Quizzes & Puzzles26 mins ago
Next Boss (And Tory Peer) Simon Wolfson, Shoots Himself In The Foot And Then Complains About A Pain In His Foot
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hymie. 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 amount should the National Minimum Wage be? How would you define "adequately"?//
So that they can live without having taxpayers’ cash lavished on them. In my example the recipient was receiving about £27k in wages and benefits, so that seems to be a reasonable “going rate”. At 35 hours a week this works out £16 an hour.
//Should an employer pay a childless single employee the same amount as another employee who has a partner and two wee ones for example?//
So long as they are doing the same work and working the same number of hours, of course they should. Work is not a means-tested welfare scheme. Why should somebody who has chosen not to have children be paid less than somebody who has them? They do exactly the same work but are paid less because of their personal circumstances? I don't think so.
//The taxpayer is funding 'child tax credits'. A benefit also available to those not just on minimum wage!//
Yes I know. And they shouldn’t be. If the government wants to provide a benefit to those in work because they have different circumstances that can be accommodated via the PAYE system. Personally I don’t see why they should. People should adjust their lifestyles according to their income, they should not expect either their employers or the taxpayer to adjust their income to suit their lifestyles.
//…it was evident that Europeans were leaving these shores in their droves.//
I’m not so sure it was evident at all. Some 6m EU citizens applied for settlement under the “settled status” scheme. Perhaps you could let us know how many formed these droves (carefully avoiding those who left at the start of the pandemic – because of that, not because of Brexit). In any case, even if they did, so what?
//Therefore, his pleas for more foreign workers to ease the plight of recruitment at Next warehouses, falls on unsympathetic ears.//
Hopefully you’re correct.
So that they can live without having taxpayers’ cash lavished on them. In my example the recipient was receiving about £27k in wages and benefits, so that seems to be a reasonable “going rate”. At 35 hours a week this works out £16 an hour.
//Should an employer pay a childless single employee the same amount as another employee who has a partner and two wee ones for example?//
So long as they are doing the same work and working the same number of hours, of course they should. Work is not a means-tested welfare scheme. Why should somebody who has chosen not to have children be paid less than somebody who has them? They do exactly the same work but are paid less because of their personal circumstances? I don't think so.
//The taxpayer is funding 'child tax credits'. A benefit also available to those not just on minimum wage!//
Yes I know. And they shouldn’t be. If the government wants to provide a benefit to those in work because they have different circumstances that can be accommodated via the PAYE system. Personally I don’t see why they should. People should adjust their lifestyles according to their income, they should not expect either their employers or the taxpayer to adjust their income to suit their lifestyles.
//…it was evident that Europeans were leaving these shores in their droves.//
I’m not so sure it was evident at all. Some 6m EU citizens applied for settlement under the “settled status” scheme. Perhaps you could let us know how many formed these droves (carefully avoiding those who left at the start of the pandemic – because of that, not because of Brexit). In any case, even if they did, so what?
//Therefore, his pleas for more foreign workers to ease the plight of recruitment at Next warehouses, falls on unsympathetic ears.//
Hopefully you’re correct.
// They do exactly the same work but are paid less because of their personal circumstances? //
The important thing to note is that providing they perform equally in the work place; their employer rewards them equally. This is usually the case.
//So that they can live without having taxpayers’ cash lavished on them.//
Strange that you consider Child Tax Credits has being a benefit to enhance the life styles of those families with kids.
These 'monies' go to the nurseries and carers of those children whose parents are eligible for CTC.
Assuming the person with kids takes home the same wage as the single person. Inevitably then, food and heating bills as well as other living expenses e.g. A holiday... will be higher for the parent. Clearly then it can be seen, to make a direct comparison, there is less income at the disposal of the family person.
For the reasons given above, it is difficult to approve your argument when you deem those earners with children are living a "lavish lifestyle" over their singleton counterparts.
// recipient was receiving about £27k in wages... (cut)... seems to be a reasonable)
Not deserving of the average wage then?
The important thing to note is that providing they perform equally in the work place; their employer rewards them equally. This is usually the case.
//So that they can live without having taxpayers’ cash lavished on them.//
Strange that you consider Child Tax Credits has being a benefit to enhance the life styles of those families with kids.
These 'monies' go to the nurseries and carers of those children whose parents are eligible for CTC.
Assuming the person with kids takes home the same wage as the single person. Inevitably then, food and heating bills as well as other living expenses e.g. A holiday... will be higher for the parent. Clearly then it can be seen, to make a direct comparison, there is less income at the disposal of the family person.
For the reasons given above, it is difficult to approve your argument when you deem those earners with children are living a "lavish lifestyle" over their singleton counterparts.
// recipient was receiving about £27k in wages... (cut)... seems to be a reasonable)
Not deserving of the average wage then?
//Strange that you consider Child Tax Credits has being a benefit to enhance the life styles of those families with kids. //
Not strange at all. If people choose to have children they should take responsibility for them. Others choose not to have children because they know they can't afford it.
//Inevitably then, food and heating bills as well as other living expenses e.g. A holiday... will be higher for the parent. Clearly then it can be seen, to make a direct comparison, there is less income at the disposal of the family person. //
People know that when they have children. It should come as no surprise to them.
Not strange at all. If people choose to have children they should take responsibility for them. Others choose not to have children because they know they can't afford it.
//Inevitably then, food and heating bills as well as other living expenses e.g. A holiday... will be higher for the parent. Clearly then it can be seen, to make a direct comparison, there is less income at the disposal of the family person. //
People know that when they have children. It should come as no surprise to them.
//Strange that you consider Child Tax Credits has being a benefit to enhance the life styles of those families with kids.//
What else is it for then?
//These 'monies' go to the nurseries and carers of those children whose parents are eligible for CTC.//
This is how it is, then: people with children choose to sub-contract out their upbring to a bunch of paid strangers so that they can both go to work. In order to facilitate that the taxpayer has to fork out for that care.
Having children is not something that “happens” to people (like, say, contracting a serious illness). In the majority of cases it is a deliberate choice. I accept that quite a number of people embark on parenthood with scant regard for their financial circumstances but since that’s their fault I don’t see why the taxpayer should pick up the tab for the additional expenses that will inevitably result from their irresponsibility.
// Not deserving of the average wage then?//
Whether they are deserving or not is not for me to say (and of course, by definition, many people will always earn less than average pay). I was simply making a rough calculation based on what the government, by way of its ridiculous “tax credits” scheme, seems to think is about sufficient. If Next want to pay differential rates dependent on their employees' circumstances it's up to them (and good luck with that). If the £17k that they pay its warehouse workers is deemed insufficient to live on I see no reason why the taxpayer make up the difference.
What else is it for then?
//These 'monies' go to the nurseries and carers of those children whose parents are eligible for CTC.//
This is how it is, then: people with children choose to sub-contract out their upbring to a bunch of paid strangers so that they can both go to work. In order to facilitate that the taxpayer has to fork out for that care.
Having children is not something that “happens” to people (like, say, contracting a serious illness). In the majority of cases it is a deliberate choice. I accept that quite a number of people embark on parenthood with scant regard for their financial circumstances but since that’s their fault I don’t see why the taxpayer should pick up the tab for the additional expenses that will inevitably result from their irresponsibility.
// Not deserving of the average wage then?//
Whether they are deserving or not is not for me to say (and of course, by definition, many people will always earn less than average pay). I was simply making a rough calculation based on what the government, by way of its ridiculous “tax credits” scheme, seems to think is about sufficient. If Next want to pay differential rates dependent on their employees' circumstances it's up to them (and good luck with that). If the £17k that they pay its warehouse workers is deemed insufficient to live on I see no reason why the taxpayer make up the difference.
NJ, your definition of "adequately" is "liv[ing] without having taxpayers’ cash lavished on them".
The Government pays additional benefits to those with dependents, presumably because it recognizes that more money is needed to support those dependents.
If a single employee earnt enough not to require benefits but later had dependents, should that employee be able to claim from the state in respect of those dependents?
The Government pays additional benefits to those with dependents, presumably because it recognizes that more money is needed to support those dependents.
If a single employee earnt enough not to require benefits but later had dependents, should that employee be able to claim from the state in respect of those dependents?
//If a single employee earnt enough not to require benefits but later had dependents, should that employee be able to claim from the state in respect of those dependents?//
No. People must cut their cloth and all that.
The furthest I would go is to modify the income tax regime to allow those who have children to pay a bit less tax than those who don't. That way, those who earn the most would benefit the most. But...it would only be available as a transitionary measure for, say, five years if Child Tax Credits were abolished. And then it would only provide additional tax relief for a maximum of two children.
No. People must cut their cloth and all that.
The furthest I would go is to modify the income tax regime to allow those who have children to pay a bit less tax than those who don't. That way, those who earn the most would benefit the most. But...it would only be available as a transitionary measure for, say, five years if Child Tax Credits were abolished. And then it would only provide additional tax relief for a maximum of two children.
//Maybe you've forgot or pretending to forget or missed what I said before.. I voted Remain so your post is as pointless as usual//
Indeed bob. You have my respect for taking the result the way you consistently have ("I'm disappointed but it's done - let's move on", or words to that effect). Unfortunately, such an attitude is not very common - certainly not on here at any rate.
Indeed bob. You have my respect for taking the result the way you consistently have ("I'm disappointed but it's done - let's move on", or words to that effect). Unfortunately, such an attitude is not very common - certainly not on here at any rate.
I think I said earlier, Corby, about £16 an hour. This would give a worker about £500 for a 35 hour week.
That said, I'm not too sure I entirely agree with a legally enforced "minimum wage". If employers did not pay a decent rate they would not get people to work for them, they would not get customers and so would go under. Provided they were prevented from shipping in cheap labour from abroad the labour market should sort itself out without the need for legislation. But if there has to be one, about £16 should do the job at present.
That said, I'm not too sure I entirely agree with a legally enforced "minimum wage". If employers did not pay a decent rate they would not get people to work for them, they would not get customers and so would go under. Provided they were prevented from shipping in cheap labour from abroad the labour market should sort itself out without the need for legislation. But if there has to be one, about £16 should do the job at present.
//What else is it for then?//
CTCs have brought about private nurseries to sprout up and generate job opportunites for others.
Certainly not to create 'lavish lifestyles!'
Let us consider the the alternative:
Two unemployed parents sat at home with 2 small children. Claims for housing, child allowances, council tax etc paid out in the form of Universal Credit.
This amounting to a conservative estimate of 250% more than the £7k in CTCs that you bemoan.
Furthermore, what good to society does funding 2 able bodied adults sat at home serve? Especially now, when they could be supporting a UK work force that badly needs them.
The cost element alone, points to there being little sense in the argument to abolish CTCs.
CTCs have brought about private nurseries to sprout up and generate job opportunites for others.
Certainly not to create 'lavish lifestyles!'
Let us consider the the alternative:
Two unemployed parents sat at home with 2 small children. Claims for housing, child allowances, council tax etc paid out in the form of Universal Credit.
This amounting to a conservative estimate of 250% more than the £7k in CTCs that you bemoan.
Furthermore, what good to society does funding 2 able bodied adults sat at home serve? Especially now, when they could be supporting a UK work force that badly needs them.
The cost element alone, points to there being little sense in the argument to abolish CTCs.
//people with children choose to sub-contract out their upbring to a bunch of paid strangers//
It is woeful that part of the teaching profession has been branded a 'bunch of paid strangers'.
To your credit at least, finally you have recognised that the money is not being spent to create 'lavish lifestyles'.
It is woeful that part of the teaching profession has been branded a 'bunch of paid strangers'.
To your credit at least, finally you have recognised that the money is not being spent to create 'lavish lifestyles'.
//Two unemployed parents sat at home with 2 small children. Claims for housing, child allowances, council tax etc paid out in the form of Universal Credit.//
Why should they both sit at home? There are plenty of jobs around.
//There emanates a nasty odour. The unmistakable whiff of... 'Only the rich can have children'.//
Actually there emanates the comments of somebody eager to unjustifiably suggest such a thing. My parents were not at all rich. In fact, during much of my upbringing they didn’t have the proverbial pot to pee in. They didn’t get Child Tax credits.
//It is woeful that part of the teaching profession has been branded a 'bunch of paid strangers'.//
I’m not talking about teachers. I’m talking about paid childminders in the private nurseries you mention below (though as things going the way they are, the difference is becoming harder to determine).
//CTCs have brought about private nurseries to sprout up and generate job opportunites for others.//
Is that the function of Child Tax Credits? I thought it was paid to help people with the costs of bringing up a child. If one of them stayed at home they would not have the costs of a private nursery to meet.
//Certainly not to create 'lavish lifestyles!'//
I don’t know where you have got the impression that I consider recipients of CTC to enjoy “lavish lifestyles.” I said they have money lavished on them (i.e. using “lavish” as a verb to describe the process of doling out money, not as an adjective to describe the lifestyles of the recipients). To lavish: “bestow something in generous or extravagant quantities on.” That is exactly what the taxpayer is doing but I doubt recipients of CTC can afford lavish lifestyles.
We will not agree on this because there is a fundamental difference of philosophy. You believe that the government should dole out money to people solely on the basis that they are on low pay and/or have children and I don’t. This country will not prosper (which I suggest is an aim we should all strive for) whilst vast sums of money are being ladled out to people in this way. They are not unfortunate; they are not unlucky; they are not ill. Low pay should be addressed by employers and the cost of bringing up a child should be met by parents. Neither should be the responsibility of the taxpayer.
Why should they both sit at home? There are plenty of jobs around.
//There emanates a nasty odour. The unmistakable whiff of... 'Only the rich can have children'.//
Actually there emanates the comments of somebody eager to unjustifiably suggest such a thing. My parents were not at all rich. In fact, during much of my upbringing they didn’t have the proverbial pot to pee in. They didn’t get Child Tax credits.
//It is woeful that part of the teaching profession has been branded a 'bunch of paid strangers'.//
I’m not talking about teachers. I’m talking about paid childminders in the private nurseries you mention below (though as things going the way they are, the difference is becoming harder to determine).
//CTCs have brought about private nurseries to sprout up and generate job opportunites for others.//
Is that the function of Child Tax Credits? I thought it was paid to help people with the costs of bringing up a child. If one of them stayed at home they would not have the costs of a private nursery to meet.
//Certainly not to create 'lavish lifestyles!'//
I don’t know where you have got the impression that I consider recipients of CTC to enjoy “lavish lifestyles.” I said they have money lavished on them (i.e. using “lavish” as a verb to describe the process of doling out money, not as an adjective to describe the lifestyles of the recipients). To lavish: “bestow something in generous or extravagant quantities on.” That is exactly what the taxpayer is doing but I doubt recipients of CTC can afford lavish lifestyles.
We will not agree on this because there is a fundamental difference of philosophy. You believe that the government should dole out money to people solely on the basis that they are on low pay and/or have children and I don’t. This country will not prosper (which I suggest is an aim we should all strive for) whilst vast sums of money are being ladled out to people in this way. They are not unfortunate; they are not unlucky; they are not ill. Low pay should be addressed by employers and the cost of bringing up a child should be met by parents. Neither should be the responsibility of the taxpayer.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles60 mins ago
ChatterBank61 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles68 mins ago
Body & Soul71 mins ago
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.