Save the Children launches appeal for children in the UK

[Vagaceratops]

BBC link

And it will get worse :(

What is it with peoples selective comprehension around here?
Judgey and I have both said raise the level at which the lowest paid start paying tax. How is that ignoring the problem?

It's weird innit. The people who come up with all sorts of excuses why businesses can't pay their employees a decent salary are usually the same people who moan about tax credits and that a large number of people need these to top-up their shitty salaries.

''Judgey and I have both said raise the level at which the lowest paid start paying tax. How is that ignoring the problem?''

You could bring full time minimum wage earners completely out of paying tax and they still wouldn't have enough to live on, especially if they have a family to support.

And you often find that the employers umming and awing about employing disabled people because of the cost and/OR perceived hassle of making reasonable adjustments are the same ones then moaning about the cost of disability benefits.

For instance the chief exec of Next was on Question Time last year moaning about the cost of disability benefits.
Cant help wondering what his equality policies are.

Businesses complained that they would all go bankrupt when the min wage was brought in under New Labour.

Guess what? It had no statistically relevant effect on employment at the time.

Raising the minimum wage would help people become independent and free from benefits.

If the concern really was for small business, then we could easily legislate two min wages, one for companies under a certain size. That wouldn't be too hard.

As for niceguys caricature - actually, the problem is that the caricature is true to life. Corporate profits are at an all time high. So clearly there is room for large multinationals to pay a fair wage to their employees without any chance of bankruptcy.

1.bp.blogspot.com/-t1QS1wLpdAg/To2iquzUC2I/AAAAAAAACJg/gTt5aOr-VqU/s1600/Brief+History+of+Corporate+Whining.jpg

It's interesting that despite the doom and gloom predictions, unemployment did not shoot up in 1998, the year the national minimum wage was introduced.

Every (40 hours p/w) minimum wage job costs the employer £13,358 per year. (Made up of £12,646 in pay to the worker and another £712 Employers contribution to NI).

Of this, the worker keeps just £11,131 and the government confiscates over £2,200.

Changing the tax structure could give each and every employee a boost of over £2k per year (plus save a lot of bureaucracy) and yet cost employers nothing.

It would clear the acceptable standard of living limit (as proscribed by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation) by over £1000 per year.

This is nothing to do with corporate profits, left / right politics or bashing the disabled (as I have somehow been accused of up thread), nor will it act as a cure all for each and every family, but as a way of easing the plight of the working poor (including those without children may I add) I can think of no better, more elegant, cheaper to officiate and targeted solution to this problem.

And so what if it is a libertarian solution - I cannot see anything quite as simple as allowing poor people to keep more of their own money, or anything quite as dumb as taxing people in order to give them a handout.

Totally agree Judgey. It's stupid to tax someone then give them it back (and more) in handouts. You may as well not do it to begin with and save at least some of the admin work.

As for those saying unemployment didn't shoot up after the NMW was introduced. I'm not sure anyone seriously ever thought it would. You had your usual doomsayers who predicted the apocalypse. There's always someone opposing any change.

But the main reason for that is because when it was originally introduced, the vast majority of people were already paid over that anyway. The ones that were not weren't probably far off it. The original NMW was a mere £3.60 per hour for those over 22 years old. So most it wasn't a shock to most employers to suddenly have to pay a bit more. Plus bear in mind the economy was tootling along pretty well back then.

But we're no longer talking about that. What we're discussing now is a 'living wage' which is different to different people in different areas.

So what is a living wage? How do we define it?

Let's for arguments sake say it's £20k a year. That's the new 'living wage for all'. OK. Well firstly that's not much in London. Shit. We need a living wage for London!!!! Using Judgey's figures, we've given everyone who used to earn NMW nearly a 50% payrise. That's a LOT of money employers have to find now. Not to mention employers NI.

Like I said, the Tesco's of the world may be able to absorb it. But many corporates don't actually make much money at all. Just look at the high street where large chains are going under not to mention small businesses. Now you want to force them to dole out a 50% rise????

And you want to do this during one of the worst economic recessions of our time?

Get a grip.

But the main reason for that is because when it was originally introduced, the vast majority of people were already paid over that anyway.

What an amazing coincidence, the vast majority of people already earn more than a living wage.

So what is a living wage? How do we define it?

£8.30 p/hour in London. £7.20 p/hour everywhere else. That's according to the Living Wage Foundation.

And you want to do this during one of the worst economic recessions of our time?

ISTM that putting money in to the hands of people who are likely to spend it, is a good thing to do during an economic recession.

You can't pay people in London a higher living wage then anywhere else tho, that would cause more trouble then it's worth with the amount of idiots flooding in not realising why it's higher.

Small businesses, all ways the talk about small businesses, instead of attacking the poor saying they have to suffer so small business survive, why don't you go pointing the finger councils and government and ask them why it is that large multi nationals, get tax breaks and reduced or free shop rents, while the small business gets fuck all.

Stop all ways putting it to the lowest to carry the burden and look up at those who post obscene profits every year.

SmellsLikeTeenStrop

ISTM that putting money in to the hands of people who are likely to spend it, is a good thing to do during an economic recession.

That argument is only sound if you're not taking it from people who are just as likely to spend it, and more likely to hire an employee and spend it on them. That clearly isn't the case.

Yes put the money in the hands of the people and it gets spent.

That's why it's laughable to insult the unemployed, at least the money they get is getting spent and in this country too.

Moan all you like about them buying booze and flags, at least they are doing so on the high street and those things are highly taxed.

Unlike buying goods online at amazon who pay no UK tax, unlike all the money the rich stash overseas.

That argument is only sound if you're not taking it from people who are just as likely to spend it, and more likely to hire an employee and spend it on them. That clearly isn't the case.

Doesn't Tesco make something like 14k profit p.a from each employee? Are you telling me that it can't afford to give itsemployees an extra £1 per hour? Maybe the CEO could take it out of his salary of £6.9 million a year.

Outside of the NHS, the supermarkets are the largest employers and they pay most of their workers minimum wage.

Also, it is my experience that employers will hire the bare minimum number of staff that is needed to get the job done, so I take the whole ''they could use that money to hire somebody else'' with a big pinch of salt.

Don't tesco all ready have a store who's only staff member is a security guard, the whole thing is self service tills, yet the savings are never passed on to the customer.

OK, let's go with the £7.20 per hour figure for now. Personally I still don't think that many would regard that as a 'living wage' and there'd be calls for another 'rise' shortly after.

But hey, let's go with it.

First of all, that is still well under the threshold for tax credits so the government still has to subsidise the family I assume? So from that point of view it still doesn't sound like a living wage.

Secondly the NMW will be £6.19 in Oct. Based on a 40 hour week that's £12,875 per annum. The £7.20 rate is actually £12,717 after tax (£14,976 gross). So it would actually make far more sense to just raise the tax free threshold to exclude all NMW workers from paying income tax.

That I would support as it doesn't affect businesses, workers get a boost without complex means testing or complicated admin.

I have no idea. Was it one of those smaller Tesco extra shops?

The whole 'ah but Tesco's can afford it' argument is simply blinkered. Yes, Tesco's is a successful firm making a lot of money. But there are many out there who are struggling. Thousands of small retailers are teetering on the brink. Many large chains are already sustaining heavy losses. We've seen plenty of firms over the last couple of years like Peacocks and Woolworths go under. Comet, HMV, JJB Sports are all struggling. I'm sure I could find more if I did some googling.

To pick one successful company and use that as an example of why we should thrust more costs onto all businesses is stupid. The whole 'living wage' argument could well be the straw which breaks the camel's back.

That I would support as it doesn't affect businesses, workers get a boost without complex means testing or complicated admin.

I thought it was only tree-hugging liberal lefties who expected the government to fix all problems :). Why shouldn't businesses be affected?

We've seen plenty of firms over the last couple of years like Peacocks and Woolworths go under. Comet, HMV, JJB Sports are all struggling. I'm sure I could find more if I did some googling.

Well yes, that's what happens when the amount you charge for your goods exceeds the amount people can pay for them. Do you see how low wages contribute to the problem?

Why shouldn't businesses be affected?
Erm, I thought I'd explained why. Because not every business is a multimillion pound profit business. So for those who are teetering and/or already making a loss, increasing their costs may well send them under which leads to an increase in unemployment. Especially when there's a much simpler solution which has the same desired effect and requires minimal changes.

Do you see how low wages contribute to the problem?
And how would seeing many more firms go bust and the (ex) employees having to go on benefits whilst finding new employment contribute to the solution?

SmellsLikeTeenStrop
Doesn't Tesco make something like 14k profit p.a from each employee? Are you telling me that it can't afford to give itsemployees an extra £1 per hour? Maybe the CEO could take it out of his salary of £6.9 million a year.

Tesco is a single company. If you force a higher minimum wage the primary sufferers are not going to be the super-profitable corps but the small businesses.

Where do you think this money is going to come from?

Outside of the NHS, the supermarkets are the largest employers and they pay most of their workers minimum wage.

No they aren't, and no they don't.

List here of the 100 largest employers in the UK.