If this is the case then why is the NMW so low?
The government set the NMW at a level they think is acceptable for people to be able to live on, but if this is the right level then why is there a need for Working Tax Credits which subsidise lower paid workers salaries up to a "liveable" level?
If the NMW is classed as the lowest acceptable wage for a person to live on then why is that money taxed, leaving them with even less money to live on, does minimum not mean anything.
It is not just the young or unskilled workers who earn this (slave labour wage) minimum wage; fully qualified, skilled & experienced workers are being made to work on £6.08 per hour (depending on age). Most of these people have families to feed, household bills and mortgages or rent to pay, so how do they manage - they claim working (and possibly child) tax credits. What's the point of a system that taxes people and then gives them the money back because they can't afford to live?
It seems a ridiculous circle. Earn minimum wage, pay tax to government, government give some back in tax credits.
Surely if the National Minumum Wage was increased to a real liveable level, there would be no need for Tax credits.
Having the facility to claim tax credit opens the door for employers to get away with only paying minimum wage. As tax payers we are subsidising those employers to underpay their staff and are therefore, in fact, directly subsidising the profits of their businesses.
Tax credits are a government subsidy for mean employers.
I recently took on extra work to help boost my income. I am 47 and have been fully qualified in my skilled occupation for 10 years and yet my employer will not pay more than the minimum wage. Its no surprise to me to find that staff turnover is pretty quick, but my employer doesn't mind, they'll soon employ others for minimum wage (for a while).
Earning minimum wage makes you feel under valued, I know I am worth more than £6.08 an hour, but what do I do? Do I leave and not earn the extra money at all or do I stay, swallow my pride and work for peanuts?
Business's bleat about not being able to aford higher wages.I have always maintained that they should not therefore have a business. Sadly, many rule makers, politicians are in a comfort zone without the nouse or inclination to break sweat on behalf of social injustice (Mr Dennis Skinner excepted). Did you know that the London Olympic bid included massive tax breaks for sponsors? The likes of Coca Cola & Macdonnalds stand to avoid paying tens of millions of £'s in tax as a result. There is a campaigne and a petition to demand they do pay up, but they don't (& wont) have to. Well done the British powers that be. The only buggers benefitting from us having the Olympics are the wealthy anyway (even the close relatives of participating atheletes cannot get to watch their children). Another "sound" blog!
ReplyDeleteThe firms that consistently pay the min wage do not have a very sound business plan.
ReplyDeleteThey will NEVER have a worthwhile business, because as soon as their employees reach a decent standard of expertise, and require (and deserve) more money...they don't get it and consequently leave! Along comes the next batch of cheap labour, to the same fate.
A firm that pays a decent wage, will have a staff that works, and stays!
You're spot on, Mum. The employees are so despondent all the time. It can be draining as all the staff where I work are continuously looking for better paid work. If 2 of us (you know which 2 I'm referring to) left at the same time the business would go under.
ReplyDeleteWill, I didn't know that about the tax breaks for the the Olympic sponsors, that's disgraceful. Also you're comment "I have always maintained that they should not therefore have a business" are words I put in the blog, then took out, then put back in & then took out again. I should have left them in :)
Thank you both for your comments x