to think that very many PEOPLE IN WORK ARE ON BENEFITS?

[ParsingFancy]

Because there seems to be some confusion about this.

I keep seeing bollocks like "people in work have to limit their children, so people on benefits should too."

Excuse me, PEOPLE IN WORK ARE ON CHILD BENEFIT.

And "working people can't afford adequate housing per child, so people on benefits shouldn't get either."

But PEOPLE IN WORK ARE ON HOUSING BENEFIT.

Also, PEOPLE IN WORK ARE ON INCOME SUPPORT.

And PEOPLE IN WORK ARE ON DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE.

Oh and PEOPLE IN WORK ARE ON WORKING TAX CREDITS.
That one was hard, wasn't it?

Oh i see Edgar. No worries.

Looks like i screwed up the copy and paste so heres the link.

www.thestar.co.uk/news/youth-contract-could-lead-to-more-deaths-1-4025602

The 'casualisation kills' campaign was very effective though - certainly whilst working at the time there was a major overhaul and uplift in awareness of and implementation of legislation -

particularly with under 18s (though this has also made it harder for under 18s to get jobs)

big players tend to be very legislation/litigation conscious.

although there are enough supermarkets out there i'l bet you'll find some abuses, their personnel departments will be working to make sure its all above board.

YANBU. If you want to get angry about the fact that your taxes are subsidising someone else's lavish lifestyle, you should be directing your bile at employers who are able to make the profits they do by paying their workers less than they can live on, so that the state has to top them up with HB and WTC to stop them from starving on the streets. If everyone in work was paid a living wage the benefits bill would be fraction of its current level.

not exactly a scientific study, given they could get 100% accurate data by asking the companies.

oh the irony edgar.

Paying more for food if MNW was increased - no people wouldn't pay more for food and the supermarkets would have to adjust their profits otherwise people would choose other means of buying food and they don't quite have a monopoly. It isn't a simple case of pay more wages pay more for food - there is the profit in between that can and should be adjusted. If they can afford to pay a good CEO 2.2 million more than the last CEO and he does have a very large package at 10 million then they need to look at this and decide whether to up their prices or adjust other accounts.

Unions are limited now and this gives large companies a good free rein to set conditions as they like and want without any comprimes. Unions seem to swing between being either to large and powerful which is damaging or virtually none existent which is also damaging.

The gap is spreading between the rich and the poor and with attitudes of CEO should be earning large wages as they do a lot and the shop floor workers should be paid as little as possibly otherwise food prices will have to increase - it will continue to spread great and greater

". If they can afford to pay a good CEO 2.2 million more than the last CEO "

without the current ceo they wouldn't be proft making, the staff would be watching the shares they bought in the company nosedive, they'd be in worse working conditions and afraid for their jobs/ pension continuity in the event of a takeover.

Although Justin King may look like he's been tango'd, he's at least worth what they're paying him.
2.2 million is a tiny tiny fraction of JS wages bill.

"It isn't a simple case of pay more wages pay more for food - there is the profit in between that can and should be adjusted"

it pretty much is. the company needs to make profit - if it doesn't it is vulnerable to takeover - margins on food retail are fairly narrow given the fierce competition in the sector. given so many of the longer-term colleagues are also shareholders saying 'screw the stock price' does the workforce no favours.

like i said, £1 in every 8 through the till goes on staffing - up that to £1.60 and that 60 p has to come from somewhere...

It's funny. The more cheerleading arguments I hear for our current form of capitalism, the more grossly inefficient it seems, with corporations apparently held hostage to all sorts of unaccountable parties and consequently unable to make the sort of reasonable decisions which should allow them to operate successfully without, for example, resorting to massive state subsidy of their workers' wages. And to think that once upon a time we thought it was trade unions that were hampering our efficiency.

"with corporations apparently held hostage to all sorts of unaccountable parties a"

the CEo is accountable to the board, the board to the shareholders, the company as an entity is judged in the national press and by customers.

all very accountable.

edgar - there you go again, you talk out of thin air - tiny tiny % of the labour cost for sainsbury

So what is the % of JK package against the labour cost for the whole company?

Because I dare say you haven't a clue what the % is and are just spouting tiny tiny as a factual amount when you don't really know. haven't bothered to have a look anywhere for evidence

That all sounds as though it should work doesn't it, Edgar. And yet here we are with those at the top earning sums that would have been unimaginable just a couple of decades ago while the state is forced to meet the living costs of their workforces.

Yes, this is what is absolutely ridiculous about the situation. Because the biggest costing benefit of all is housing benefit. Why is it that people in work cannot afford to pay all of their housing and they still need a subsidy? Because under Labour the cost of housing (both renting and buying) increased so much that very few can afford it without help. Add to that the introduction of tax credits which meant businesses could reduce their wages, knowing that the taxpayer would pay the rest via tax credits and you have a perfect storm. Labour gifted all of us an impossible and ludicrous situation, whereby it is now almost impossible to live without a taxpayer subsidy because housing is too expensive and wages are too low! Thanks Labour. Our children and grandchildren will be paying for your legacy for years to come!

you do know that tax credits just replaced a different benefit dont you?

Orwellian, I think the housing problems go back further than the last government. The party before that sold off the social housing which in turn left people with out social housing and forced them into private renting, private renting is more expensive and therefore subsidised by the council. The same council that 30 years previous would have rented council houses to the same people.

As the demand for private renting grew the demand for buy to let mortgages also grew. Buying a house and renting it out is not taxed as a business.

As for inflation going up if wages were to rise. If wages were to rise profits would be lower, prices to some degree may go up. Benefits though would go down, and therefore tax allowance could also be changed and raised from 10k to 12k/14k so that working really would pay and there would be a very big incentive to work as you would get far bigger income from working as a living wage would be given and even less tax would need to be paid by everyone - putting more money in peoples pockets that work and therefore they would have more money to spend which in turn keeps inflation down.

There wouldn't be any need for working benefit payments as working would pay and not working wouldn't be a life choice

EdgarAllenPond - where do you get this spurious claim that most supermarket workers don't have to support a family out of that sole wage?

EVERYONE I know of that works in supermarkets are working there to support their families - either as a Lone Parent or as one half of a couple both working in low paid jobs.

Go onto the shop floor during the school day, or in the middle of the night, at around 1.30am before the PT's go home. Actually ask the staff whether their wage is needed or is just 'pin money'

That seems to me to be a huuuuge misconception of higher earners that look at supermarket workers, that they are just using the low wages to supplement their household income, as pin money.

But in many many cases, that is just untrue. I know tons of people working in supermarkets that are the sole earner for their family (either with a SAHP or a disabled partner or a disabled child that needs FT care by one parent), or their wage is equally as important to the general running of the household, and even WITH top ups they couldn't survive without it.

Truly, YES, people DO work in NMW to try to support their whole family. That's kind of the idea of having a job.

The only person I know of that works for 'fun' has a partner that earns £120k+, and both her DC's are at school, and she was bored.

THAT is the unusual situation IME.

"EdgarAllenPond - where do you get this spurious claim that most supermarket workers don't have to support a family out of that sole wage?"

that's my personal experience.

from the figures quoted below by someone else, if 14% are over 55 and 40%ish are under 25 that's 50-54% out of the supporting-a-family age bracket.

None of the links - though they go on at length about the low level of pay - gave any indication of how many workers were trying to support a family from their retail job alone, so far as i noticed.

i don't think it's that high a percentage, which is why raising NMW would be an incredibly poorly targetted policy.

"
That seems to me to be a huuuuge misconception of higher earners that look at supermarket workers, that they are just using the low wages to supplement their household income, as pin money."

you are reading in something that isn't there!

the point is that 2nd incomers aren't going to be elgible for large sums from the govt.the government is not, therefore, serving to subsidise their wages.

40%ish are under 25

how do you turn nearly 30% under 25 into

40% are under 25?

the figures were workers in retail= 60% over 25 years old and of that 60% that are over 25 there are 14% that are over 55 years old.

you said over 60% were over 25 - that means 40% ish are under, does it not?

otherwise it would be over 65% ish are over 25...

[hconfused]

Tax credits were brought in by Labour to make up for removing the 10% tax bracket. Personally I've never quite got why it's a good idea to take more of people's earnings off them only to pay a load of administrators to give it back to them again. Unless you just want to create public sector jobs.

wtc replaced family credit.

family credit started in 1986 as a top up for low wages for familys.

hence why wtc was first called working familiys tax credit.

over 60% I didn't say 60%

16-19 Years 2,435 10.1%
20-24 Years 4,491 18.7 %
25-34 Years 5,405 22.4 %
35-44 Years 4,087 17.0 %
45-54 Years 4,113 17.1 %
55+ Years 3,549 14.7 %

shows ages of people working in retail in 2010, numbers of workers and then percentage