SIGN UP

Answers

1 to 20 of 40rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by tiggerblue10. 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.
I didn't realise it was so low. Good thing I don't have a job I wouldn't be able to live on such a low amount.
agree volffie
absolute pittance

this is what they offer care workers and cant get any
Does that mean the servants will want more money? ...pants! :o)
we have two young people starting uni instead
(both on min wages previously)
and just praying everything goes OK
waiters in restaurants are on this
Wolf -you could not live on nearly £400 a week?
It would be enough if they would stop smoking, drinking, buying massive TVs and having Sky subscriptions.

There, saved the usual suspects the bother.

Now just be thankful you've got a job and know your place, plebs.
it is still a lot more than the money they gave us on the Y.T.S.

"The Government scheme designed to kill your dreams"

Am I Right ?
I'm Not Wrong !
most Supermarket worker will also be on short hours too.
5 x 4 hours so £200 a week.
They would get it topped up with Tax credits, especially if they had kids.
Many supermarket workers want to do shorter shifts though gromit as its suits them better, especially students, older workers near retirement, those with childcare.
Agreed its not much if you got a family and mortgage so tax credits are needed too but a full timer its plenty for someone living with parents or a student and its far more than state pension or UC.
But what should minimum wage be if its still too low £12? £15?
Some employers coud'nt afford that so job's would be lost
^ How do you know they want to shorter shifts. Have you asked them?
If thats for me 237 SJ. Yes, They wont do more for all sorts of reasons. Longer hours is usually a option if they want it
Based on a normal working week the hourly rate for pensioners is £4.72.
//Wolf -you could not live on nearly £400 a week?//

Well, somebody working a 35 hour week would earn £332.50. From that they would see deductions of just under £36, so leaving them with £296. So not quite “nearly £400 a week”. More “nearly £300 a week.” And this assumes he makes no pension contributions.

//They would get it topped up with Tax credits,…//

If the earner was a single person with no children, living alone in a small bedsit for which he paid £100pw (if he could find such premises), he would not be entitled to any Universal Credit, so would have less than £200 a week to live on. So, making allowances for energy bills, council tax, water charges, travel expenses, and a few luxuries such as food and drink, he wouldn’t have much left.

He could get by, but whether you’d describe it a “living” I suppose depends on what you’re used to.
NJ you can manipulate the figures until you are blue in the face. Where do you get 35 hours from? As far as I know 40 hours is a working week. At the new living wage that's £1615 per month gross - £120 per month NI contributions £139 TAx Paye, Net = approx £1586. ( £373 per week) A single person could live on that, a couple with children they can get a WTC top up.
Question Author
My contracted hours are 41 pw or 36 less lunches. Anyone who works less than that I thought would be part time. Where I work anyway.
//As far as I know 40 hours is a working week.//

Depends where you look. Many people only get paid for the hours they work and not for breaks. Some careworkers do not get paid for the time it takes them to travel between their client’s premises. But even if you’re right, firstly I think your Tax and NI deductions are not quite correct. The gross pay is £19,760. Tax on that (£12,570 personal allowance), so taxable pay is £7,190, x 20% = £1,438. NI is payable on £19,760 minus £9,568 primary threshold = £10,192. At 12% = £1,223. So Total deductions are £2,661, net pay £17,099pa, £1,432 per month, £328 per week. But I may be wrong.

I purposely based my calculations on a single person. Your idea that Universal Credit should be paid to enhance the pay of people with extra expenses simply shifts part of the employer’s paybill to the taxpayer. The employee should meet all his living expenses, not the taxpayer. If he cannot do so on the minimum wage working full time then that wage is insufficient. Personally I think to expect anybody to work 40 hours for £328 is taking the pee. If you live in London or any large city (as the majority of the population does) then three hundred quid a week is subsistence level. Yes, you can scrimp and scrape and just get by and that’s what many people have to do. That’s not “living”, it’s existing hand to mouth. They cannot save for unexpected bills, they cannot contribute to a pension, they cannot take a decent holiday. They are working simply to exist. That’s not the sort of economy this country should be operating.
Not many places in industry work 40 hour week now.
I'm on a 48 hour week

1 to 20 of 40rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Every Little Helps I Guess

Answer Question >>

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.