Minimum Wage Should be £19 per hour in the UK.

a reply to: Freeborn

And I dare say that the good Prof is in amongst that 1% himself, with all the positions he has and has had, not too mention the books and speaking circuits he does.

While the chap has a point, it's kind of like Bono or Beyonce telling us to give money to Africa as they sit on millions in their luxury mansions and not living in the same world as the rest of us.

And it is a little melodramatic to say we're going back to the victorian age (even though that was a golden era for Britain) as society is totally different.

a reply to: stumason

And I dare say that the good Prof is in amongst that 1% himself, with all the positions he has and has had, not too mention the books and speaking circuits he does.

Whilst I'm not sure he's in the top 1% of earners I have absolutely no doubt he is doing a damn sight better than the vast majority of us - and I suspect that he himself is that far removed from the reality of everyday life secure in his academic ivory tower that the irony of that will completely escape him.

While the chap has a point, it's kind of like Bono or Beyonce telling us to give money to Africa as they sit on millions in their luxury mansions and not living in the same world as the rest of us.

I agree entirely - John Lennon's the one who epitomises it for me....but we won't go there here as I suspect it'd only derail the thread.

And it is a little melodramatic to say we're going back to the victorian age (even though that was a golden era for Britain) as society is totally different.

You know me and 'dramatic effect' stu.....but I'm not too sure about it on this occasion.
Yes, the Victorian Age was a 'Golden Era' for some, but it was quite a different story for many. The social injustices and inequalities that many, many Brits suffered is quite conveniently glossed over by some.

a reply to: Shiloh7

If workers accrued ownership instead of being leased at an hourly rate, the need for minimum wages and retirement packages would evaporate over a course of 25 years.

let this be a warning,i represent the poorest in our country and let me tell you people are going hungary.
this is not made up,,my grandad went to war for this country,,and i cannot eat every day while cameron and his ilk
live it up and deconstruct the nhs ,,we are fast approaching real riots in this country the likes you have not seen since the middle ages,guy fawkes was right how messed up is that,do not think the police would stop this ,let me rationalize this statement.
if your hungary then it becomes live or die,and if we are going to die then we have nothing left to loose.
im sorry for what is to come and i wish i really wish this was not the case.
real change in this country is the only thing that can stop this outcome.is it going to change, no way will they let it.
look to china for a glimpse of what this might be like,except we are way more pissed then they are.

originally posted by: Nechash
a reply to: Shiloh7

If workers accrued ownership instead of being leased at an hourly rate, the need for minimum wages and retirement packages would evaporate over a course of 25 years.

Every company I have ever worked for has had a share incentive scheme which allows the employees to purchase stock at heavily discounted rates, including my current one which is often vilified as an example of bad corporate tax practice.

Currently, I am a member of two schemes here - one where I purchase shares at a guaranteed discounted price and the other where my employer gives a free share for every one purchased.

a reply to: stuthealien

And there I was thinking all the Hungarians were coming here........

Sorry, i couldn't resist....

a reply to: Freeborn

I just think it's an all to easy cop-out to blame the "Elite" as has been done in this thread. There a good many reasons for the problems we face in the UK and a good many have sod all to do with the "elite", but rather the fault of the "working man" himself.

Take mining, or car manufacturing for example - both industries destroyed not by "Maggie", but the Unions egging on the workers for more and more money for a declining product. It got a point where the big UK car manufacturers were simply unable to compete with price on imports from Japan or Europe, had massive reliability problems and that's assuming the car you ordered was even built with all the industrial action going, demanding more and more money for an inferior product. In the end, each and every one went bust and the workers had done themselves out of a job altogether.

On the flipside, take Germany and how they handled industrial relations in their Automotive industry. No Unions - not like we have - instead they engaged the workforce and had them involved in the running of the business. The result was fair wages for work done, which was of a high quality and for every day the Germans lost to industrial action, the UK lost 10.

So, to blame "the top" for all the problems, like I said, is far to easy and not getting to the nub of the problem, which is an over inflated sense of entitlement which seems to pervade UK society. I see it even now, with the people I work with in the 21st Century with people who already earn a lot of money and do very little, demanding even more and getting shirty when the yearly review says they've not deserved it. Likewise with people who complain about immigrants taking jobs, but when asked if they would do that job they mount the high horse and refuse, acting like it is beneath them.

I'll be the first to admit that I know very little about how the economy actually works, but can't we say that if people are making more money, they have more money to spend which would help the economy out of the mess it's in?

Also food for thought, I don't know how it is in the UK, but I read an article that said that if we 'regular' people had gotten a pay raise every time the 'big guys' were given a pay raise, our minimum wage would be 28 dollars and some change.
I wish I could find that article again.

The problem with minimum wage in most areas is that it's far below the living wage. And we say that people should work more hours and go to school if they aren't happy with their wages, because you are paid for your skills and how they contribute to society. But when we add in school fees, minimum wage is even farther below the living wage. I'm sorry, but if you work 40+ hours a week, no matter what your job is, you shouldn't be starving.

a reply to: stumason

That scheme would lead to the kind of thing I am envisioning if corporations were forced to share some of their profits with common stockholders via routine dividend payments. Personally, I think in lieu of taxes, corporations should be required to pay out at least 10% per year off their total income before deductions to shareholders and then those shareholders should pay an income tax off of those monies instead. This way, workers such as yourself could eventually earn your way out of the situation where you have to perform work regularly in order to live comfortably.

a reply to: Lyxdeslic

In the UK, the minimum wage for anyone over 21 is £6.50 ($10.52) an hour. For a standard 37.5 hour week this is £243.75. On top of that, you will get tax credits (which can vary depending on your family size etc) and other benefits (housing, child benefit etc) so in reality no one on minimum wage is "starving".

I have just done the HMRC Tax Credits calculator assuming both myself and my partner are on minimum wage, we have two kids, both in school and one of which requires a childminder before and after school for 12 hours a week @ £5 an hour - you can claim an additional £2670 from the Government on top of child benefit etc. So this would mean that two people, doing 37 hour weeks on min wage, would have a combined income of £28,000 (£45312.82) or thereabouts.

Now, I am not saying that is brilliant money or they'd live like Kings, but they certainly wouldn't starve. And if they wanted to improve their skills, there is nothing stopping them getting a Student loan and going back to school - no one has to pay for University up front in the UK - or engaging with their employer to get training to imrpove their skills, prospects and pay.

a reply to: Nechash

Shareholders pay Capital Gains tax which is actually higher than income tax, when you factor in the banding.

But most companies, if they really want to succeed, know they have to incentivise their employees and not just bend over for shareholders.

Like I said, every company I have worked for since I was 18 (I am now 32) has had some form of scheme, on top of the annual bonus's etc. For example, on top of the two schemes I mentioned above, we also got an annual bonus this year equal to 5% of our salary and rather reasonable pay increases (I personally got 2.75% which is well above inflation)

Bottom line is, if companies don't look after their workers, they leave, which costs the employer money in retraining and recruitment.

originally posted by: stumason
a reply to: Lyxdeslic

In the UK, the minimum wage for anyone over 21 is £6.50 ($10.52) an hour. For a standard 37.5 hour week this is £243.75. On top of that, you will get tax credits (which can vary depending on your family size etc) and other benefits (housing, child benefit etc) so in reality no one on minimum wage is "starving".

I have just done the HMRC Tax Credits calculator assuming both myself and my partner are on minimum wage, we have two kids, both in school and one of which requires a childminder before and after school for 12 hours a week @ £5 an hour - you can claim an additional £2670 from the Government on top of child benefit etc. So this would mean that two people, doing 37 hour weeks on min wage, would have a combined income of £28,000 (£45312.82) or thereabouts.

Now, I am not saying that is brilliant money or they'd live like Kings, but they certainly wouldn't starve. And if they wanted to improve their skills, there is nothing stopping them getting a Student loan and going back to school - no one has to pay for University up front in the UK - or engaging with their employer to get training to imrpove their skills, prospects and pay.

Thank you for passing along that information. That makes a lot of sense. So... It could be a possibility that the people in the UK that are complaining that wages should be higher may just be living out of their means?

a reply to: stumason

Well, we all pay vastly too much in tax because of the fractional reserve system. If our government were the sole issuer of credit, our tax would only be necessary to reduce the rate of inflation.

a reply to: Lyxdeslic

I wouldn't day that applies to everyone, but I would imagine that does come into play, yes. I'm guilty of it myself!

I would hazard a guess and say most people have poor money sense and would happily spend £100 on a weekend then spend the rest of the month worrying about buying food. Society these days does seem to be about immediate satisfaction, rather than saving. Like I said, I am guilty of this as much as the next man and learning the hard lesson about credit cards.

a reply to: Shiloh7

This is correct, the process of inflation outstripping wage's while the company's profit's kept pace has gone on since Thatcher removed the index link to inflation that had previously meant wages had to keep track with it, this is also what went wrong with benefit's, the benefits were index linked but the wages then were then on not linked to it and year by year they fell, the company's perversely still often paid the same percentage in wage but it was now going to the pots of managers and directors rather than the hard working workforce, this also disheartened workers who felt hard done by but of course the Unions were now powerless while the media brainwashed the masses.

More pay actually means higher net contributions and that means more government money for public services, armed forces, subsidies and healthcare, pensions, welfare but that is why we are in a predicament now.

Because the Tory mantra is everything is better if it is private sector (because the wealthy own it and you are serf's again).
They do not want you to have public services, they want you to be a slave.

Those who purchased shares, please use the common sense of seeing that shares are subdivided over time as a company grow's, early shares are worth a lot but when a company reaches a static level of growth those shares become static in value raising or falling only a few pence or pound at the most, is owning a handful of paper shares worth selling your country down the swanny for.

a reply to: LABTECH767

In response to your share question - yes, over time as new shares get issued, that could be an issue, but then you have to factor in the long term dividend payments against any depreciation of the overall share value.

Also, because we are getting them at such a discount, this is not really an issue either.

For example, I am putting in £50 a month on both schemes I mentioned - by the time the first matures in 2 years time, it will be worth considerably more than the £1800 I put in - currently the discounted scheme is valued at just over £2000 for an input of around £700.

The buy one get one free is even more lucrative as I get £100 of shares for £50 a month, again maturing after 3 years when I can sell those shares for a healthy profit. I also get the dividends paid from those shares in both schemes paid into the account which is then used to buy even more shares...

So, in a nutshell, for a modest investment every month, I am at least doubling my money but in reality the profit will be 3, 4 or even 5 times the amount I put in.

a reply to: stumason

No it is a serious issue, the private sector has bled the country dry for far too long, the dividend's tend to be spent with only those who are already relatively comfortable able to leave them to mount or be reinvested and let's be fair market fund managers love to spin this as good as after all it is there bread and butter.

I want the Old labour and the Old Conservative party's back, they at least cared about there people and there nation first, get these kid's out of parliament and bring back the men who have lived and know what they are talking about.

Obviously I feel about the Tory party (not the conservative party I do draw a distinction there though it is no longer clear in modern politic's) what you feel about labour, but by the way I feel exactly the same about NEW LABOUR, they are a bunch of hypocrites.

I do NOT want an internationalist running my country, I want a British patriot who care's about his people and country and is fiercely proud of our history because despite all the nay sayers we were a good force in the world not a bad one and definitely deserve better than we have today.

a reply to: LABTECH767

You touched on something there - many of those in Parliament are "career politicians" and very few have had "real jobs". Take Cameron, for example. straight out of Uni with a Politics degree, into a Conservative research position, then as an aide to MP's until he had squirmed his way into a seat. Not a single day in a "real world" job in his whole life. Most in parliament have similar CV's.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Perhaps I should change that to "New Labour" - I am too young to really know anything about "Old Labour"

a reply to: stumason

Thing is though stu, there is a far more even distribution of wealth in places like Germany than here.
The standard of living is better, wages are higher etc.
There simply isn't that obsession with making enormous amounts of wealth and probably more importantly doing relatively little with it.

German companies re-invest far more in their employees and society in general.
British companies priorities tend towards paying share dividends - and guess who own the vast majority of them - and accruing more wealth for a minority, the vast majority of whom refuse to re-invest that vast amount of wealth in this country and its people.

Sure, there were a lot of things wrong with UK manufacturing, not least of which was serial mis-management and nepotism largely revolving around 'the old boy network'.

As for Thatcher; a woman who destroyed the coal industry just to prove she had bigger balls than any male.
She justified vastly reducing subsidies to the domestic coal industry by buying huge amounts of cheaper coal from Poland.....a coal industry that was 100% subsidised by a communist regime she allegedly despised.
No scruples or morals there.

Of course the troubles with NCB ran deeper than that, as they did with all the nationalised industries - but the best solution wasn't to shut them down or sell them off.

At present nearly all our utilities are foreign owned and we are haemorrhaging money out of the country.
Personally I'd re-nationalise nearly all of them - but run them in a professional, modern and efficient manner.
Profits would be re-invested in the workforce and this country's infrastructure etc.

Bit of a no-brainer to me.

I've never denied there are elements in our society that have come to rely and expect benefits etc and yes, we desperately need to do something about it.
Simply stripping them of all benefits isn't all the answer though - the malaise in our society runs far deeper than that and the remedies require far more thought and planning.

And yes, some people do think certain jobs are beneath them....but there is also a tendency for people in well paying jobs to be quite contemptuous of people in lower paying employment.
Again, just another manifestation of our society's problems.

But people on minimum wage aren't the work shy, they are wanting to go out and work, quite frequently in jobs they are eminently over qualified for.
They are decent, hard working people who are by and large grafting hard to provide for themselves and their families.
The seemingly contempt some seem to have for people in these jobs quite frankly disgusts me.

I've literally shovelled # for a living, I've dug ditches. I've done all manner of 'crappy' jobs.
I've also managed factories, owned my own pubs, ran a security firm.
I know which are the harder jobs.

We've already seen the successful demonization of the most needy and vulnerable in our society....is the next section of society to be targeted those unfortunate enough to be employed in 'menial' jobs?

This country seems to have so many of its values upside down.

a reply to: Freeborn

I think there is something to be said for losing the War - I reckon that had such a profound affect on life in Germany there simply was no rich or poor by the time the war ended, everyone was in the same desperate boat. Certainly before the Wars, they had a profoundly powerful upper class where wealth was concentrated.

I lived for 5 years in Germany and the way they live has some small, but fundamental differences. For starters, they are much more community focused (again, probably a hang over from the War) which lens itself well to having state owned businesses (I believe the people of Berlin have just voted to re-nationalize the local power company). Mortgages are different too - they tend to be much longer, 99 years is normal and can be inherited, so you get generations of families living in the same home. They also have a much stronger work ethic - this has always been the case and isn't a rich/poor thing

And I wholeheartedly agree that Utilities such as power and Water should be nationalized. Like you said, it's no brainer - on the one had, private companies who are there to make a profit paying their shareholders over a company run as a "non-profit" where all profits are reinvested back into the business. All we've seen since privatization is bills going up while the profits have skyrocketed and service going down.