Minimum Wage Increases To £6.31 Across The Uk

[bristolhunter]

if you do not have kids then perhaps you do not need extra money

are you really saying that you as the single need NMW + child benefits + larger house benefits as somebody with wife at home and 2 kids ???

it does not make sense

Or perhaps you could construct your life so your incomings match or exceed your projected expenditure.

Rather than having kids, then screaming somebody else owes you a house and car because you've achieved the immense triumph of managing to have unprotected sex.

What doesn't make sense is trying to live a consequence-free lifestyle. Live the life you can afford. If you can't afford a family, don't have one.

[Damik]

Or perhaps you could construct your life so your incomings match or exceed your projected expenditure.

Rather than having kids, then screaming somebody else owes you a house and car because you've achieved the immense triumph of managing to have unprotected sex.

What doesn't make sense is trying to live a consequence-free lifestyle. Live the life you can afford. If you can't afford a family, don't have one.

personally all benefits should be canceled and replaced by a protected and guaranteed jobs for the state for upto NMW

[Bloo Loo]

Or perhaps you could construct your life so your incomings match or exceed your projected expenditure.

Rather than having kids, then screaming somebody else owes you a house and car because you've achieved the immense triumph of managing to have unprotected sex.

What doesn't make sense is trying to live a consequence-free lifestyle. Live the life you can afford. If you can't afford a family, don't have one.

why?...all of the thrust of government is giveaways to allow you to do things you cant afford...like, buy a house....default on a house risk free, have some kids on low wages and get free money.

Its the reverse of the Global Warming Argument...people see definite advantage to live a life they cant afford, so go ahead and do it...Now its an ENTITLEMENT.....whereas with something possibly really dangerous...the message from Government is 100% discouragement.

[markyh]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-24340661

Sadly I have no idea how they expect people on these wages to afford a house.

This gives you a wage of £13124.8 a year for a 40 hour week. If you don't have children clearly you will be struggling if you live on your own.

So the govt helping to increase business costs, what could possible go wrong.

You don't need to buy a house on minimum wage, no one ever could! You rent with housing benefit from a private BTL landlord. That's why BTL is there. I remember earning £12k in 1993 (early twenties) and sharing a 3 beed BTL house with two mates who earned about £10k each.

I didn't buy until 1996 when I was earning £18k and £30k joint with the girlfirend. I started this career on what then must have been just above "minimum wage" of £7k in 1988. So I did not buy for 8 years until a few promotions my wages had increased 2.5 x.

Thing is "infaltion" was much higher then, but the rules pretty much the same, you need to get to £30k now with a £50k joint income to by that starter home. No one buys in minimum wage.

M

[rantnrave]

Can someone confirm whether the £16k savings limit to receive tax credits has already kicked in?

[byron78]

sorry; I started with English when I was 15 as my 5th language; in how many foreign languages are you fluent, please?

Are you Anders Breivik? You come across as slightly to the right of him sometimes...

[Dorkins]

I didn't buy until 1996 when I was earning £18k and £30k joint with the girlfirend. I started this career on what then must have been just above "minimum wage" of £7k in 1988. So I did not buy for 8 years until a few promotions my wages had increased 2.5 x.

Thing is "infaltion" was much higher then, but the rules pretty much the same, you need to get to £30k now with a £50k joint income to by that starter home. No one buys in minimum wage.

Thing is, that £50k joint income easily puts you in the top half of households by income, and yet you're only buying a starter home...

[byron78]

NMW seems pointless when most of the nippers I know are on zero hour contracts and can't get enough work to pay the bills anyway.

And they can't get benefit top ups either (above £100 wage there is no housing benefit for them outside of about £20, and no tax credits as you need to work a regular 30hr week to get that without kids).

No wonder they all grow weed and ting to cover their £100 a week single room rents.

We're in the Victoria Era MK II I tells ya.

If I was young I consider kids for benefits.

It's an irony that to cut the attractiveness of benefits with kids it might be a good idea to have an attractive benefit package designed to encourage you to stay in work and not have children. Be a lot cheaper than folk breeding.

Edited October 1, 2013 by byron78

[Damik]

Are you Anders Breivik? You come across as slightly to the right of him sometimes...

did I hurt your left wing feelings? perhaps you should lobby your MP to tax everybody 101% if they earn more than you ...

[byron78]

did I hurt your left wing feelings? perhaps you should lobby your MP to tax everybody 101% if they earn more than you ...

I'm not a leftie you neo liberal knobhead (and I'm a top rate tax payer) .

Everyone is probably slightly to the left of you mind...

Edited October 1, 2013 by byron78

[wonderpup]

This is why they are threatening slavery, as there is no point in working any longer.

It is a problem- given the choice between a secure life on benefits or an insecure life in a minimum wage job- if both provided a near identical lifestyle why would anyone choose to work?

So the only way out is to either eliminate benefits entirely or eliminate the difference between the two. Ironically it may turn out that many people will simply prefer to work for their benefits which would be a reliable source of income rather then engage with a job market that is becoming more and more short term and insecure as things like zero hours contracts become more the norm.

After all if working for your dole produces a similar living standard as an insecure stressfull low paid job why bother?- just work for your dole and have peace of mind.

[Damik]

I'm not a leftie you neo liberal knobhead (and I'm a top rate tax payer) .

Everyone is probably slightly to the left of you mind...

I am not aware how anything above is related to the progressive taxation? why do not you educate us?

[byron78]

I am not aware how anything above is related to the progressive taxation? why do not you educate us?

What?

You don't seriously think neoliberalism is all about progressive taxation do you?

[Traktion]

You don't need to buy a house on minimum wage, no one ever could! You rent with housing benefit from a private BTL landlord. That's why BTL is there. I remember earning £12k in 1993 (early twenties) and sharing a 3 beed BTL house with two mates who earned about £10k each.

I didn't buy until 1996 when I was earning £18k and £30k joint with the girlfirend. I started this career on what then must have been just above "minimum wage" of £7k in 1988. So I did not buy for 8 years until a few promotions my wages had increased 2.5 x.

Thing is "infaltion" was much higher then, but the rules pretty much the same, you need to get to £30k now with a £50k joint income to by that starter home. No one buys in minimum wage.

M

Eh? Someone can afford to rent a house for a life time, paying multiple times the build cost, but they can't afford to buy?

This was the original point of building societies. To allow people (of all income brackets) to get together and build/fund houses cheaply, so that they didn't have to pay off some rent seeker.

[Traktion]

NMW seems pointless when most of the nippers I know are on zero hour contracts and can't get enough work to pay the bills anyway.

And they can't get benefit top ups either (above £100 wage there is no housing benefit for them outside of about £20, and no tax credits as you need to work a regular 30hr week to get that without kids).

No wonder they all grow weed and ting to cover their £100 a week single room rents.

We're in the Victoria Era MK II I tells ya.

If I was young I consider kids for benefits.

It's an irony that to cut the attractiveness of benefits with kids it might be a good idea to have an attractive benefit package designed to encourage you to stay in work and not have children. Be a lot cheaper than folk breeding.

That's what NMW does - it removes the jobs which are not economically viable below NMW rates.

This should be obvious, as price fixing (below the market rate) always leads to shortages. It doesn't matter whether it is food, fuel or jobs. The same effect applies.

[alexw]

it does not make a difference if you have NMW £6 ph, £12 ph or £18 ph

the living costs will just go up to match any level of the NMW

Load of nonsense. Your saying that wage rises don't increase standards of living.

If that's true I suggest you never ever ask for a pay increase and if they offer you one turn it down, because if your right it won't matter.

But in reality what happens with wage rises is that it alters the share of the nations output that an individual takes. Thus if the wages at the bottom doubled, then they would take a larger share of the nations output, and those whom they are competing against for goods and services would see theirs fall, as they are outbid.

[Traktion]

personally all benefits should be canceled and replaced by a protected and guaranteed jobs for the state for upto NMW

The state is responsible for making these people unemployed by enforcing the NMW. It's quite an admission of policy failure when the state feels compelled to force people to work for less than NMW.

[Traktion]

Load of nonsense. Your saying that wage rises don't increase standards of living.

If that's true I suggest you never ever ask for a pay increase and if they offer you one turn it down, because if your right it won't matter.

But in reality what happens with wage rises is that it alters the share of the nations output that an individual takes. Thus if the wages at the bottom doubled, then they would take a larger share of the nations output, and those whom they are competing against for goods and services would see theirs fall, as they are outbid.

While land 'owners' jack the rents up to soak up all surplus income, Damik's point is valid.

The average earner, in an average house, will always see their surplus income snatched away through the cost of shelter. In fact, the only way to feel wealthy while the rent seeking persists, is to get into the top few percent - this way you can afford an average house, with your far from average wage, then live comfortably*.

[* They will then likely load up on BTLs to seek rent from those less fortunate than themselves too... which is, ofc, what causes the problem in the first place.]

[Damik]

Load of nonsense. Your saying that wage rises don't increase standards of living.

If that's true I suggest you never ever ask for a pay increase and if they offer you one turn it down, because if your right it won't matter.

But in reality what happens with wage rises is that it alters the share of the nations output that an individual takes. Thus if the wages at the bottom doubled, then they would take a larger share of the nations output, and those whom they are competing against for goods and services would see theirs fall, as they are outbid.

if we double NMW from £6 to £12 ph all other wages will go up accordingly as well; the inflation would devalue the pound and would increase the costs of the living

therefore the BoE is OK with the current inflation, but would not be happy with the wage inflation

[Damik]

What?

You don't seriously think neoliberalism is all about progressive taxation do you?

you are publishing some unsupported claims about me, just because I am criticising the progressive taxation; I am asking you for the explanation as it does not make any sense

[gf3]

While land 'owners' jack the rents up to soak up all surplus income, Damik's point is valid.

The average earner, in an average house, will always see their surplus income snatched away through the cost of shelter. In fact, the only way to feel wealthy while the rent seeking persists, is to get into the top few percent - this way you can afford an average house, with your far from average wage, then live comfortably*.

[* They will then likely load up on BTLs to seek rent from those less fortunate than themselves too... which is, ofc, what causes the problem in the first place.]

The real answer is build more houses and have policy that keep the British population stable. As a left winger I would like to see more equality in Britain. I make a strange bedfellow with UKIP but I believe that if we cant control are own borders we wont get anywhere.

[alexw]

While land 'owners' jack the rents up to soak up all surplus income, Damik's point is valid.

The average earner, in an average house, will always see their surplus income snatched away through the cost of shelter. In fact, the only way to feel wealthy while the rent seeking persists, is to get into the top few percent - this way you can afford an average house, with your far from average wage, then live comfortably*.

[* They will then likely load up on BTLs to seek rent from those less fortunate than themselves too... which is, ofc, what causes the problem in the first place.]

Not true they can only capture some of the surplus income, they never ever capture all of it. Of course our current government is doing all it can to increase that share.....

[Traktion]

Not true they can only capture some of the surplus income, they never ever capture all of it. Of course our current government is doing all it can to increase that share.....

Why would a land lord charge less than what people can afford?

[Traktion]

The real answer is build more houses and have policy that keep the British population stable. As a left winger I would like to see more equality in Britain. I make a strange bedfellow with UKIP but I believe that if we cant control are own borders we wont get anywhere.

I agree that people should be allowed to build more houses. However, I disagree that border controls are the problem - it is the need for borders at all.

[alexw]

if we double NMW from £6 to £12 ph all other wages will go up accordingly as well; the inflation would devalue the pound and would increase the costs of the living

therefore the BoE is OK with the current inflation, but would not be happy with the wage inflation

Again. Wrong. Did we see wages high up the income scale increase when the NMW was introduced? No.

A higher minimum wage would act to compress our wage distribution. Those at the top would lose out the most. That's why they vehemently oppose NMW rises.