The Prince Of Darkness To Be U S...
News0 min ago
Every Little Helps I Guess
40 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by tiggerblue10. 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.
Many supermarket workers want to do shorter shifts though gromit as its suits them better, especially students, older workers near retirement, those with childcare.
Agreed its not much if you got a family and mortgage so tax credits are needed too but a full timer its plenty for someone living with parents or a student and its far more than state pension or UC.
But what should minimum wage be if its still too low £12? £15?
Some employers coud'nt afford that so job's would be lost
Agreed its not much if you got a family and mortgage so tax credits are needed too but a full timer its plenty for someone living with parents or a student and its far more than state pension or UC.
But what should minimum wage be if its still too low £12? £15?
Some employers coud'nt afford that so job's would be lost
//Wolf -you could not live on nearly £400 a week?//
Well, somebody working a 35 hour week would earn £332.50. From that they would see deductions of just under £36, so leaving them with £296. So not quite “nearly £400 a week”. More “nearly £300 a week.” And this assumes he makes no pension contributions.
//They would get it topped up with Tax credits,…//
If the earner was a single person with no children, living alone in a small bedsit for which he paid £100pw (if he could find such premises), he would not be entitled to any Universal Credit, so would have less than £200 a week to live on. So, making allowances for energy bills, council tax, water charges, travel expenses, and a few luxuries such as food and drink, he wouldn’t have much left.
He could get by, but whether you’d describe it a “living” I suppose depends on what you’re used to.
Well, somebody working a 35 hour week would earn £332.50. From that they would see deductions of just under £36, so leaving them with £296. So not quite “nearly £400 a week”. More “nearly £300 a week.” And this assumes he makes no pension contributions.
//They would get it topped up with Tax credits,…//
If the earner was a single person with no children, living alone in a small bedsit for which he paid £100pw (if he could find such premises), he would not be entitled to any Universal Credit, so would have less than £200 a week to live on. So, making allowances for energy bills, council tax, water charges, travel expenses, and a few luxuries such as food and drink, he wouldn’t have much left.
He could get by, but whether you’d describe it a “living” I suppose depends on what you’re used to.
NJ you can manipulate the figures until you are blue in the face. Where do you get 35 hours from? As far as I know 40 hours is a working week. At the new living wage that's £1615 per month gross - £120 per month NI contributions £139 TAx Paye, Net = approx £1586. ( £373 per week) A single person could live on that, a couple with children they can get a WTC top up.
//As far as I know 40 hours is a working week.//
Depends where you look. Many people only get paid for the hours they work and not for breaks. Some careworkers do not get paid for the time it takes them to travel between their client’s premises. But even if you’re right, firstly I think your Tax and NI deductions are not quite correct. The gross pay is £19,760. Tax on that (£12,570 personal allowance), so taxable pay is £7,190, x 20% = £1,438. NI is payable on £19,760 minus £9,568 primary threshold = £10,192. At 12% = £1,223. So Total deductions are £2,661, net pay £17,099pa, £1,432 per month, £328 per week. But I may be wrong.
I purposely based my calculations on a single person. Your idea that Universal Credit should be paid to enhance the pay of people with extra expenses simply shifts part of the employer’s paybill to the taxpayer. The employee should meet all his living expenses, not the taxpayer. If he cannot do so on the minimum wage working full time then that wage is insufficient. Personally I think to expect anybody to work 40 hours for £328 is taking the pee. If you live in London or any large city (as the majority of the population does) then three hundred quid a week is subsistence level. Yes, you can scrimp and scrape and just get by and that’s what many people have to do. That’s not “living”, it’s existing hand to mouth. They cannot save for unexpected bills, they cannot contribute to a pension, they cannot take a decent holiday. They are working simply to exist. That’s not the sort of economy this country should be operating.
Depends where you look. Many people only get paid for the hours they work and not for breaks. Some careworkers do not get paid for the time it takes them to travel between their client’s premises. But even if you’re right, firstly I think your Tax and NI deductions are not quite correct. The gross pay is £19,760. Tax on that (£12,570 personal allowance), so taxable pay is £7,190, x 20% = £1,438. NI is payable on £19,760 minus £9,568 primary threshold = £10,192. At 12% = £1,223. So Total deductions are £2,661, net pay £17,099pa, £1,432 per month, £328 per week. But I may be wrong.
I purposely based my calculations on a single person. Your idea that Universal Credit should be paid to enhance the pay of people with extra expenses simply shifts part of the employer’s paybill to the taxpayer. The employee should meet all his living expenses, not the taxpayer. If he cannot do so on the minimum wage working full time then that wage is insufficient. Personally I think to expect anybody to work 40 hours for £328 is taking the pee. If you live in London or any large city (as the majority of the population does) then three hundred quid a week is subsistence level. Yes, you can scrimp and scrape and just get by and that’s what many people have to do. That’s not “living”, it’s existing hand to mouth. They cannot save for unexpected bills, they cannot contribute to a pension, they cannot take a decent holiday. They are working simply to exist. That’s not the sort of economy this country should be operating.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.