to spend, therefore the more people spend the more profits increase and so more jods are created.

Lower tax burden but lower earnings for shareholders, the owners of the business and the ones taking the risk. Many of those shareholders are the pension funds of ordinary people trying to set aside money for their retirements....

If you own a business, you are welcome to employ individuals at whatever level you see fit.

Originally Posted by John F

It does not follow suit that because unskilled workers get a rise the skilled workers would, all it does is narrow the gap.

If there is little differentiation between skilled and unskilled work, why would an individual make personal sacrifces to become skilled??

As useful, it's down to individuals to control their own destiny not expect someone else to pick uo the tab....

Sidicks

[IronGiant]

Originally Posted by GAZBEROTTEN

Are you sure you didn't ask that because your above post imply's so to me.

In a previous post you outlined your experience, which is creditable, but not extensive, and not in itself probably enough to command a high salary. So sidicks was asking whether you had higher qualifications that might justify aspiring to a well paid job.

You don't have to answer him of course

[GAZBEROTTEN]

Originally Posted by John F

Typical ******, opps I mean banker's response. I have no political standing of any persuasion and if you taken the time to read any of my posts you would see that. There are plenty of companies making billions profit and the state is supporting them and their shareholders including letting them have people working for them for nothing on government sponsered get back to work scheme's .

I have already said by giving the workers a decent liveable wage, that would reduce the said companies profits so would reduce their tax burden and instead of the profits going to the shareholders et al would go straight back into the economy as people would have more money to spend, therefore the more people spend the more profits increase and so more jods are created.

It does not follow suit that because unskilled workers get a rise the skilled workers would, all it does is narrow the gap.

There lies the problem the Minimum Wage is just to low. Raising it to a decent level will practically motivate enough people to take the jobs and then the welfare bill wouldn't be all that high.

Yes companys should make profit but not when its insane amounts running into billions. Its not like the company's involved could not afford to boast staffs wages as they would still make profit anyway.

Doing this gives the staff reasons to continue working hard for them and would make more people want to work for them with decent wages.

[GAZBEROTTEN]

Originally Posted by sidicks

Suggest you stop hurling iinsults, or you'll be warned and potentially get the thread closed.


Sidicks

He didn't hurl an insult at you. What he did was show you that he disagreed and what he thought of your comment.

Warning him for posting his opinion is like censorship

Originally Posted by IronGiant

In a previous post you outlined your experience, which is creditable, but not extensive, and not in itself probably enough to command a high salary. So sidicks was asking whether you had higher qualifications that might justify aspiring to a well paid job.

You don't have to answer him of course

Clarify to me me and others as to what you think a low and high salary is. One qualification i have that im not ashamed to admit to having is a GNVQ Business graded at a near Distinction in fact one unit of from having a distinction.

[John F]

Originally Posted by sidicks

Suggest you stop hurling iinsults, or you'll be warned and potentially get the thread closed.



Lower tax burden but lower earnings for shareholders, the owners of the business and the ones taking the risk. Many of those shareholders are the pension funds of ordinary people trying to set aside money for their retirements....


If there is little differentiation between skilled and unskilled work, why would an individual make personal sacrifces to become skilled??

As useful, it's down to individuals to control their own destiny not expect someone else to pick uo the tab....

Sidicks

Your the one who started hurling insults around. You have no reply to why it is ok for companies who make billions yet get free workers. The big companies do not give a flying fig about their shareholders only about the top line. A wise man once told me, do not argue with an idiot or a tory as it will only bring you down to their level.

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by GAZBEROTTEN

Are you sure you didn't ask that because your above post imply's so to me.

I've no idea what you are talking about.

You claimed the following:

Originally Posted by GAZBEROTTEN

Not to mention tons of education and qualifications to go with all of that...

You keep claiming you have all these qualifications that should entitle you to higher wages, but refuse to explain what they are (which would make your case somewhat stronger if you did so...)

Sidicks

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by John F

Your the one who started hurling insults around.

Really?

Originally Posted by John F

I have heard some right wing clap trap in my time but you take the biscuit

Originally Posted by John F

Typical ******, opps I mean banker's response

Originally Posted by John F

You have no reply to why it is ok for companies who make billions yet get free workers.

I understand that with the minimum wage as it is, companies would currently not choose to employe extra staff. Under some current schemes, some unemployed get useful job experience by working part time at selected companies. Those companies still have the costs of training and supervision.

For the individuals involved it is a useful opportunity.

Originally Posted by John F

The big companies do not give a flying fig about their shareholders only about the top line. A wise man once told me, do not argue with an idiot or a tory as it will only bring you down to their level.

More insults...

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by GAZBEROTTEN

He didn't hurl an insult at you. What he did was show you that he disagreed and what he thought of your comment.

Warning him for posting his opinion is like censorship

Maybe you should re-read his posts...

Originally Posted by GAZBEROTTEN

Clarify to me me and others as to what you think a low and high salary is. One qualification i have that im not ashamed to admit to having is a GNVQ Business graded at a near Distinction in fact one unit of from having a distinction.

At what level?


So not a distinction then?

Sidicks

[IronGiant]

Originally Posted by GAZBEROTTEN

Clarify to me me and others as to what you think a low and high salary is.

Relative to what?

Discuss...

[dejongj]

Originally Posted by la gran siete

what needs to be done, and I reiterate ,is to target some of the benefit to those who find work, therefore making it more worthwhile.The benefits themselves only look generous for people with largish families , otherwise they are very paltry. i know families who have had to survive on them ,aand its no picnic thats for sure.They were fortunate in some ways because they had family and friends willing to help them out.I myself gave one single parent daughter of a friend a dvd player and did some garden work for her gratis so the kids could play.
I would also like to see more flexibilty allowing claimants to work more than 16 hours pw.Its really about making the system work in a positive way and not allowing anyone to drop below a certain level , be they at work or not.To my mind it should be possible to ensure a person takes home £250-300 pw inc benefits.With outgoings of ,say, £200 inc food rent utility bills ,it should leave him enough to save for a nice holiday in Spain and a few luxuries.C oupks living together could effectively double their spending power and have some sort of quality of life

Wow, just wow. A holiday in Spain is now a an essential.


@gazberotten, a low income to me would be one at the nmw a high income, well there is no such thing, the sky is the limit when you work hard for it :thumbs:

@Johnf: I must say I pity your upbringing, talk about a predetermined blinkered view that has been instilled in you. No wonder you see that perspective as the only possibility. Shame.

[John F]

Originally Posted by dejongj

Wow, just wow. A holiday in Spain is now a an essential.


@gazberotten, a low income to me would be one at the nmw a high income, well there is no such thing, the sky is the limit when you work hard for it :thumbs:

@Johnf: I must say I pity your upbringing, talk about a predetermined blinkered view that has been instilled in you. No wonder you see that perspective as the only possibility. Shame.

I do not need any of your pity as I had a very stable upbringing with my parents and siblings (not that its any of your business but my parents are still together after 50 years) infact my upbringing was that bad 2 of my siblings could afford to retire at 40 and my father at 52. I have a job that pays pretty decent, I enjoy doing my job and have the skills to get into any country that needs them. What blinkered view do I have? That people should be paid a fair days pay for a fair days work no matter if they are unskilled or skilled.

[phil t]

Originally Posted by GAZBEROTTEN

Clarify to me me and others as to what you think a low and high salary is.

Surely it’s all relative dependent upon chosen profession, qualifications, time in service, working environment, hours worked each week, etc?

[sidicks]

Originally Posted by John F

I do not need any of your pity as I had a very stable upbringing with my parents and siblings (not that its any of your business but my parents are still together after 50 years) infact my upbringing was that bad 2 of my siblings could afford to retire at 40 and my father at 52. I have a job that pays pretty decent, I enjoy doing my job and have the skills to get into any country that needs them. What blinkered view do I have? That people should be paid a fair days pay for a fair days work no matter if they are unskilled or skilled.

What special advantages did your siblings have which allowed them to retire so young?

[dejongj]

Originally Posted by John F

I do not need any of your pity as I had a very stable upbringing with my parents and siblings (not that its any of your business but my parents are still together after 50 years) infact my upbringing was that bad 2 of my siblings could afford to retire at 40 and my father at 52. I have a job that pays pretty decent, I enjoy doing my job and have the skills to get into any country that needs them. What blinkered view do I have? That people should be paid a fair days pay for a fair days work no matter if they are unskilled or skilled.

Lol none of that, I don't know and I don't care. But you do seem to listen to what you call a wise man where you put all Tories on the same category as idiots down below your level