CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh
"Hearts 'will adopt living wage' "
(17 posts)-
Posted 10 years ago #
-
Well Done.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Nice bit of PR. Will cost almost nothing v's their player salaries.
Still can't square that with upwards of £25 million of debt written off via their CVA. Included £2 million of our taxes and tens of thousands to local small businesses.
So, yes - a nice bit of PR.
Posted 10 years ago # -
it is a nice bit of PR and does not help loses in the cva but this could still be a benefit if it creates competition for other clubs to match this.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Ed1, sorry but the living wage is much more of an issue out in the real world.
Football clubs (esp in Scotland) employ very few people, and in truth outside of a few quid more to stewards / catering staff on a matchday, and one or two shop staff - it is just PR.
Even if all clubs across the land adopted it, its nothing compared to the tens/hundreds of thousands being paid a pittance in the hospitality or retail sector.
It would be much more influential if someone very big in those areas did something.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I'm sure it's more than PR to the people who will benefit (even if it is just a few folk). Better this than them not doing it, whether PR or otherwise.
Posted 10 years ago # -
A huge step for the lower paid would be to raise the level of the personal allowance and NI threshold to the equivalent of someone working full-time on the minimum wage. This action alone would take them up to the level of the "living wage". And these thresholds should be raised in line with any rises in the minimum wage.
this idea was brought to you by (amongst others) the evil right-wing top-hatted moustache-twirling neoliberal capitalists at the Adam Smith Institute
Posted 10 years ago # -
WC, That's true but doesn't disprove my point.
Do we know if the council pays the living wage?
Posted 10 years ago # -
The trouble with the Adam Smith Institute's idea is (ironically coming from the ASI) that it's the Government that pays through loss of income rather than employers. So, quite contrary to their own (and Smith's, which was nothing like the Institute that stole his name) ideology, this another way for the Government to subsidise low wages.
As a general rule, if it comes from the Adam Smith Institute and it seems sensible, there's a catch.
Posted 10 years ago # -
I think the Adam Smith Institute can be bit inconsistent in respect to rights, and am not sure Adam smith would agree with some of there of thinking but I agree with this measure you say.
I just noticed another post, I glad someone else feels that Adam smiths name was stolen always get my goat that.
I think its mis representation to use Adam Smiths name and gain the associate good will, to purse some narrow private agendas for personal gratification. Like theft of intellectual property I think there is a lack of integrity in the thinking of institute at times.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Edinburgh pays living wage.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Thanks insto, good to see.
I might have a dig around some other usual suspects (Starbucks, certain hotel chains, high St shops) to see what they do.
Posted 10 years ago # -
that it's the Government that pays through loss of income rather than employers" Well Milton Friedman would argue that that wage controls are akin to a tax on good and services. So a living wage would cost the public, as tax costs the public.
The living wage is small and voluntary so nothing wrong with it in my view quite like it.I tend to think the typical person can make better spending decisions than government so the government losing a small amount of money (compared to the 650 billon take etc) from taking less from low wage people can only be regarded as a good thing in my view.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Nelly,
Are you sire stewards and catering staff will even be included in this? They'd be employed by third-party companies I would have thought.
Posted 10 years ago # -
Ed1, I agree, I'm not concerned about the Government paying although I'd wonder if raised tax and NI thresholds would actually do anything for people on the minimum wage. My rough calculation is that £6.50 x 40 x 52 gives you £13,250 a year. The personal allowance is £10,000 but that only kicks in after NI and pension contributions so I doubt they pay much if any tax so raising thresholds could only have a small or no benefit at all.
It would get a lot of PR and be nice for people who do pay tax, which is maybe why it gets the support of the Adam Smith Insitute - it's effectively a tax cut for everyone who pays tax and nothing for the low paid.
Posted 10 years ago # -
@Instography:
Using your assumptions, a full time minimum wage earner will have a gross annual salary of £13,250.On the "living wage" of £7.65ph gross income is £15,912 and under the current tax system* then the net salary is around £13,700.
So the effect of the ASI proposal and the "living wage" proposals are almost identical.
This doesn't address people in low paid part-time work, but it would be a start.
*for simplicity i ignored pension contributions as they are specific to individuals, and we can't assume that people in minimum wage jobs are making significant pensions contributions. The figures are taken from a couple of different on-line tax calculators. I haven't checked the working, but they both spat out similar figures so should be reasonably close.
Posted 10 years ago # -
On £6.50 an hour on the on line calculator I am getting a total of £1,101.28 tax and national insurance based on 37.5 hours per week.
National insurance is just another name for income tax in effect, it has not been ring fenced for decades it goes in to exactly the same pot as such.
There is also the employer national insurance contribution £651.22. The employer contribution been around for a long time is a little dishonest as in effect a tax on workers apart from "sticky wages" from the money illusion in short term, it may not make a great deal of difference if on employers or employees side in respect to what workers get paid in the longer terms.
So someone on minimum wage full time has taxes of £1752.44 on £12,675.00 gross.
There could be a withdrawal rate on a "rebate" any plans to reduce tax for low income so that higher income people would not benefit from the cut or alternatively could change the other rates but politically this may be less popular even if was neutral as could be mis reported as a tax rate increase.
Posted 10 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
