Living Wage?

[mushroom25]

an increase in the minimum wage announced, although needs to be set against cuts in benefits payments.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33437115

A living wage?

[Ellipsis]

There will be winners and losers in this, both people and companies, but in general I support the idea that employers should not be allowed to pay people less than they can need to live and rely on the state to make up the difference. Phasing in the change over a few years seems sensible.

[TWR]

It that a flight?

[tamborine]

Basic wage is £288 @ 40hrs. How can small businesses pay that to 18y olds?

[ummmm]

Yes, TWR.

A living wage is different for everyone.

[Quoi]

The way it will affect me as a small business is that I wont be able to add an extra employee as planned and may even have to let one go.
I think it will be even harder for startups to get that first employee on the books.

[mikey4444]

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 ?

[naomi24]

It would have had more holes in it if it hadn't happened at all. Nothing this government does will suit you, Mikey.

[ichkeria]

Yes I suspect that the real reason it's been renamed is so that it need no longer be seen as 'minimum'. And not just to get IDS 'pumping his fist' :-)
And of course if you're young it doesn't apply

[ummmm]

Mikey has a point. By the age of 23 I had 2 children. By the age of 26 I had 3. I was lucky enough to be in employment but what if I lost my job? Too young to claim housing benefit...

[mikey4444]

Its smoke and mirrors Naomi. He has done this to distract us from the real meat in the Budget. Millions of people are going to be worse off, and bringing in a half-arsed "living wage" hasn't fooled me.

[naomi24]

Ummmm, had you lost your job hopefully your husband would have been in a position to support you and his children.

Mikey, nothing fools you - except the Labour party. ;o)

[mikey4444]

Why are you shooting the messenger Namoi, rather than debating the issue ?

This new "living wage" is deeply flawed, but to hear him on the Today program this morning, you would have though Osborne had reinvented the wheel.

He hasn't explained why there is this gap between 21 and 25.

[tonyav]

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/budget-2015-you-think-youll-be-paying-less-tax-think-again/ar-AAcJKEy

[Mamyalynne]

I have often wondered about the age banding for the minimum wage.

There is no such correlation with rents/fuel bills etc.

It has never made sense to me.

[ludwig]

// 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.

[trt]

In the year 2020, £9.00 an hour wont be much because of inflation.

[tonyav]

George Osborne’s new ‘national living wage’ is not actually a living wage, the group responsible for promoting the living wage has said.

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/george-osborne%E2%80%99s-living-wage-is-not-actually-a-living-wage-says-living-wage-foundation/ar-AAcIY30

[mikey4444]

I am obliged for your link Tony.

Mamy...here is how the Minimum Wage works at present :::

https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-rates

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.

[mikey4444]

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.

[naomi24]

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.