MacWalka Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 TBH and no way wanting to defend them, but there are some kids who simply should not be going to Uni. My brother included. 3-4 years to get a Micky Mouse degree, and then let lose into a stagnant job market. F that! 4 years of work would have benefited him enormously. Personal circumstances aside, I agree it is making it impossible for working class kids to get a vocational degree (doctor, teacher, accountant, engineer, lawyer, etc). Like you say, the problem is there is nothing credible for them to go straight from school to. J I agree that not everyone should go to uni. It should be for the academically blessed though not the financially blessed as it seems to be heading. There does need to be somewhere for the non-uni kids to go into though, whether that is college, apprenticeships or just work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacWalka Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Thanks. I thought he said it was the living wage which was going to be £7.20. £9ph by 2020 (if you're over 25) is better than what Labour where proposing and also the SNP, who argued at the GE that it should be raised to, I think, £8.70 by 2020. The smoke and mirrors part is that the tax credit threshold has been reduced. He did say that, he's effectively just renamed the minimum wage. The timeline for raising the minumum wage is still behind the actual living wage rate rise but it is better than Labour or SNP. For the companies though, it's possibly a sum zero game, they're paying less in corp tax and more in wages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maq Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I thought the living wage is supposed to be calculated such that it's the rate at which working 37.5 hours per week, a reasonable standard of living is gained without benefits? I was going by this: That's from the 'Resolution Foundation' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacWalka Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Fair enough then. I just don't see the point in having a "Living Wage" or "minimum Wage" that requires working tax credits to provide a decent living. If you're on the minimum/living wage (whatever value it is) and working circa. 40 hours per week, you should be able to live without worrying too much about shelter, food, heating and the occasional pint. If you are worrying then either you're spending too much or the minimum wage isn't high enough for modern living bills. I suspect the latter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maq Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Aye, I suspect you're right. Something's wrong when someone works full time, and still needs state help with benefits etc, whilst working for a big company that gets huge tax breaks, and runs huge profits for their shareholders! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacWalka Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Aye, I suspect you're right. Something's wrong when someone works full time, and still needs state help with benefits etc, whilst working for a big company that gets huge tax breaks, and runs huge profits for their shareholders! Correct! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 He's put up the minimum wage to £7.20 as of next year with it rising to £9 in 2020. That's not a bad policy actually and shits all over Labour's proposals in the GE. Combined with the taking away of student grants and benefits to 18-21 year olds, the Tory's are certainly trying to curtail working class and lower middle class folk from going to uni. It's providing the carrot and the stick to go straight from school into unskilled or apprenticeships. I'm torn on minimum wage, i used to think it's a great idea, but been listening to political scientists like Thomas Sowell discussing economic theory and minimum wage isn't portrayed as that effective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Bongo Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotlad Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 TBH and no way wanting to defend them, but there are some kids who simply should not be going to Uni. My brother included. 3-4 years to get a Micky Mouse degree, and then let lose into a stagnant job market. F that! 4 years of work would have benefited him enormously. Personal circumstances aside, I agree it is making it impossible for working class kids to get a vocational degree (doctor, teacher, accountant, engineer, lawyer, etc). Like you say, the problem is there is nothing credible for them to go straight from school to. J Something else we have to thank New Labour for. They made a big noise about young people going to uni, while at the same time introducing student tuition fees. Kids like your brother will have spent years at uni, many saddling themselves with huge amounts of debt, and then entered an employment market where employers demand X years relevant work experience, and so end up in jobs they probably could have done straight after leaving school rather than the high value graduate level jobs they were told they had to go to uni to get. And that's if they're lucky. Aye, I suspect you're right. Something's wrong when someone works full time, and still needs state help with benefits etc, whilst working for a big company that gets huge tax breaks, and runs huge profits for their shareholders! Completely agree. Work should pay. If the minimum wage had risen above the rate inflation every year since its inception, even marginally, then there may well be no need for tax credits today. Tax credits are and always have been a sop to big business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristolhibby Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Aye, I suspect you're right. Something's wrong when someone works full time, and still needs state help with benefits etc, whilst working for a big company that gets huge tax breaks, and runs huge profits for their shareholders! Basically money laundering for FTSE companies. Take our money (taxes) and pay it in the way of credits to poorly paid workers, while the businesses don't pay the going rate and get a tax cut for it! That is then represented through greater shareholder value. Money has gone from our pockets into shareholders pockets via a complex set of taxes and tax breaks. Well done you Tory ####s! J Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlfieMoon Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I'm torn on minimum wage, i used to think it's a great idea, but been listening to political scientists like Thomas Sowell discussing economic theory and minimum wage isn't portrayed as that effective. Can't say I've read any of it so will need to have a look. What are the alternatives that are supposed to work better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParisInAKilt Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Good video. The austerity delusion http://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotlad Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I'm torn on minimum wage, i used to think it's a great idea, but been listening to political scientists like Thomas Sowell discussing economic theory and minimum wage isn't portrayed as that effective. I didn't realise this until fairly recently, but apparently in Scandinavian countries like Denmark and Norway there is no statutory minimum wage. They don't need one. Trade union membership is commonplace and so much part of the fabric of industrial relations that TUs are able to negotiate decent wages on behalf of their members. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParisInAKilt Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) Doesn't Osborne have a degree in history? Is he qualified to be chancellor? Edited July 8, 2015 by ParisInAKilt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Can't say I've read any of it so will need to have a look. What are the alternatives that are supposed to work better? Well it's a binary comparison, either having it or not. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415569/minimum-wage-laws-ruinous-compassion-thomas-sowell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I didn't realise this until fairly recently, but apparently in Scandinavian countries like Denmark and Norway there is no statutory minimum wage. They don't need one. Trade union membership is commonplace and so much part of the fabric of industrial relations that TUs are able to negotiate decent wages on behalf of their members. Countries with minimum wage laws generally have much larger unemployment than countries that do not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnnie x Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I had a look at some repayment calculators for a student in England with 9k a year fees and £4k a year loan. Frightening stuff. Oh and guess what some of the loans are hawked off to private companies (and no doubt the rest will be soon). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckielugger Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Disappointed no one from any side ever mentions how much is paid to well off pensioners and that something should be done about it. Someone who has been a very high earner during their working life then goes and gets a very high pension too. When in fact they already have all the wealth they could ever need and more and in fact have no requirement for any further funds yet still get more and more wealth piled their way. Meanwhile the large proportion of the population struggle to get by during their working life and then struggle even more once retired. Ic benefits can be capped for people who are not retired, why can't they be capped for those that are retired? Such that a banker or consultant etc would just receive a maximum level of pension with the excess they would have received going to the rest of the retired population to help improve their lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristolhibby Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Disappointed no one from any side ever mentions how much is paid to well off pensioners and that something should be done about it. Someone who has been a very high earner during their working life then goes and gets a very high pension too. When in fact they already have all the wealth they could ever need and more and in fact have no requirement for any further funds yet still get more and more wealth piled their way. Meanwhile the large proportion of the population struggle to get by during their working life and then struggle even more once retired. Ic benefits can be capped for people who are not retired, why can't they be capped for those that are retired? Such that a banker or consultant etc would just receive a maximum level of pension with the excess they would have received going to the rest of the retired population to help improve their lot. Pensioners vote, young people don't. As a perspective Prime Minister who do you focus your attention on (aka bribe)? J Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Bongo Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Claire Lally. the ordinary single Mum was right eh ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlie Endell Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Disappointed no one from any side ever mentions how much is paid to well off pensioners and that something should be done about it. Someone who has been a very high earner during their working life then goes and gets a very high pension too. When in fact they already have all the wealth they could ever need and more and in fact have no requirement for any further funds yet still get more and more wealth piled their way. Meanwhile the large proportion of the population struggle to get by during their working life and then struggle even more once retired. Ic benefits can be capped for people who are not retired, why can't they be capped for those that are retired? Such that a banker or consultant etc would just receive a maximum level of pension with the excess they would have received going to the rest of the retired population to help improve their lot. If they've paid (or their employer has or contributed) into their pension fund throughout their working life it's their money. Good luck to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mindimoo Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 If they've paid (or their employer has or contributed) into their pension fund throughout their working life it's their money. Good luck to them. Absolutely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scotlad Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Disappointed no one from any side ever mentions how much is paid to well off pensioners and that something should be done about it. Someone who has been a very high earner during their working life then goes and gets a very high pension too. When in fact they already have all the wealth they could ever need and more and in fact have no requirement for any further funds yet still get more and more wealth piled their way. Meanwhile the large proportion of the population struggle to get by during their working life and then struggle even more once retired. Ic benefits can be capped for people who are not retired, why can't they be capped for those that are retired? Such that a banker or consultant etc would just receive a maximum level of pension with the excess they would have received going to the rest of the retired population to help improve their lot. Cutting Winter Fuels Allowance for wealthier pensioners, i.e. those paying HR tax, was an option open to them. It could have been quite easily administered too - all they'd need to is run a scan of income tax records and take it from there. I am not sure how much they've save by doing this - and just to be clear, I am not saying they should have - but like Bristolhibby says, all governments are loathe to upset the 'grey vote', especially conservative ones. Then again, maybe OAPs shouldn't get too complacent. The Tories appear to have started on the middle classes now with their tax credit cuts. Certainly, from a Scottish perspective, limiting TCs to the first two children only is unlikely to address our ageing population issues. It will be possible to get TCs for a third child under circumstances. One proviso is in cases of multiple births. Another is if a woman became pregnant after being raped. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/summer-budget-2015/summer-budget-2015#annex-b-welfare-cap [Welfare; para 39] That really shocked me. Means testing is intrusive enough at the best of times but to demand that a woman proves she was raped in order to get a few quid a week in benefit is horrific. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buckielugger Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Yes pensioners vote...and a lot of them...my point was about the tories hitting the poorest hardest with their welfare cuts, making £20k the maximum a household can receive (which includes housing benefit anyway which claimants don't have to spend)...and yet a retired top civil servant or consultant bankers etc can get £50k plus pension maybe way way over £100k and this when they are already millionaires and need no more money at all. Capping those super high pensions would free up funds for the many pensioners who don't have vast savings and income. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristolhibby Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) Yes pensioners vote...and a lot of them...my point was about the tories hitting the poorest hardest with their welfare cuts, making £20k the maximum a household can receive (which includes housing benefit anyway which claimants don't have to spend)...and yet a retired top civil servant or consultant bankers etc can get £50k plus pension maybe way way over £100k and this when they are already millionaires and need no more money at all. Capping those super high pensions would free up funds for the many pensioners who don't have vast savings and income. But as was pointed out, they have paid into that pension pot over a lifetime of work. You have to distinguish between the state pension (which is shite) and a government pension, which is earnt by the employee. It's a debt that the government (and future governments) owes to the retired civil servant. It's not a "benefit" as you put it, it's his money, just held by the Government until he gets old as part of his remuneration package from when he was working. Think of it as deferred earnings. Shouldn't even be included in the pension pot. Apples and Pears I'm afraid. EDIT, just re read your post, I think you are saying that someone who has a large private pension, a large private government backed pension or loads of capital in their old age, shouldn't get the state pension. I'm sure by the time I retire the state pension will be virtually gone anyway so you may be onto something. J Edited July 9, 2015 by Bristolhibby Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.