When will indyref2 happen?

[Crùbag]

Telegraph poll put indy support at 58% - it was only a sub-sample apparently but they didn't shout about it. Only the vaguely pro Brexit findings got coverage.

 

[renton]

22 minutes ago, Crùbag said:

Telegraph poll put indy support at 58% - it was only a sub-sample apparently but they didn't shout about it. Only the vaguely pro Brexit findings got coverage.

 

Was it not a pretty small subsample, like 150 folk?

[renton]

2 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Subsidising employers?

Really?

By how much?

It's an inescapable reality that the existence of tax credits is a subsidy of a company's bottom line. The state effectively taking up the slack for the wages that the company refuses to pay. One of the reasons an effective living wage would be so powerful is not just that you increase the tax base and NI contributions from those now making enough money to contribute tax in a way they don't presently, but that you also decrease the government benefit outlay, by reduction in the need for in work benefits.

[renton]

5 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

I understand that but how does that help anyone in part time work.

Tax credits are a godsend for those people.

ETA I am still waiting for someone to put a figure on a living wage here.

Sre you guys taling about £10 per hour or some other figure?

No doubt, however, the fact that many in notional full time employment still need them is the real problem.

As for the living wage, the figure being bandied about is £8.45 outside of London.

http://www.livingwage.org.uk/what-is-the-living-wage

[mjw]

You do realise that people have other things in their lives besides spending every waking moment on internet forums?

You've used that 'insult' on a number of occasions now.
What is it that keeps bringing you back to a football forum to post almost exclusively about your beliefs?

[strichener]

1 hour ago, renton said:

It's an inescapable reality that the existence of tax credits is a subsidy of a company's bottom line. The state effectively taking up the slack for the wages that the company refuses to pay. One of the reasons an effective living wage would be so powerful is not just that you increase the tax base and NI contributions from those now making enough money to contribute tax in a way they don't presently, but that you also decrease the government benefit outlay, by reduction in the need for in work benefits.

Any "in work" benefits should therefore be classed as subsidising employers?   Benefits for people in work existed long before working tax credits.

Child benefit, income support, childcare vouchers, housing benefit were all payable to working people.  The confusion here is linking the name "tax credits" to tax when there is no such link and not all tax credits are in work benefits.

[pandarilla]

Personally I would agree that this sort of figure would be reasonable but the concern is that this sort of number is going to lead to job losses. Hopefully I am wrong and we are moving to that sort of hourly rate anyway so we will soon know.
The problem for employers is that this is not the end of the cost. There is employers NI, a whole package of employee benefits and now apparently employers are expected to pay part of the employee's pension as well. That last one is truly baffling. The employer needs to pay all of this before they can take a penny for themselves.
The big issue hee is that too many lefties think all employers are fat cat millionaires. The fact is that the majority are making relatively little. Many microbusinesses earn below the minimum wage themselves. I think a little bit more respect and understanding for that is overdue. 

As is always the case it's not the small business owners that are the target here.

You are very keen to defend employers but part of that means you have to defend the likes of Tesco and sports direct to name but two. The loopholes that exist at the corporate level is the real problem. Minimum hour contracts are a good example.

Our economic system is so skewed towards those at the top. The two main parties dance around the head of a pin because they know the power and financial backing that these companies have.

[Granny Danger]

I have never paid any of my employees below the living wage, I can also confirm the tiny amount in overall terms that I will be obliged to contribute towards pension costs will not drive me into the poor house; in fact it will be far more than offset by the 1% reduction in Corporation Tax that comes into effect this financial year and the further 2% planned by 2020.

In the last couple of years further assistance has been forthcoming in the shape of employers' NI relief which means the first £2,000 of employers NI doesn't need to be paid.

There are many small employers who have no problems paying decent wages and many other who are greedy b*****ds, I've come across a few of these.

 

 

[pandarilla]

Why would you possibly believe that I am defending the likes of Tesco or Sports Direct. At no point have I ever mentioned support for any big business. You are talking nonsense here my friend.

That's who people are attacking though. It's you that brings it round to small business owners.

[Crùbag]

6 hours ago, renton said:

Was it not a pretty small subsample, like 150 folk?

Poll was done UK wide and was not surprisingly against indy. The 180 or so Scots were in favour. 8% margin of error I believe. Not gonna count chickens but interesting the Telegraph neglected to mention it and concentrated on the favourable attitudes from a UK electorate towards May's handling of Brexit.

[Shades75]

34 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

 

That's who people are attacking though. It's you that brings it round to small business owners.

 

Listen, Oaksoft has, in keeping with tradition, kindly informed you that you're talking nonsense.

That is the end of the matter.

He'll turn into the Hulk if you keep this up.

[strichener]

4 hours ago, Granny Danger said:

I have never paid any of my employees below the living wage, I can also confirm the tiny amount in overall terms that I will be obliged to contribute towards pension costs will not drive me into the poor house; in fact it will be far more than offset by the 1% reduction in Corporation Tax that comes into effect this financial year and the further 2% planned by 2020.

In the last couple of years further assistance has been forthcoming in the shape of employers' NI relief which means the first £2,000 of employers NI doesn't need to be paid.

There are many small employers who have no problems paying decent wages and many other who are greedy b*****ds, I've come across a few of these.

 

 

The employment allowance was increased to £3k last year so make sure you don't stop at £2000. 

There are also a number of small business owners that struggle and pay their staff above the living wage and take home less themselves.  I know that this is the case with the some of the other FSB members that I speak to. 

Also if your 1% CT reduction more than pays for your pension contributions then you are running a business where you are making more in profit that you are paying your employees which would surely fit the definition of being a greedy b*****d!!

Edited April 17, 2017 by strichener

[ayrmad]

I'll just throw my tuppence worth into the mix about employers paying a living wage, if businesses big or small can't make a coin paying the living wage, tough titties, charge what your product/service is worth rather than this depressing prices pish that serves nobodies best interests in the long term.

The sectors that require initial assistance should receive tapered subsidies for a fixed time period, if Greggs want to make the same or more net profit they can put a shilling or so on all the shit they sell.

Too many full-time workers are "scrounging b*****ds" in the UK, the right wing press will do everything in their power to keep that phrase or similar prominent in the mindset of the British public.

[Cerberus]

People that work in Greggs are stupid. That extra money would go to the bookies or be spent on fags.

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Had a wee look at Greggs Bakeries as an example of a large company.
They seem to be doing very well. Last year turnover was just short of £900 million.
Fantastic. Classic fat cat business.
Except profit was just £50 million on that or about 5.5% profit.
Still sounds fat-cattish eh?
Well consider this. They have around 1700 shops.
That means each shop on average is making just £28k profit per year.
A readjustment of rate valuation or a large increase in tax or minimum wage could completely f**k this iconic business overnight.
20,000 people depend on this company to put food on their tables. Many of them at the bottom end of the earnings ladder.
Before we start tarring all large businesses as being the same as Tesco we might want to think things through a bit.
Of course my arithmetic could be bollox. Feel free to point out my error if there is one.

Tesco can only dream of 5.5%

They hope for 4%

https://www.ft.com/content/96ffafc6-ac19-3134-ba77-983f4e728ea9
That said however

An external shock like the ones you outline would hit its competitors and Greggs' competitors roughly as hard.

The result is be that most players in the market will ultimately pass the rise on to the consumer this would slightly reduce overall demand but the share of this slightly smaller market would be about the same.

This is after all what's happening with the Brexit currency shock which has made raw materials more expensive in Sterling

Talk of wiping out the entire business is overdramatic unless we make absurd assumptions about the scale of the shock

Greggs are also something of a special case when it comes to a rise in the minimum wage they would be more exposed than most to increased costs but the disposal income of their core customer base would have increased. The two effects would counteract each other

[Crùbag]

8 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Had a wee look at Greggs Bakeries as an example of a large company.

They seem to be doing very well. Last year turnover was just short of £900 million.

Fantastic. Classic fat cat business.

Except profit was just £50 million on that or about 5.5% profit.

Still sounds fat-cattish eh?

Well consider this. They have around 1700 shops.

That means each shop on average is making just £28k profit per year.

A readjustment of rate valuation or a large increase in tax or minimum wage could completely f**k this iconic business overnight.

20,000 people depend on this company to put food on their tables. Many of them at the bottom end of the earnings ladder.

Before we start tarring all large businesses as being the same as Tesco we might want to think things through a bit.

Of course my arithmetic could be bollox. Feel free to point out my error if there is one.

I know economics is a bit like reading tea leaves and my ken lacks a bit but if I were to run a shop, cover all costs, pay myself a decent wage and then have £28k on top of that to enjoy, I'd be quite happy. If I had to pay my colleague/ employee an extra few quid and my profits came down to £27k, I still imagine that I'd be in a good position.

Or have I grasped something wrong?

[ayrmad]

7 hours ago, Cerberus said:

People that work in Greggs are stupid. That extra money would go to the bookies or be spent on fags.

A flippant way of expressing why taking some cash from those at the top and giving it to those at the bottom helps the local economy.

[Granny Danger]

13 hours ago, strichener said:

The employment allowance was increased to £3k last year so make sure you don't stop at £2000. 

There are also a number of small business owners that struggle and pay their staff above the living wage and take home less themselves.  I know that this is the case with the some of the other FSB members that I speak to. 

Also if your 1% CT reduction more than pays for your pension contributions then you are running a business where you are making more in profit that you are paying your employees which would surely fit the definition of being a greedy b*****d!!

People can define me as a greedy b*****d if they want; that's purely subjective.  Paying employees above the living wage is totally factual and objective.  Any employer, large or small, who tries to justify paying their employees shit wages because they are "struggling" should give up the struggle IMO.

[strichener]

18 minutes ago, Granny Danger said:

People can define me as a greedy b*****d if they want; that's purely subjective.  Paying employees above the living wage is totally factual and objective.  Any employer, large or small, who tries to justify paying their employees shit wages because they are "struggling" should give up the struggle IMO.

No it isn't subjective when you have provided the evidence yourself.  Unless of course you were talking shite about the 1% CT paying your pension obligations.

[Granny Danger]

1 hour ago, strichener said:

No it isn't subjective when you have provided the evidence yourself.  Unless of course you were talking shite about the 1% CT paying your pension obligations.

You either don't understand the meaning of the word "subjective" or you're a really poor troll.  Either way, beyond this post, i won't encourage you further.