Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
alan

1st time Buyers

Recommended Posts

Isn't it about time the govt ended the 'nanny state' and stopped supporting businesses profit making and enforced a realistic minimum wage of at least ?9 per hour.

 

......and of course you are joking sha???? if you aren't you obviously have absolutely no idea how much it already costs to employ people in certain roles and the fact that most businesses are stuggling to break even at the moment let alone make a profit.

 

Typical lefty clap trap where every company boss is a millionaire and all made out of the sweat of the poor old down trodden worker....if only

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pleased to hear that Councils are to get "a return" on these loans Sha, which means the rate payers will be getting "a return", but it's only for the life-time of the loan. In the case of COUNCIL housing, the return is for the life time of the property, so could be repaid several times over to the benefit of Council revenues. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pleased to hear that Councils are to get "a return" on these loans Sha,.... :wink:

 

I'm not pleased that the council are even contemplating getting involved in such a scheme. As I said earlier it's a scam that benefits the banks and developers and rips off desperate people, I think it's it's despicable that the council condone it let alone participate in it. If they refused to co-operate the banks would have to lower interest rates, and developers would have to lower the prices of their houses....wouldn't this benefit more people?

 

..... In the case of COUNCIL housing, the return is for the life time of the property, so could be repaid several times over to the benefit of Council revenues. :wink:

 

I agree with you on this point, if the same amount were spent on building council houses the return would be higher, but that wouldn't help the banks or developers - which is the real reason for this scheme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dizzy, if you are on low income, you can go pick a home to rent, and the council will help to pay for it in lieu of Housing Benefit. Plus all the extras on top. Why do you think all these low income and single mothers do so well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dizzy, if you are on low income, you can go pick a home to rent, and the council will help to pay for it in lieu of Housing Benefit. Plus all the extras on top. Why do you think all these low income and single mothers do so well?

 

Good point and although some people have no choice others do it because they 'can' and they prefer someone else to work and pay money into the pot to house them.

 

But not everyone is like that and many do work their socks of and try to get on real housing ladder but surely these days with jobs being as scarce as they are and many being lower paid that means that everyone will finish up going down that route as they simply have no way of affording their own home or getting a mortgage.

 

I would imagine that once you are on the council / private rental ladder your chances of actually buying are even harder as all your income is going on rent so no savings and house prices continue to rise but you have nothing to sell :cry:

 

Did any of that make sense :oops::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it made sense. Problem is, as obs frequently points out, no-one will bite the bullet and sort it. :evil::twisted:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't it about time the govt ended the 'nanny state' and stopped supporting businesses profit making and enforced a realistic minimum wage of at least ?9 per hour.

 

......and of course you are joking sha???? if you aren't you obviously have absolutely no idea how much it already costs to employ people in certain roles and the fact that most businesses are stuggling to break even at the moment let alone make a profit.

 

Typical lefty clap trap where every company boss is a millionaire and all made out of the sweat of the poor old down trodden worker....if only

 

No Baz I?m not joking, and I actually do know how much it costs to employ people and I?m aware how businesses are struggling to break even let alone make a profit!

But that doesn?t blind me to the fact that people on the minimum wage are really struggling!

 

After reading some of the comments on here I googled a wage calculator site, calculated basic living costs for one person and ?9 per hour is the realistic minimum just for subsistence level at today?s prices. So any business paying workers less than ?9 per hour is actually reliant on either the benefits system or workers family to support the living costs of their staff.

 

As Dizzy has pointed out not many small businesses actually employ young or inexperienced people, or in fact many people at all, because they can?t afford to pay even the minimum wage. But very many big businesses that can well afford to pay a minimum wage of ?9 per hour are getting away with paying millions of workers a pittance, - the excuse for keeping wages so low being that small businesses would suffer if wages were higher. As small businesses are suffering anyway, in reality the only people to benefit are the multi-millionaire businessmen!

 

The solution I?d propose would be to put the minimum wage up to ?9 per hour, that lifts millions of people off ?top up? benefits, the savings made from this could be used to offset loss incurred from cutting taxes or giving tax credits to small businesses to enable them to afford to pay their workers the higher wage.

I don?t only regard this as being more ethical with regards to the treatment of the workers I also believe it would vastly improve productivity.

 

Baz, if you could afford (through tax cuts/credits) to pay your workers a higher wage do you not think you?d be able to employ better trained, more motivated and thus more productive staff? Do you not think your business would in fact improve?

I believe staff that are treated well, valued and rewarded appropriately will always be more productive, you might regard that as ?lefty clap-trap? I just see it as logic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sha I do sort of see where you are coming from but where would that leave the people who as yet are not highly enough trained or have any real experience behind them to be classed as employable or worthwhile... on the evergrowing big scrap head I would imagine :cry:

 

Not many are lucky enough to get a job with the big empolyers of society and many people have always and still do rely on the smaller businesses for work opportunites and training.. well at least they did until the companies could no longer afford to take them on thanks to the government and H&S twaddle etc.. and that would be made even worse if a forced (almost doubling) of the minimum wage was imposed.

 

These very same empolyers were often the only ones willing to give people a chance as they too had probably been through it themselves and knww how hard it was when you are so very willing to work and learn but no-one will give you the chance to prove yourself.

 

This is being taken away from today's youngsters and hopfulls so maybe that is why so many eventually have no choice but to go down the benefits route.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A much simpler solution would be to increase tax thresholds taking the poorly paid out of tax altogether, and maintaining/increasing revenue by increasing super tax to 80% plus, windfall taxes on obscene profit levels and bonus payments and the closure of tax loop holes. After all - we're all in together - arn't we? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not any more Obs... every man woman and child for themselves I recon :lol::wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A minimum wage of 18 thousand pounds per year????

 

That's one sure way to increase exports - we'd be exporting jobs by the million!

 

(and, of course, with all that money sloshing around in people's pockets landlords would be able to simply increase their rents.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and I?m aware how businesses are struggling to break even let alone make a profit!

 

and you want business to pay their workers more to then lose money?

 

But that doesn?t blind me to the fact that people on the minimum wage are really struggling!

 

Struggling for what? buying plasma TV's, having kids, having mobile phones? running a car?

 

All of the above I had to forget about when I started work. As an apprentice I was earning ?2.16 an hour and I had a mortgage. I didn't run a car until my dad paid for it, I had a battered old second hand TV and no phone....... I had meals at my mums house or my in-laws, I got by and eventually it paid off. I didn't expect my employer to make a special case for me.......

 

 

After reading some of the comments on here I googled a wage calculator site, calculated basic living costs for one person and ?9 per hour is the realistic minimum just for subsistence level at today?s prices. So any business paying workers less than ?9 per hour is actually reliant on either the benefits system or workers family to support the living costs of their staff.

 

Isn't that what the benefits system is for? Maybe if the government didn't take so much tax, VAT and NI of small business (my own averages over 90K a year....) that could be paid in higher wages and better perks for the staff. As I have always said, I have always paid above minimum wage. It doesn't bring me any better quality of employee, it just means they get paid more and I get the same work done..... The minimum wage in a lot of ways was a bad thing because every person who applies for a job thinks that minimum wage is for foreigners and thickos; never them..... they are ALWAYS worth more than that!

 

 

But very many big businesses that can well afford to pay a minimum wage of ?9 per hour are getting away with paying millions of workers a pittance

 

Just by the use of the word pittance, you have pushed me back to my lefty clap trap argument I'm afraid...... the minimum wage may well be paid to the worker, but the company also has to pay tax, NI, heating, lighting and maybe vehicle and workwear costs so it costs a damned sight more than minimum wage to employ someone on minimum wage.

 

the excuse for keeping wages so low being that small businesses would suffer if wages were higher. As small businesses are suffering anyway, in reality the only people to benefit are the multi-millionaire businessmen!

 

and you want to pile the pain on even more by upping wage levels which in turn ups tax and NI rates...... good thinking....not

 

The solution I?d propose would be to put the minimum wage up to ?9 per hour, that lifts millions of people off ?top up? benefits, the savings made from this could be used to offset loss incurred from cutting taxes or giving tax credits to small businesses to enable them to afford to pay their workers the higher wage.

 

so instead of giving benefits to people you give them to companies????? and that would achieve what exactly?

 

I don?t only regard this as being more ethical with regards to the treatment of the workers I also believe it would vastly improve productivity.

 

Even paying a good standard of wages to staff doesn't mean they don't skive, steal or mess about and generally cost business money. I know, I've been there......

 

 

Baz, if you could afford (through tax cuts/credits) to pay your workers a higher wage do you not think you?d be able to employ better trained, more motivated and thus more productive staff? Do you not think your business would in fact improve?

 

No....see above. I have tried that.... most staff (especially in the game we are in where there is a lot of trust involved with regards to timekeeping and time on site etc.) will ALWAYS look to do as little as possible and to find ways to skive and finish early. I have employed the best part of 40 odd people over the years and I would say 100% that is the case

 

I believe staff that are treated well, valued and rewarded appropriately will always be more productive, you might regard that as ?lefty clap-trap? I just see it as logic.

 

Lefty logic....i.e clap trap!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just for interest Shah, what's the hourly rate of our Indian and Chinese competitors? :?

 

Don't know about our competitors but staff working at Supercuts, HCUK and Regis are on an hourly rate between ?4.20 and ?5.25 per hour. Don't ask how they fiddle the minimum working wage from that. :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×