LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
The problem with that is the optics of the employment figures.Pross said:pblakeney said:
This means any of the following or a combination of -kingstongraham said:40% of claimants of universal credit are in work.
1. Wages do not reflect the cost of living.
2. Living expectations exceed reality.
3. People are gaming hours worked to their benefit.
The above may, or may not, be my opinion. Needs to be addressed though.
On point 1 I wonder what the maths would be in simply increasing the minimum wage with the Government funding the increase over the current amount in lieu of UC?
Let me give you two hypothetical options and see which you would want as a politician, to illustrate
a) UC costing £100bn with 40% of claimants in work, with unemployment at 5%
b) UC costing £100bn with 0% of claimants in work, with unemployment at 7%
Now, if I was in the business of winning elections, and shouting about success in the houses of parliament, I'd go for b.
The gov't is incentivised to subsidise people to be in any kind of employment to avoid the figures looking as bad as they probably really are.0 -
why not reduce the level of state intervention and let people keep more of what they earn so making work more worthwhile. 40 hour week at min wage is £18k a year, why not set that as starting point for tax and if you want to get controversial the max level of benefits.Pross said:
I think a lot of people, on benefits or not, are guilty of number 2 (car PCPs, huge levels of personal debt to fund "this season's must haves"). Number 3 definitely happens, it is a regular issue for my wife when she tries to get shifts covered due to illness or holidays or even just trying to get new staff to agree to more hours on their contract. As an aside, she has a staff member (double jabbed) that has been off work following a positive Covid test. The 10 days is now up but the staff member is saying they are still too ill to work. Whilst this may be the case they suspect she is playing a fast one as the Government is currently topping people up to their full pay from the normal statutory sick pay (I understand the reasoning for that and it makes sense but it does create temptation to play the system).pblakeney said:
This means any of the following or a combination of -kingstongraham said:40% of claimants of universal credit are in work.
1. Wages do not reflect the cost of living.
2. Living expectations exceed reality.
3. People are gaming hours worked to their benefit.
The above may, or may not, be my opinion. Needs to be addressed though.
On point 1 I wonder what the maths would be in simply increasing the minimum wage with the Government funding the increase over the current amount in lieu of UC?
I have no problem with people gaming the system as it is exactly the same as us lot reducing our taxable pay when we hit 62% levels of deductions.0 -
Yeah, I've never quite understood giving people money through benefits and then taking it back off them through taxes. It feels ludicrous.surrey_commuter said:
why not reduce the level of state intervention and let people keep more of what they earn so making work more worthwhile. 40 hour week at min wage is £18k a year, why not set that as starting point for tax and if you want to get controversial the max level of benefits.Pross said:
I think a lot of people, on benefits or not, are guilty of number 2 (car PCPs, huge levels of personal debt to fund "this season's must haves"). Number 3 definitely happens, it is a regular issue for my wife when she tries to get shifts covered due to illness or holidays or even just trying to get new staff to agree to more hours on their contract. As an aside, she has a staff member (double jabbed) that has been off work following a positive Covid test. The 10 days is now up but the staff member is saying they are still too ill to work. Whilst this may be the case they suspect she is playing a fast one as the Government is currently topping people up to their full pay from the normal statutory sick pay (I understand the reasoning for that and it makes sense but it does create temptation to play the system).pblakeney said:
This means any of the following or a combination of -kingstongraham said:40% of claimants of universal credit are in work.
1. Wages do not reflect the cost of living.
2. Living expectations exceed reality.
3. People are gaming hours worked to their benefit.
The above may, or may not, be my opinion. Needs to be addressed though.
On point 1 I wonder what the maths would be in simply increasing the minimum wage with the Government funding the increase over the current amount in lieu of UC?
I have no problem with people gaming the system as it is exactly the same as us lot reducing our taxable pay when we hit 62% levels of deductions.0 -
A revised version in light of the above.
This means any of the following or a combination of -
1. Wages do not reflect the cost of living.
2. Living expectations exceed reality.
3. People are gaming hours worked to their benefit.
4. An over convoluted tax system.
The above may, or may not, be my opinion. Needs to be addressed though.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
There has to be a differentiator. If all I could achieve in life with the physical and mental attributes I was dealt and the education I achieved was minimum wage I would be giving away forty hours of my life if I could game the system and spend say 10 hours or less being patronised at the job centre to get the same money. The model that works is for the minimum wage for a full time worker to be at a level some 30-40% above that of a person on benefits. That differentiator is not there presently and yes there should be no job in this country that requires the state to subsidise it to make it a living wage.surrey_commuter said:
why not reduce the level of state intervention and let people keep more of what they earn so making work more worthwhile. 40 hour week at min wage is £18k a year, why not set that as starting point for tax and if you want to get controversial the max level of benefits.Pross said:
I think a lot of people, on benefits or not, are guilty of number 2 (car PCPs, huge levels of personal debt to fund "this season's must haves"). Number 3 definitely happens, it is a regular issue for my wife when she tries to get shifts covered due to illness or holidays or even just trying to get new staff to agree to more hours on their contract. As an aside, she has a staff member (double jabbed) that has been off work following a positive Covid test. The 10 days is now up but the staff member is saying they are still too ill to work. Whilst this may be the case they suspect she is playing a fast one as the Government is currently topping people up to their full pay from the normal statutory sick pay (I understand the reasoning for that and it makes sense but it does create temptation to play the system).pblakeney said:
This means any of the following or a combination of -kingstongraham said:40% of claimants of universal credit are in work.
1. Wages do not reflect the cost of living.
2. Living expectations exceed reality.
3. People are gaming hours worked to their benefit.
The above may, or may not, be my opinion. Needs to be addressed though.
On point 1 I wonder what the maths would be in simply increasing the minimum wage with the Government funding the increase over the current amount in lieu of UC?
I have no problem with people gaming the system as it is exactly the same as us lot reducing our taxable pay when we hit 62% levels of deductions.0 -
This is fine if you accept more people will be in no employment at all as a result.john80 said:there should be no job in this country that requires the state to subsidise it to make it a living wage.
That's the trade off. If I was in charge I would make the trade off, but you can see why others would think differently - some work is better than no work, they would argue.0 -
We are living in a situation presently where they cannot staff a lot of jobs. The market will just change its cost base and charges to customers and the jobs will be there. The rational that there will be less jobs due to higher wages is massively overblown.rick_chasey said:
This is fine if you accept more people will be in no employment at all as a result.john80 said:there should be no job in this country that requires the state to subsidise it to make it a living wage.
That's the trade off. If I was in charge I would make the trade off, but you can see why others would think differently - some work is better than no work, they would argue.0 -
So there is a lot of debate amongst economists about the impact of higher minimum wages on employment, as the actual evidence is not clear there is necessarily a direct link, below certain thresholds.john80 said:
We are living in a situation presently where they cannot staff a lot of jobs. The market will just change its cost base and charges to customers and the jobs will be there. The rational that there will be less jobs due to higher wages is massively overblown.rick_chasey said:
This is fine if you accept more people will be in no employment at all as a result.john80 said:there should be no job in this country that requires the state to subsidise it to make it a living wage.
That's the trade off. If I was in charge I would make the trade off, but you can see why others would think differently - some work is better than no work, they would argue.
What this means in reality is instances where minimum wages have been raised it hasn't led to higher unemployment.
But in this instance, the logic goes "these jobs only exist because the state subsidies them, because at minimum wage they are no longer economical".0 -
Isn't the main argument that if you increase minimum wage it leads to costs going up which pushes up inflation which means minimum wage has to go up to keep pace?0
-
-
Yeah. It's almost like you need a strategy and a plan which gets put into action to create a system which works for a low-carbon economy.
Government by firefighting doesn't get you very far.0 -
No coal power production at the moment. Wind has picked up. Gas back to average levels for power production.kingstongraham said:0 -
Government policy can change again then.TheBigBean said:
No coal power production at the moment. Wind has picked up. Gas back to average levels for power production.kingstongraham said:0 -
Government policy hasn't changed. The bioethanol plant was already considered nationally important. The co2 is used in nuclear reactors.kingstongraham said:
Government policy can change again then.TheBigBean said:
No coal power production at the moment. Wind has picked up. Gas back to average levels for power production.kingstongraham said:
https://mostfavourednation.substack.com/p/most-favoured-nation-read-between?justPublished=true
Coal was being phased out, but it hasn't gone completely yet.
0 -
The co2 deal is for three weeks. Fingers crossed!0
-
As much as I'm not a fan of the government, there is surely a difference between long term strategy and occasional short term emergency actions.
0 -
Even more incentive to get cracking with carbon capture and utilisation. I see this gas price peak as an excellent thing for decarbonisation.0
-
Yes, I think it was a joke.Jezyboy said:As much as I'm not a fan of the government, there is surely a difference between long term strategy and occasional short term emergency actions.
But it's a good job we've finally got a Tory government who can put these principles into practice.0 -
For anyone who is interested about the minimum wagerick_chasey said:
Not necessarily. There wasn’t a bump when the uk raised itPross said:Isn't the main argument that if you increase minimum wage it leads to costs going up which pushes up inflation which means minimum wage has to go up to keep pace?
https://www.lse.ac.uk/News/Latest-news-from-LSE/2018/06-June-2018/Introduction-of-minimum-wage-in-Germany-did-not-lead-to-job-losses0 -
Probably as the changes have been incremental and fairly small.rick_chasey said:
Not necessarily. There wasn’t a bump when the uk raised itPross said:Isn't the main argument that if you increase minimum wage it leads to costs going up which pushes up inflation which means minimum wage has to go up to keep pace?
I'd say the biggest differences have been made by raising the base level of income tax.
https://www.nibusinessinfo.co.uk/content/national-minimum-wage-previous-ratesThe above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
That makes sense as they must have known for three weeks that it was going to shut down so they can just repeat what has just happenedkingstongraham said:The co2 deal is for three weeks. Fingers crossed!
0 -
Saying it is a joke is very flattering. I thought it was just a journalist trying to be clever and ending up being idiot.kingstongraham said:
Yes, I think it was a joke.Jezyboy said:As much as I'm not a fan of the government, there is surely a difference between long term strategy and occasional short term emergency actions.
But it's a good job we've finally got a Tory government who can put these principles into practice.0 -
Gas is below 40% now as 4.5GW of solar starts producing. The rest is mostly low carbon.0
-
If we have dodged this particular crisis then great. The worry is that people don't tend to learn from near misses.TheBigBean said:Gas is below 40% now as 4.5GW of solar starts producing. The rest is mostly low carbon.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Gas isn't any cheaper or power prices. A bit of sun won't change that.rjsterry said:
If we have dodged this particular crisis then great. The worry is that people don't tend to learn from near misses.TheBigBean said:Gas is below 40% now as 4.5GW of solar starts producing. The rest is mostly low carbon.
0 -
Goverment priorities in energy supply demonstrated as Quasi Kwarteng launches drive to replace all UK power cables using brown and blue for live and neutral and revert to red and black, like it was in the good old days. BrexitBritain, levelling up.0
-
I don't know if there is any truth in it but I was always led to believe the changes were made due to issues with colour blindness. If there is any truth in that then it's a step backwards for electrical safety.orraloon said:Goverment priorities in energy supply demonstrated as Quasi Kwarteng launches drive to replace all UK power cables using brown and blue for live and neutral and revert to red and black, like it was in the good old days. BrexitBritain, levelling up.
0 -
I made it up.
However, you read it here first. How long before the muppets start bleating such pish?0
