Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
Living Wage?
57 Answers
an increase in the minimum wage announced, although needs to be set against cuts in benefits payments.
http://
A living wage?
http://
A living wage?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mushroom25. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
What I can't understand about Osborne's new "living wage" is this ::
At present, under the existing Minimum Wage laws, all 21 year olds and older get £6.50 an hour. But as from next year, 25 year olds and older will get £7.20 an hour. So it appears that you have to be at least 25 years old to get these few extra pennies. But what about 21 year olds next year ?
Will they still be on the minimum wage ? There must be millions of workers aged from 18 to 24 that will miss out on this flawed new so-called "living wage"
Why has Osborne moved the goal posts from 21 to 25 ? If you are 21, 22, 23, and 24 years old, you are an adult, in just the same way as a 25 year old. You are no longer a child.
The more you look at Osbornes "living wage" the more holes you find. Not quite the blockbuster that it appeared to be at first, is it ?
At present, under the existing Minimum Wage laws, all 21 year olds and older get £6.50 an hour. But as from next year, 25 year olds and older will get £7.20 an hour. So it appears that you have to be at least 25 years old to get these few extra pennies. But what about 21 year olds next year ?
Will they still be on the minimum wage ? There must be millions of workers aged from 18 to 24 that will miss out on this flawed new so-called "living wage"
Why has Osborne moved the goal posts from 21 to 25 ? If you are 21, 22, 23, and 24 years old, you are an adult, in just the same way as a 25 year old. You are no longer a child.
The more you look at Osbornes "living wage" the more holes you find. Not quite the blockbuster that it appeared to be at first, is it ?
// But, as Mush says, this modest rise of 70p an hour may be wiped out by welfare cuts, so some people may be less well off as a result. Seems like sleight of hand to me. //
It seems fairly straightforward to me. Instead of people having to top up a low wage by claiming benefits, he's getting employers to pay the extra.
It's not about giving extra money away or taking extra money in. Just shifting the responsibilities around. I'd say it's pretty sensible.
It seems fairly straightforward to me. Instead of people having to top up a low wage by claiming benefits, he's getting employers to pay the extra.
It's not about giving extra money away or taking extra money in. Just shifting the responsibilities around. I'd say it's pretty sensible.
George Osborne’s new ‘national living wage’ is not actually a living wage, the group responsible for promoting the living wage has said.
http://
http://
I am obliged for your link Tony.
Mamy...here is how the Minimum Wage works at present :::
https:/
I can just about see the need to raise it in steps, from 16 to 21. When I was a young apprentice, with the GPO in 1970, our rates of pay were incremented until we qualified as an adult Technician, usually around the age of 21. But as soon as we were qualified, we got the same rate as the other men we were working with, if they were doing the same work, at the same grade.
But what Osborne is now saying is that you have to be on low wages until the age of 25, when lots of people will have settled down and started a family. Not of course that the wages for 25 year olds is isn't low as well.
I am quite prepared to accept that a 25 year old and a 16 year old might get paid differently. But a 24 year old, working alongside a 25 year old, doing exactly the same job, will get paid less !
Its as I said...its all smoke and mirrors, just to make us think that Osborne is doing us all a big favour.
Mamy...here is how the Minimum Wage works at present :::
https:/
I can just about see the need to raise it in steps, from 16 to 21. When I was a young apprentice, with the GPO in 1970, our rates of pay were incremented until we qualified as an adult Technician, usually around the age of 21. But as soon as we were qualified, we got the same rate as the other men we were working with, if they were doing the same work, at the same grade.
But what Osborne is now saying is that you have to be on low wages until the age of 25, when lots of people will have settled down and started a family. Not of course that the wages for 25 year olds is isn't low as well.
I am quite prepared to accept that a 25 year old and a 16 year old might get paid differently. But a 24 year old, working alongside a 25 year old, doing exactly the same job, will get paid less !
Its as I said...its all smoke and mirrors, just to make us think that Osborne is doing us all a big favour.
Ludwig...do you think that making people wait until age 25 before they get this new "living wage" instead of 21 is sensible ? Wouldn't it have been much more sensible to increase the Minimum Wage to £7:20 for 21 and up ?
By the way, I am in full agreement with employers being made to pay higher rates of pay, rather than the taxpayer having to subsidise them. Why should we subsidise companies like Tesco ?
But this measure is half-arsed and its beginning to unravel.
By the way, I am in full agreement with employers being made to pay higher rates of pay, rather than the taxpayer having to subsidise them. Why should we subsidise companies like Tesco ?
But this measure is half-arsed and its beginning to unravel.
Ludwig, //It's not about giving extra money away or taking extra money in. Just shifting the responsibilities around. I'd say it's pretty sensible.//
Exactly. That's what I said earlier.
Mikey, there's no point in debating it with you. Your mind is made up before this government does anything at all. Personally, I don't think it's a bad thing to try to reduce the burden of the benefits system on the public purse, but there you are. As for young people, you say //But what Osborne is now saying is that you have to be on low wages until the age of 25, when lots of people will have settled down and started a family. // - but perhaps if benefits aren't so readily available to them they won't expect to depend upon them and therefore delay starting their families until they can afford to support them.
Now I'll sit back and await the howls of protest.
Exactly. That's what I said earlier.
Mikey, there's no point in debating it with you. Your mind is made up before this government does anything at all. Personally, I don't think it's a bad thing to try to reduce the burden of the benefits system on the public purse, but there you are. As for young people, you say //But what Osborne is now saying is that you have to be on low wages until the age of 25, when lots of people will have settled down and started a family. // - but perhaps if benefits aren't so readily available to them they won't expect to depend upon them and therefore delay starting their families until they can afford to support them.
Now I'll sit back and await the howls of protest.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank23 mins ago
News23 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles28 mins ago
Trump's Cabinet Picks. What Do We Think?...
News29 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles32 mins ago
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |