Why Should Anyone Work For Minimum Wage?

[bullex]

my opinion is that minimum wage should steadily rise, maybe 5% above inflation. Slightly lower tax at lower threasholds - 10k tax free, 20k at 15%, 40k at 30%, 100k at 45%, 200k at 60%, everything over that 80% tax

also, tax avoidance should be scrutinised. If someone is earning money from the british public, they should pay tax to the british system. If you arent paying tax in the uk, you dont trade in the uk. One way of doing this is to only allow PAYE wages to be deducted as a company expense - wages paid overseas would not be deductable, hence you get a bit more comany tax. This only saves 20% though, so some tweaking is needed.

Sadly, ive just realised im beginning to think like an anti-capitalist!

Also, the benefit system needs turning upside down.

We just need a simple system where everyone wants to work, and everyone has a good standard of living. And i know a lot of peasants dont deserve a good standard of living, but if you are prepared to work hard i can overlook the fact that you're a chav.

[Chrysalis]

your also free to learn, then earn 100k too though !!

no one is forced to work for min wage. its just the bottom rung.

its will never provide a full minimum lifestyle. thats a lie.

if you believed that your probably on min wage.

so why do it ?

its a stepping stone in the right hands.

you can earn min wage packing fish and buy books about plumbing at night.

read them in your bedsit. save for two years, then go to college and be a plumber.

go back to work for more than min wage and repeat learning process until dead.

trouble is, most people including me are lazy barstards, and the world knows it too.

so they are devaluing our worth via inflating imports,

and in turn to make them more affordable, the government has reduced your wage value by inflating essential house assets.

cracking the work effort-reward whip, in favour of more work for global exchange of imports without us knowing it.

to import 1 oz of gas we have to wrk 27% harder now.

I would love to know how can save up on min wage. Speaking as someone who has no children so no child benefit child tax credit etc.

4 years ago I was earning £2 above the min wage and in a bedsit, I had about £120 excess a month after living costs. If I was on min wage I would have to either get a 2nd job or get credit to pay living costs.

[Chrysalis]

Why do you think you need a state to 'support the vulnerable'? Friendly societies did a better job of that than governments, until the welfare state came along... at the least, they weren't stealing money from the productive to give to layabouts.

The only thing the welfare state has done is create _more_ welfare cases by discouraging people from working.

No way, you would probably get families looking after their vulnerable relatives but people without family would just be left to die.

I am speaking as a incapacity benefit claimant I can barely walk and depend on the state for income. If there was no state help for me the alternative would be most likely living with a family member fully dependent on them and have no independance. This would then make the people supporting me also poorer and of course affect things like the economy as they would have less spending power.

I think if you looking at people who are unemployed you have the vulnerable (a majority) and the people who for whatever reason are not working either cant get a job or turning down jobs. When you are not vulnerable and never have been its all too easy to think life is simple and they are all layabouts.

If you looking at people who are able to work but are not working then I think the biggest barrier to work is not state benefits but the import of cheap workers making the wages available not a liveable wage and making it not worthwhile to work in the readily available jobs, this doesnt apply so much to people with children tho since they get considerably more help from the government, of course this help would be gone if you wanted the state removed.

Removing the state benefits the rich and maybe middle earners it certianly does not benefit on low incomes and defenitly does not benefit the vulnerable, the whole idea of the state is to provide for the poor from the rich, the rich just dont want to do this.

I had no problem working in my first job for £4.20 an hour when I was living at my parents with no bills to pay other than buying my mum cigarettes and occasionally helping paying for the food shopping, but the moment I moved out I soon realised that the wages were dismal and not sufficient, I kept working tho and was fully employed up until the moment I fell ill with a couple of short periods on jobseekers allowance when in between jobs.

Edited January 10, 2008 by Chrysalis

[Chrysalis]

One of the big problems nowadays is that you can be highly trained and still not get a decent wage. I know university lecturers who are on 18k, and I also know admin staff who earn 35k, which seems grossly unfair. This leads to insubordination - some admin staff refuse to fulfil the requests of some lecturers, they see themselves as being above the lecturers because they earn more money.

One of my fellow PhD students (aged 28, just completed a PhD in software design) has been offered a post-doctoral position on 24k - only 24k after he's done two degrees and spent 5 years doing research and publishing research papers etc! 24k seems unfair considering he'd be expected to work as a salaried professional and put in whatever hours the job requires. He suggested he might enter a different career or start his own business because he feels like he's being ripped off when a company offers him 24k for his considerable expertise - some of their receptionists probably earn more than that.

I think thats a problem why should you be deserving of a high salary just because you spent time in a university?

University life is easier than working in manual jobs such as factories now of course the job itslef may be worth more but not because you been to univerisity but because of the nature of the job and the smaller amount of available people with skills to do the job.

[Chrysalis]

This is what is wrong withg British industry. They want highly educated people who are ready to be dropped into job roles without training. They want people that are dedicated, enthusiastic and prepared to sacrifice everything for the sake of their company. Yet they don't want to pay for any of this.

I agree.

[Chrysalis]

its not the fault of employers. they have to compete with the already high pound, so wages have to be kept to a min.

whats wrong is the price of the things you buy with your wages.

when houses were normal, pay balances were ok. now they are not and 24k seems a low wage by housing standards, but 24k in pounds is almost 50k dollars. theres no room to increase wages. as soon as they stop speculating on housing wage pressures will reduce.

your being paid well, but your handing it over to the monopolosing generation of btl'rs.

its living costs in general, housing costs are just part of ones living costs.

We can talk about people on the dole all day but there is also people on the other end of the scale avoiding tax and the lost tax far outweighs the bill of paying out welfare for people on the dole. As I understand it the UK has very soft laws allowing easy tax avoidance even softer than america.

[spermvader]

its living costs in general, housing costs are just part of ones living costs.

We can talk about people on the dole all day but there is also people on the other end of the scale avoiding tax and the lost tax far outweighs the bill of paying out welfare for people on the dole. As I understand it the UK has very soft laws allowing easy tax avoidance even softer than america.

I don't blame people for avoiding tax. It's too high!

While there are legit claimants for state benefits the majority are abusing the system.

[alexw]

I don't blame people for avoiding tax. It's too high!

Rubbish, of the major european nations we have relatively lower wage taxation. Compare ours with germany, sweden, france, etc. The rich just use this as an excuse. Its the indirect taxes that are high, however these are generally regressive in nature (hit lower incomes harder). In fact the rich as a percentage of their incomes pay less overall tax overall than the poor. The figures below don't take into account the upcoming abolishment of the 10% tax band. Thus the disparity will be even worse after april.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/busi...icle2461295.ece

For the lowest 10% of earners, the average annual income per household is £8,366, of which 44.2% is paid as tax

Households on the median income of £24,700 pay 35.3% in tax.

At the other end of the spectrum, the top 10% of households receive an average £88,334 and pay 35% in tax.

the top 1% of households hand over 31% of their income when all direct and indirect taxes are accounted for

[Andy Jones]

alexw - go on then. Tax the rich until the pips squek. See where it gets you because its happened before.

Society is like a wolf pack. There is a hierarchy. There are Alpha people.

Try to make this not-so and you will fail.

Like trying to refute gravity.

Sorry.

ANDY

[redgenieuk]

alexw - go on then. Tax the rich until the pips squek. See where it gets you because its happened before.

Society is like a wolf pack. There is a hierarchy. There are Alpha people.

Try to make this not-so and you will fail.

Like trying to refute gravity.

Sorry.

ANDY

I dont think they should be make to squeek, but they should be made to pay AT LEAST an equal amount as a portion of their income in tax.

[BoomBoom]

alexw - go on then. Tax the rich until the pips squek. See where it gets you because its happened before.

Society is like a wolf pack. There is a hierarchy. There are Alpha people.

Try to make this not-so and you will fail.

Like trying to refute gravity.

Sorry.

ANDY

Alpha people? Are these development versions of a design that would come to be know as homo sapien?

[BoomBoom]

I dont think they should be make to squeek, but they should be made to pay AT LEAST an equal amount as a portion of their income in tax.

I don't see why Andy is so bothered about this anyway. He cleans the toilets in his local British legion for a living.

[alexw]

alexw - go on then. Tax the rich until the pips squek. See where it gets you because its happened before.

Society is like a wolf pack. There is a hierarchy. There are Alpha people.

Try to make this not-so and you will fail.

Like trying to refute gravity.

Sorry.

ANDY

I never said to tax the rich to that extent. A differential gives something to aspire to. However when as a percentage someone on <15K a year pays more tax than someone on >100K is sheer lunacy. It also has negative economic effects, as 500 people on 30K will be spending and pumping more into the economy 30 people on 500K. Simply have a 0% tax band on the first 10-15K of income and a 45-50% band on over 100K (other european countries already do). Close the Non-dom and other tax avoidance loopholes too. That will decrease inequality and also enable some reduction in benefits (and reduce overheads in overseeing the benefits).

[Chrysalis]

I don't blame people for avoiding tax. It's too high!

While there are legit claimants for state benefits the majority are abusing the system.

Ok if I understand you correctly you have no problem with tax avoidance but do with benefit abuse. So its ok for one class of people to break the law but not another class.

Majority abusing the system strong words I hope you have evidence.

[BoomBoom]

Ok if I understand you correctly you have no problem with tax avoidance but do with benefit abuse. So its ok for one class of people to break the law but not another class.

Majority abusing the system strong words I hope you have evidence.

He read it in the 'Daily Mail' like most of his ilk. The bias he present can be explained thusly..

The rich are fully entitled to everything they have no matter how they obtained it. Their wealth ensures their probity.

Anyone claiming benefit is straight out of 'Shameless' and deriving of nothing but ridicule.

[Butthead]

Ok if I understand you correctly you have no problem with tax avoidance but do with benefit abuse. So its ok for one class of people to break the law but not another class.

Majority abusing the system strong words I hope you have evidence.

In an ideal world we would be entitled to 100% of the fruits of our labours.

Tax reduces this entitlement by taking from those that have worked for their cash and redistributing to people who haven't earned it. Tax avoidance is legitimately reducing ones tax burden by making maximum use of ones allowances etc, and I also have no problem with it.

Benefits are essentially taking something that you haven't worked for, and benefit abuse is taking something that you haven't worked for and aren't entitled to. Can you see how this is different to ensuring you get maximum benefit from your labours? The difference is the work in the first place

As for the majority of benefits claimants abusing the system, well I bet the majority could work if they wanted to, but they have an entitlement complex and can't be bothered to put the effort in when the current system pays them anyway. In this sense, they are abusing the system. Clear?

[Injin]

In an ideal world we would be entitled to 100% of the fruits of our labours.

Tax reduces this entitlement by taking from those that have worked for their cash and redistributing to people who haven't earned it. Tax avoidance is legitimately reducing ones tax burden by making maximum use of ones allowances etc, and I also have no problem with it.

Benefits are essentially taking something that you haven't worked for, and benefit abuse is taking something that you haven't worked for and aren't entitled to. Can you see how this is different to ensuring you get maximum benefit from your labours? The difference is the work in the first place

As for the majority of benefits claimants abusing the system, well I bet the majority could work if they wanted to, but they have an entitlement complex and can't be bothered to put the effort in when the current system pays them anyway. In this sense, they are abusing the system. Clear?

Unless you have worked, been taxed and then claim.

Then you are just getting what has been stolen from you back and fair enough.

[Butthead]

Unless you have worked, been taxed and then claim.

Then you are just getting what has been stolen from you back and fair enough.

There's no shame in a working person falling on hard times, claiming benefits for a short while, and then picking themselves up and getting back to work. That's what the benefit system should be for.

I doubt the majority of claimants fall into this category though. In fact I suspect very few do.

[workhou]

I think sonething people are mising here is the way employment agencies are given a large fee for recruiting temps then pay these temps the minimum they can out of the fee.

Where I live the way to get an industial job is through an Employment Agency. You have to accept minimum wage if you want to work, unless your skills/qualifications dictate otherwise. In a lot of cases you may only get a few days work here and there. I know guys who have living with this for years and in desperaton want to bribe the agency to get full time jobs!?

Parasite agencies can get away with paying these minimum wages because the government has an open border policy. An increased labour market allows them to pay minimum wage.

Is this fair?

[mightytharg]

Rubbish, of the major european nations we have relatively lower wage taxation.

All your figures are completely wrong, tax is way out of control. It's over 50% including all the stealth taxes. The tax on wages should include corporation tax, income tax, VAT, and national insurance. I have to pay all these (and Capital Gains and inflation) out of the money I earn.

Think about that. At over 50% there's nothing the workers (collectively) can do to improve their situation. The harder we work the worse off we are compared to the parasites.

Can you imagine how it makes me feel to read the posts from you commies? I give more than fifty percent of my money to help out those too indolent to earn it for themselves (doleys, polititicians, nurses, teachers, Tax Credit Mums etc.) and they're still not grateful! Taxes should be much lower obviously, but given they are at these insane levels, why don't you poor people say thanks once in a while?

[alexw]

In an ideal world we would be entitled to 100% of the fruits of our labours.

Tax reduces this entitlement by taking from those that have worked for their cash and redistributing to people who haven't earned it. Tax avoidance is legitimately reducing ones tax burden by making maximum use of ones allowances etc, and I also have no problem with it.

Benefits are essentially taking something that you haven't worked for, and benefit abuse is taking something that you haven't worked for and aren't entitled to. Can you see how this is different to ensuring you get maximum benefit from your labours? The difference is the work in the first place

As for the majority of benefits claimants abusing the system, well I bet the majority could work if they wanted to, but they have an entitlement complex and can't be bothered to put the effort in when the current system pays them anyway. In this sense, they are abusing the system. Clear?

That looks like a complete set of double standards to me. If its legitimate to lawfully avoid taxes, its also legitimate to lawfully claim benefits. Both sets of groups are attempting to use current laws to benefit themselves.

Could it be, perhaps, that you fit into the former? Consequently, its ok for you to use the current laws in a way that benefits you, but not someone else if it negatively impacts you? pot kettle black....

Edited January 12, 2008 by alexw

[Injin]

There's no shame in a working person falling on hard times, claiming benefits for a short while, and then picking themselves up and getting back to work. That's what the benefit system should be for.

I doubt the majority of claimants fall into this category though. In fact I suspect very few do.

Taxes are theft.

There is no crime if you steal from thieves.

[Butthead]

I know guys who have living with this for years and in desperaton want to bribe the agency to get full time jobs!?

If they were good, after "years" the company they work for would be happy to accept them full time and they could cut out the middle man. This is in the company's interest as well remember, they'd potentially save versus paying the agency, and the employee would get more.

They probably aren't good, and therein lies the problem.

[Injin]

That looks like a complete set of double standards to me. If its legitimate to lawfully avoid taxes, its also legitimate to lawfully claim benefits. Both sets of groups are attempting to use current laws to benefit themselves.

Could it be, perhaps, that you fit into the former? Consequently, its ok for you to use the current laws in a way that benefits you, but not someone else if it negatively impacts you?

This is why you have to ignore the law and look at actions if you want to make a moral determination. There are no special human beings.

Edited January 12, 2008 by Injin

[Butthead]

That looks like a complete set of double standards to me. If its legitimate to lawfully avoid taxes, its also legitimate to lawfully claim benefits. Both sets of groups are attempting to use current laws to benefit themselves.

Could it be, perhaps, that you fit into the former? Consequently, its ok for you to use the current laws in a way that benefits you, but not someone else if it negatively impacts you?

I disagree because of the word 'abuse'. I took this to mean that the claiming of benefits wasn't legitimate.

However, if we are talking about legitimately claiming benefits versus legitimately avoiding tax then legally I agree with you BUT morally claiming benefits long term is wrong because you've done nothing to deserve them. At least people avoiding tax have earned their money in the first place!

The fault lies with the system that allows it.