Minimum Wage & why

[pabird]

So the labour party are to include 16 year olds in the minimum wage

As they now out earn many-most OAPs will they now be liable for council tax,water rates,gas and electricity bills etc etc

Amazing how the labour party treats prospective voters as opposed to their sad treatment of children (poverty rate increasing year on year) and OAPs (poverty rate increasing year on year)

16 year olds can be moulded as voters OAPs will be judged to be mind-set voters

The money G.Brown plays with was created in large part by GB residents who are now or approach retirement age

Still OAPs can look forward under labour to retirement at 70 plus and free TV license at 70 plus and did at one stage gain a 75p increase from Mr Brown, cannot have it always greedy b******s

[Stu B]

I agree with you that pensioners don't get what they deserve for all that they have put into this country.However i disagree with you over the minimum wage. When i started my job i earnt £3.53 an hour, do you think that's a fair wage?I certainly don't, and it's not the government that is funding this increase in wage...

As for moulding the voters of the future, like it or not that's just a part of politics,and i'm sure it always has been, in a democracy it requires a brave polician to do something they see as right but which the public doesn't see the immediate benefits of.

[pabird]

Yep agree with the minimum wage but not with treating OAPs like the forgotten people

Pay OAPs a basic pension that is equal to the minimum wage or some one has to explain why not on moral grounds

[Burnham Lad]

Let's face it - the only way Gordon can fund his, Tony's and all MP's pensions is to nick everyody elses!

[The Invisible Man]

They always have been liable for these bills. Electricity or gas etc is not provided free to anyone as far as I am aware. If you are the householder, as they used to be called, whether owner/occupier ot tenant, you pay the bills whether you are under 18, an OAP, or in between.

 

Of course most 16-18 year olds in this country live with one or both parents and their financial arrangements are their own concern. Logically if the young scamp is working they should be asked to make a contribution to the household expenses in proportion to their earnings - as I was. If they are still in full-time eduction it is hardly reasonable, or indeed possible, to demand a contribution.

 

Surely a minimum wage is a minmum wage and should apply to ANY employed person.

 

Raising the retiremnt age to 70 is a ludicrous idea. For one thing, given the rampant agism that prevails in the UK today, it will be hard for many to find or keep employment at that age and are likely to be on whatever the dole is called now anyway.

 

Of course if someone WANTS to continue working past 65, or over 100, if they can and want to to, fine and good luck to them. Experience is an under-valued resource these days.

[Burnham Lad]

Quote:

Raising the retiremnt age to 70 is a ludicrous idea. For one thing, given the rampant agism that prevails in the UK today, it will be hard for many to find or keep employment at that age and are likely to be on whatever the dole is called now anyway.

Dead right, Invis! The crazy thing is that there is all this discussion about extending retirement age, yet many companies are making their over fifties redundant for two reasons - if they have been there longer, the chances are they are on higher pay and secondly to get them out of the pension scheme so they can avoid the higher contributions up to 65. Currently over 25% of males over 50 are "economically inactive" as the economist call it, whilst a further 3% are unemployed and 5% are part-time. 0ver 90% of the over 65's are "economically inactive". Really this term means people who have been forced into early retirement and can't find another suitable job. The stats don't say how many of the 49% in jobs or the 18% who are self employed are actually doing their original jobs which they were trained to do. There are a hell of a lot of self employed "consultants" or "temps" who are working to scratch a living, but its not what they wanted to be doing. And this is the averaged figures for the over fifties - the figures for the over 55's and over 60's are much worse - one in every three over 60 is on benefits, and the second one is inactive.

Effectively, they are saying we'll sack you from your reasonably paid and probably skilled job to save money but we won't stop you working as an adult paperboy or shelf stacking down at B&Q, if you're lucky enough to find a vacancy!

So where all these jobs they want them to do? There are 3.9 million men over 65 and 6.6 million women over 60 and over 90% of them are not working for whatever reason - some hopes!

A higher retirement age is a sick joke!