David Johnson wrote:
The reason it is casual is because the employers
> save money on tax and benefits such as holiday pay etc
No, they don't. Newspapers, for one, employ casual staff but pay tax and NI and contribute to a pension for them plus give them paid holidays. We don't get sick pay but get all the rest...
Benefit cuts for EU migrants...
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Essex Lad
What you have overlooked is the two types of casualization which I refer to - self employment and zero hours contracts. Different rules apply
If you are self employed and there has been a huge increase in self employment under this government, you do not get holiday pay, sick pay etc. from the company or companies you may work for. It is your responsibility to finance that as a self employed person.
In the case of zero hours contracts, the position is more complex. Zero-hour workers have the same employment rights as regular workers, although they may have breaks in their contracts, which affect rights that accrue over time, e.g. sick pay. Zero-hour workers are entitled to annual leave, rest breaks and the national minimum wage, but not redundancy pay or a statutory minimum notice period
So I am correct in saying that the reason these methods of employment have grown exponentially is that it not only allows employers to have much greater flexibility but they also save money in various benefits they would otherwise have to pay if they had people as permanent employees.
If you are self employed and there has been a huge increase in self employment under this government, you do not get holiday pay, sick pay etc. from the company or companies you may work for. It is your responsibility to finance that as a self employed person.
In the case of zero hours contracts, the position is more complex. Zero-hour workers have the same employment rights as regular workers, although they may have breaks in their contracts, which affect rights that accrue over time, e.g. sick pay. Zero-hour workers are entitled to annual leave, rest breaks and the national minimum wage, but not redundancy pay or a statutory minimum notice period
So I am correct in saying that the reason these methods of employment have grown exponentially is that it not only allows employers to have much greater flexibility but they also save money in various benefits they would otherwise have to pay if they had people as permanent employees.
Re: Sparky
David Johnson wrote:
> "Even then the system should be such that they are only
> entitled to limited benefits eg if they become unemployed they
> are allowed only four weeks benefit so if they do not find
> another job in that time unless they can fund themselves they
> have to leave the UK."
>
> This seems unfair. If a person contributes in income tax and
> National Insurance to this country then they should be due to
> the same benefits as a UK national. I am sure that all the
> brickies, electricians etc. that went over to Germany would
> have found it unfair if they had worked for a year or two in
> that country, paying taxes etc. and then found they had to
> leave the country after 4 weeks once the project finished. I
> am sure the same feelings would apply to the hundreds of
> thousands of British people working in Europe.
If hypothetically this policy was put into place those considering coming to the UK for work could individually decide against coming if they thought it was unfair.
Even if there was more flexibility would it be fair that someone could come to the UK and work for say 20 years then choose to stay and retire receiving the same pension and other benefits as someone who has worked for 50 years earning the same rate i.e paid 2.5 x more tax and NI?
You may disagree but I think unfair.
> "Even then the system should be such that they are only
> entitled to limited benefits eg if they become unemployed they
> are allowed only four weeks benefit so if they do not find
> another job in that time unless they can fund themselves they
> have to leave the UK."
>
> This seems unfair. If a person contributes in income tax and
> National Insurance to this country then they should be due to
> the same benefits as a UK national. I am sure that all the
> brickies, electricians etc. that went over to Germany would
> have found it unfair if they had worked for a year or two in
> that country, paying taxes etc. and then found they had to
> leave the country after 4 weeks once the project finished. I
> am sure the same feelings would apply to the hundreds of
> thousands of British people working in Europe.
If hypothetically this policy was put into place those considering coming to the UK for work could individually decide against coming if they thought it was unfair.
Even if there was more flexibility would it be fair that someone could come to the UK and work for say 20 years then choose to stay and retire receiving the same pension and other benefits as someone who has worked for 50 years earning the same rate i.e paid 2.5 x more tax and NI?
You may disagree but I think unfair.
Re Sparky
sparky wrote:
> David Johnson wrote:
>
>
> > "Even then the system should be such that they are only
> > entitled to limited benefits eg if they become unemployed
> they
> > are allowed only four weeks benefit so if they do not find
> > another job in that time unless they can fund themselves they
> > have to leave the UK."
> >
> > This seems unfair. If a person contributes in income tax and
> > National Insurance to this country then they should be due to
> > the same benefits as a UK national. I am sure that all the
> > brickies, electricians etc. that went over to Germany would
> > have found it unfair if they had worked for a year or two in
> > that country, paying taxes etc. and then found they had to
> > leave the country after 4 weeks once the project finished. I
> > am sure the same feelings would apply to the hundreds of
> > thousands of British people working in Europe.
>
> If hypothetically this policy was put into place those
> considering coming to the UK for work could individually decide
> against coming if they thought it was unfair.
>
> Even if there was more flexibility would it be fair that
> someone could come to the UK and work for say 20 years then
> choose to stay and retire receiving the same pension and other
> benefits as someone who has worked for 50 years earning the
> same rate i.e paid 2.5 x more tax and NI?
But surely they wouldn't receive the same pension? I have a friend who recently received a letter saying he had paid in 30 years of NIC and therefore would be eligible for a full state pension. As it stands I haven't paid in 30 years (too young) so I wouldn't get as big a pension.
> David Johnson wrote:
>
>
> > "Even then the system should be such that they are only
> > entitled to limited benefits eg if they become unemployed
> they
> > are allowed only four weeks benefit so if they do not find
> > another job in that time unless they can fund themselves they
> > have to leave the UK."
> >
> > This seems unfair. If a person contributes in income tax and
> > National Insurance to this country then they should be due to
> > the same benefits as a UK national. I am sure that all the
> > brickies, electricians etc. that went over to Germany would
> > have found it unfair if they had worked for a year or two in
> > that country, paying taxes etc. and then found they had to
> > leave the country after 4 weeks once the project finished. I
> > am sure the same feelings would apply to the hundreds of
> > thousands of British people working in Europe.
>
> If hypothetically this policy was put into place those
> considering coming to the UK for work could individually decide
> against coming if they thought it was unfair.
>
> Even if there was more flexibility would it be fair that
> someone could come to the UK and work for say 20 years then
> choose to stay and retire receiving the same pension and other
> benefits as someone who has worked for 50 years earning the
> same rate i.e paid 2.5 x more tax and NI?
But surely they wouldn't receive the same pension? I have a friend who recently received a letter saying he had paid in 30 years of NIC and therefore would be eligible for a full state pension. As it stands I haven't paid in 30 years (too young) so I wouldn't get as big a pension.
-
Porn Baron
- Posts: 993
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Re Sparky
They just changed the rules. It's now 35 years to get a full pension.
Re: Re Sparky
My aim was to set an example based on a hypothetical situation rather than get into the nitty gritty of pensions.
However as to the current pension rules please correct me if wrong but while the exact pension is dependant on contributions I have presumed a minimum pension is paid regardless of a persons contributions.
Then if the person has no other income, very likely in this situation, the basic pension is topped up by other benefits / allowances so overall the person has a set minimum living allowance.
Taking this further how much increase from the basic pension do the contributions actually add?
However as to the current pension rules please correct me if wrong but while the exact pension is dependant on contributions I have presumed a minimum pension is paid regardless of a persons contributions.
Then if the person has no other income, very likely in this situation, the basic pension is topped up by other benefits / allowances so overall the person has a set minimum living allowance.
Taking this further how much increase from the basic pension do the contributions actually add?