New minimum wage

These are petitions from staff of B&Q and Tesco, asking that the National Minimum Wage is not given with one hand while being taken from other areas of their pay with the other hand.

www.change.org/p/don-t-use-living-wage-as-excuse-to-cut-pay-benefits?source_location=discover_feed

www.change.org/p/dave-lewis-ceo-living-wage-should-not-mean-pay-cuts-for-loyal-tesco-workers?recruiter=533907242&utm_source=share_for_starters&utm_medium=copyLink

agm.shareaction.org/why-do-our-supporters-care-about-living-wage

The Jersey government encourage our businesses and entrepreneurs to go there, or at least bank there. Even Jersey is having problems getting the rich to pay tax.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/07/15/jerseys-finances-going-down-the-pan/

www.politics.co.uk/news/2015/07/15/boris-johnson-warns-osborne-s-living-wage-will-damage-campai

Boris wants more. Think he's after the top job.

Do you want the government to encourage businesses and entrepreneurship or not, Jen?
How would you do it?

Although the reduction in corporation tax is small, we already had the lowest in the G9 and it's going to get even lower.
We are becoming a tax haven in our own right.

Surely, jane, it cannot be a straight £3000 reduction for every employer. It must depend on the amount of pay and the number of employees.

The problem is that we need more tax take in order to pay for the government's plans.
If employers are paying less, employees must be paying more. According to financial experts the government is going to be taking twice as much tax as it saves in tax credits.
This is the government that said it would reduce taxes. So where is it coming from? Not non-doms. They've given them lots of warning to remove themselves from Britain.

The budget did contain some good news for small businesses Gracesgran.
As well as small reductions in corporation tax, employers have a 3000GBP reduction in Employer's NI contribution which will certainly help small businesses to pay the minimum wage and possibly employ more people, I would have thought.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/08/july-budget-2015-key-points-at-a-glance

Scroll right down to the bottom to Employers Tax.

I think it maybe something everyone could agree janeainsworth, that it is better that employers pay enough so there is no need for benefits.

However, this is probably difficult for some small businesses and possibly some larger ones. Should we let those businesses go to the wall? My personal opinion would be that they are given help to get in a profitable enough position in a time limited period. However, having watched enough programmes on TV about businesses who ask for help (or maybe have been told to do so by there banks) you can't help believe that some would say "it's my way or the highway" and consequently never be in that position.

Having now read the link in the OP, I'm doubtful about the general statement that the new minimum wage will help the better off more than those on low incomes.

Fraser Nelson is basing his idea on those families where there is one partner on a high enough income to disqualify them from benefits, while the other partner is on the minimum wage. I'm not sure how many families fit that category and I don't think he provided any figures.

There will be many young people without families who will benefit. As a general principle, surely it's better that employers pay well enough to avoid people having to be subsidised by the state. This has been discussed on GN before.

The benefit trap has long been recognised as a problem, but solving it seems extraordinarily difficult.

ooops another week of course, sorry.

As explained by others Anya- this number of hours is averaged out over the year- so it is quite possible, as mentionned by DJ- that someone works very few hours one day or none at all, and 70 on another day- even on multiple days over a period of time.

But it is unfair, and there is nothing personal in that, to imply that a poster as made up the number of hours worked by a close relative (alleged )
especially followed by 'hmmm' which nails the insult in.

I would make the same comment whomever the posters involved, truly. Surely you can see this.

Perhaps I should add, that often, businesses like ours and others, help to keep other businesses going to a larger or smaller degree.

Over to the gransnet jury as to whether that qualifies as successful.

My DH and I employ 2 full time workers, who wouldnt qualify for benefits.
And occasional part time ones, who are self employed and send us their bills.

I am not going into much detail, but our business has/is not able to stand on its own two feet without help from Government/other Governments/family help [deliberately keeping this part vagure], and hasnt done for years. Neither has most other businesses in the same sector.

So ironically it is the business owners themselves that need the help to keep afloat.
It is a funny old world.

So to answer your question Deedaa, or rather perhaps to ask the question, does that make it a successful business or not?
Not really.

This is almost without doubt somewhat replicated in the same and didfferent forms up and down the country.
I cannot speak for other sectors really, but I can speak for ours.

According to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development Report only 2-3% of workers in zero hours contracts work more than 56 hours. The great majority work fewer hours than they would like.

to repeat (leaving to watch the tennis which is far more interesting)

Contrary to Labour’s suggestions, 1.8 million people are not ‘on zero hour contracts’ but rather around 1.8 million zero hour contracts were in use in August 2014.

The number of people with a zero hours contract in their main job was estimated to be 697,000 in October-December 2014. The discrepancy is explained by the facts that people can have more than one zero hours contract or have a zero hours contract as well as a different main job.

Quote:

But you said your DD was working these (alleged) hours quite often hmm

this is an incredibly rude comment, I am truly amazed anyone would call another GNeter a liar like this.

Zero hours contracts are indeed so unfair and insidious. OK for a few months for a student living with parent/s- but how on earth can anyone raise a family on this or have any plans for the future?

Ana I think it depends on the type of business. If it's one that competes on price, then it's probably difficult for them to pay more than the minimum wage.
If though, they compete on other things like providing a better service, or a better quality product, then they can pay more, and probably have to pay more, in order to employ people who can provide a better quality or a better service.

Many people in Britain do shop on price, and like to boast about the bargains they have got. They perhaps don't realise that the real price of their bargain is someone either in this country or abroad working for the minimum wage or less.

Of course, many people shop on price because they have no choice .......because they are working for the minimum wage on a zero hours contract. A vicious circle, really.

It would be interesting to get some input from the business-owners on GN - I know there are some.

It must be difficult if it's only a small enterprise.

It worries me that so many businesses seem horrified by the idea of paying their employees a living wage. Surely if you cannot afford to pay a decent wage to the people who are creating your profits for you then you are not running a successful business? Or am I just trying to apply logic again?

I think Shelter has an agenda which is to help people who need help; why does it have to be right or left wing, or political at all. And where has anyone said not to help people? Why on earth would it make me happy for you to do so? What would make me happy is for you not to need to do it at all and, quite frankly if that happens I don't care at all about which party brings it about, and, if this government does so I'll happily hold up my hands and say I was wrong [and will be glad to do so].

OK I'll pack it in if it makes you happy. Let someone else strip the beds, wash the bloody sheets, clean the loos and wash the floors.

Happy?

The assumption seems to be that people of a 'left wing persuasion' DON'T work to help the homeless. Isn't it demeening to refer to these people as 'these poor people' in to help them? At the end of the day, we're wasting time and energy by arguing about it because we all want the same thing . But seem to be speaking a different language .

Last weekend I was collecting for the food bank. I think I said so on another thread.
It goes against the grain because, as Tegan suggests, we should not have food banks in this country. We certainly should not have as many as we have.