Benefits rising twice as fast as salaries!!! DM(43 Posts)
YY Iggly, it's a choice and what is worse, it's a choice that companies make with the full backing of our state.
Their salaries will still be pretty hefty even without the shares etc.
At the end of the day, the companies chose to keep wages for the average joe low. Which then requires subsidy by the state via tax credits. It's farcical. While those at the top continue to get high salaries, nice pensions plus bonuses on top.
Are you obsesses with communism Xenia?
China has achieved huge gains by adopted elements of capitalism, ditto India and improved the position of women and children in the process.
As for UK salaries and shares, many people who earn a lot cannot be given shares as their businesses do not work like that. The trend has been to give more salary and less bonus because of pressure about bonuses but all that means is that people are much more expensive to hire and so fewer have jobs. If people earn £50k and only £100k more if they make huge profits on the shares they pick for your clients they are fairly easy to hire and fire. If we come down against bonuses then people need a higher base salary so there are fewer jobs (and they are less incentivised to do well) in those types of jobs.
We only have to look ato North Korea to see how much worse communism does than capitalism.
Remuneration at the top is often made up of shares and bonuses
I agree, did you know that under Neo-liberalism, in the states as example, wages are taxed, purchasing is taxed, property is taxed, these taxes of course are paid by everyone, Shares and income from shares is not taxed!!! ordinary workers do not hold shares, so that is a system that means that the top 10% actually pay less tax than workers in many cases because much of their property is in shares. Is that fair?
How does that impact upon us? you might think it doesn't but it does.
I agree about the global economy conundrum actually.
However have you stopped to think about imperialism and how American and UK foreign policy sits in opposition to the actual interests of the state itself? So the state funds wars (one example) we are taxed to pay for this and the state borrows money to pay for it, it borrows from the banks (gilts/interest) it then uses tax payer money (and the debt created/which we pay back) to impose neo-liberalised free market mechanisms on other countries (look at south America, Chille, Iraq, etc) the conditions created in these countries is that of a Disney world for corporations (no child labour laws, starvation wages, little protection of the environment etc,,,) we are co-opted to support this through the narrative of democratisation. Now if you consider when this phenomena really took off, (1980's) then compare this to the stats on falling wages in the west/north & rising government debt....there is ONLY ONE CONCLUSION that is that the globalisation of neo-liberal economics is actually destabilising ALL states, impoverishing all working peoples (china puts down more riots now than ever before) and is driving government debt.
If we wanted to compete in the world economy perhaps we should have invested in our manufacturing base, rather than successive Tory governments starving and dismantling it.
We've got precious little to compete with now. Except for our financial services sector. Who don't appear to have been driven away by our apparent "uncompetitiveness" at all. Sadly.
Mini, it's not as simple as waving some magic wand and taxing the rich until their pips squeak.
Renumeration at the top is often made up of shares and bonuses. Often the salary itself can be in comparison much lower.
And if we want to compete in the world economy then our tax rates have to be in line with our competitors. The 50% rate put us at odds with our main competitors and far above aspiring competitors, especially in the far east.
Completely agree with janey's post.
Being as wages at the top are extremely secretive, who nows? IDS and co make complex debates simple to win votes. Cameron wanted to replace IDS but IDS refused to move
Why isn't possible for workers to get higher salaries at the expense of the senior staff...??
I think it's just that you don't hear it now yours are older, Xenia. I have friends with five chikdren who get it all the time and I've certainly seen it on MN.
Salaries of those at the top are shooting up higher.
Why not of the workers who actually generate their income?
I agree, it isn't acceptable to tax low waged workers to pay for the growing pool of unemployed and the ever expanding welfare needs of the impoverished. So how about taxing those that refuse to employ, those who rob workers of a decent salary and stuff their own pockets at the expense of the state, the worker and the welfare recipients. Tax wealth, tax corporations. If they won't redistribute wealth through paying fair wages, seize it and redistribute it through the state.
Workers take home more than people on benefits and just because workers are being squeezed, does not mean that people on benefits should be squeezed to the same extent.
In an ideal world yes I'd agree. But in practice it's very hard to justify taking more money from those who are working to pay for annual increases to benefits when those very workers are not seeing any rise themselves.
It's not about what's fair/not fair. It's about what's possible.
'workers take home more than people on benefits'-
... And therein lies the rub doesn't it? If only it were as simple as the unemployed being paid a basic amount to be able to live, those in low paid or part time work bringing home something above that, and those working longer hours in tougher or more skilled jobs bringing home more again...
It's been said before many times on MN. What actually matters to people is how much money they have in their pocket, to pay the rent, council tax, food, fuel- and how much is left over. It matters not whether it comes from a wage or tax credits- its all money which paying for the necessities. And the issue is: working longer/ harder does not necessarily mean being better off. It's not just about the amount of cash benefits and having things like rent and council tax subsidised- its the fringe stuff as well: free prescriptions, dental care, school dinners.
Many people who are really squeezed nowadays are not just those on low Incomes (or no incomes) it's those who earn just above the thresholds so get no benefits at all yet have all the costs of working (childcare, commutes) and have seen their wages frozen or even decreased while the cost of living goes up
A lot of people claim tax credits due to the fact that wages are not keeping up with the cost of living!
Happy New Year, Mini.
Yes, I don't like that article. It is the old divide and rule. Of course benefits should rightly rise by inflation. Benefits aren't a luxury, they are a necessity for families to feed and look after themselves in times of hardship.
Workers take home more than people on benefits and just because workers are being squeezed, does not mean that people on benefits should be squeezed to the same extent. If they really want to save workers' tax money then stop blowing it on windfarm subsidies to rich landowners before cutting benefits for the poorest in the land.
The article didn't mention the percentage increases that some people get in one year, just what benefit claimants received over 5 years.
£71 a week? Best not to spend it all at once
If workers are paid too little to buy goods (not that goods are are main thing anyway, services are in the UK) then we export. British exports have been doing reasonably well as the pound has been low. China is a huge market. We need Boris and Cameron abroad more plugging British services and goods.
Perhaps we just have far too many people. I remember in those very very difficult days in the 70s with civil unrest 60% inflation over 3 years, 3 day week, power cuts and the like when the nation was almost breaking down, with highest tax rates over 80% and people moving abroad, there was a huge criticism of those having babies. You just never hear that now in the UK, nothing about population explosion etc. It all died away.It is rare on mumsnet that anyone is critcised for breeding yet when I was a teenager talking about wanting 5+ children ( I have had five) it was socially unacceptable. As there is no work the Poles are going home and Britons are considering moving abroad.
Hi Claig.....Happy New Year, love all the links and info about LCP.
<I'm mad as well as delusional, don't tell anyone !>
Do you think that some of the language used in that mail piece is designed to stoke up hatred and envy between workers and non workers?
<awaits right wing to tell me I am deluded>
Mini, you don't need us to tell you that, you know that full well yourself!
Agree with MiniTheHinx
20 per cent of bugger all is bugger all. 12 per cent of a wage is more in hard cash than the benefit scrounger will get.
Maybe it is because benefits reflect the fact that there is an absolute basic amount that is needed to live
I think this is a fair point, especially when it comes to JSA which is pitifully low, but I'm not sure I agree because there are people in work that are surviving on the bare minimum too
This is actually what I said because if the amount paid in benefit is the actual bare minimum needed to subsist.....this could be argued by the capitalist class, that is all the worker actually needs to subsist. Have you read Engles writing about the poverty conditions of the working poor in the 19th century factories?
You see, if you have a basic minimum required to subsist and reproduce, then the employers are likely to use this as a justification for exerting downward pressure upon wages. If you do this, the worker can not spend any money surplus to his absolute living costs (rent, food, taxes, water etc) which means two things......less commodities can be purchased and less workers are required ( but a huge pool of unemployed labour exerts downward pressure upon wages too) and your employer has a business apt to go bust, in other words the employing class (corporate/capitalist) thinks he is only digging your grave but is in fact digging his own as well !
This process has been underway since 1980, if anyone also follows what is happening in the states, they are further along this trajectory than we are. The only thing to have mitigated against the worst effects was women making up the missing wages of their men through their entry into the labour force and the ease with which workers could take on debt. That debt doesn't help workers ultimately but it sure as hell keeps the show on the road the cash registers topped up for the rich.
One could ask though, why do we persist in educating people when at the end of it there is no work?????
The answer to that is simple. People need to be educated to a reasonable level whether there is work available or not. Hopefully we won't always have such high unemployment levels, and there will always be some work
If there is no work, it can no longer said to be about educating people for future employment, instead it becomes a case of containing people and taking up their time in something that is deemed to be of value. Of course learning for learnings sake is wonderful but that is something that is actually denied to working people, through the introduction of tuition fees and the withdrawal of ema and other support to poorer students.
Over the history of capitalism schooling has taken up a larger and larger percentage of our lives. School leaving age keeps rising and the labour required under this economic system keeps shrinking. I doubt very much whether we can get back to a situation of low unemployment.
So what is the real cause of the unequal distribution in rises btw wages and benefits? Well it could be said that the state is misguided but still benevolent enough to ensure whether people eat, whilst the private sector doesn't much care if you eat or pay extortionately for rent and fuel. They'll either squeeze you for productivity (as over 1980-2009) or they will squeeze you for non-negotiable payments.
<awaits right wing to tell me I am deluded>
I don't know anybody who is earning 12 per cent more now than they were five years ago. most people i know are earning less
So what IDS actually means is "Wages have gone up more slowly than the basic cost of living."
It's all in the way he tells it, innit?
Btw, of course the working-age benefits bill will increase under when this happens, as working people claim more benefits to supplement their inadequate wages.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.