Greggs £300 staff bonus

[Voice of fair play]

Aye

Normally they would get roughly 325 for themeleves and they rent whatever it is so say for example another 450, then they earnings would be taken of that total keeping part of them earnings and other parts of it taken off that total, if you have children you keep even more of them earnings and extra money for kids.

Aye
Just like a run of the mill person.

Just seems strange how its setup so some people are better off working less hours

Single people won’t be better off working less hours, in fact no one is, but some with kids and getting top ups may be happy with their lesser hours and top up, rather than working full time hours.

 

[BigPete]

Normally they would get roughly 325 for themeleves and they rent whatever it is so say for example another 450, then they earnings would be taken of that total keeping part of them earnings and other parts of it taken off that total, if you have children you keep even more of them earnings and extra money for kids.

So 325 a month plus rent paid for then whatever they earn from the 16 hours on top?

 

[Voice of fair play]

So 325 a month plus rent paid for then whatever they earn from the 16 hours on top?

No 325 plus 450 for rent, then earnings are taken off that total figure at a taper rate, meaning for every £1 they keep 37p and the other 63p comes of the total figure and they left with the balance.

However if you have kids you keep a lot more even before looking at the taper rate.

 

[BigPete]

No 325 plus 450 for rent, then earnings are taken off that total figure at a taper rate, meaning for every £1 they keep 37p and the other 63p comes of the total figure and they left with the balance.

However if you have kids you keep a lot more even before looking at the taper rate.

No wonder young charver lasses popping them out all time then.

 

[AndrewP]

I see , just seems so ridiculous people can be earning double what we do .
We have another now and I'm on a much lower wage atm so might be worth doing another calculation see if we do qualify now

I think it's about £25k if you have two kids.

No wonder young charver lasses popping them out all time then.

Only the first two kids count these days so that won't achieve much for them.

 

[Edinburgh Black Cat]

I think it's about £25k if you have two kids.

Only the first two kids count these days so that won't achieve much for them.

Quite a good policy that imo.

 

[alisafc]

No 325 plus 450 for rent, then earnings are taken off that total figure at a taper rate, meaning for every £1 they keep 37p and the other 63p comes of the total figure and they left with the balance.

However if you have kids you keep a lot more even before looking at the taper rate.

Would a single person get 450 a month for rent? It would only be enough for whatever the one bedroom rate is. In Sunderland for a 2 bedroom its £420. If they're under 35 it would only be whatever a bedsit rate is

 

[Voice of fair play]

Would a single person get 450 a month for rent? It would only be enough for whatever the one bedroom rate is. In Sunderland for a 2 bedroom its £420. If they're under 35 it would only be whatever a bedsit rate is

Yeah it was a just a very general example, obviously depending on location age and circumstances that would change.

 

[look out piano]

Good for the staff, they're worth it.

 

[JJH]

It's money you will have had in the assessment period so yes.
Surely the whole point of any top up benefits be it UC or anything else is to top up people's wages if they don't have enough to live on in a given month, so if you have 300 more that month, you need less top up that month, unless I am missing something.

Nope your spot on

Good for the staff, they're worth it.

Have to agree
Everyone seems to graft continuously when I go in

 

[yamar1]

Is it right that if you are on UC you will have a portion of this bonus clawed back by the Govt?

Housing benefit swallows any increase up instantly.

 

[Frijj]

They not saying ha ha we taking your bonuses away you know, they have a system in place where earnings by a employe are reported and taken into account against any benefit as it’s a mean tested system, and Greggs will be reporting that certain people had extra earnings/income.

I am aware. A bonus to them means a lot though, a bonus they won’t see

 

[Voice of fair play]

I am aware. A bonus to them means a lot though, a bonus they won’t see

They haven’t purposely stopped them getting the benefit of the bonus though, they will just take into account earnings that Greggs declare.

Some of the bonus they will see and still be better off than the previous month, but when you on a means tested benefit of course earnings will be taken into account in some way.

Housing benefit swallows any increase up instantly.

When you on UC your housing element is paid with your UC, thought not sure where you coming from that, only people who recieve housing benefit are not on UC,

 

[yamar1]

They haven’t purposely stopped them getting the benefit of the bonus though, they will just take into account earnings that Greggs declare.

Some of the bonus they will see and still be better off than the previous month, but when you on a means tested benefit of course earnings will be taken into account in some way.


When you on UC your housing element is paid with your UC, thought not sure where you coming from that, only people who recieve housing benefit are not on UC,

Thats the way it used to be. Now it is uc i would think the uc would be reduced in the same fashion if you receive a £300 one off increase

 

[googleboogle]

I am aware. A bonus to them means a lot though, a bonus they won’t see

well they will, and at the end of the day it’s better than nothing.

 

[JAZZMANB]

Not blaming greggs they're just taking advantage of the system, I'm sure tesco we're slated for similar after announcing record profits a while ago.
People turning available work down because they are better off on benefits shows the system doesn't work.

They've clearly invested profit into expansion
They're a modern success story and their profits will be "record " because they're growing
Tesco haven't made good profit for ages

 

[Mainze]

Makes sense, I worked for JDW for over a decade, they paid bonuses to basic wage staff way beyond that annually, as a manager of a unit you could easily double your basic salary.

Spoiler

Socialists look away now

 

[googleboogle]

Makes sense, I worked for JDW for over a decade, they paid bonuses to basic wage staff way beyond that annually, as a manager of a unit you could easily double your basic salary.

Spoiler

Socialists look away now

this is a bonus outside of the normal yearly bonus. So it’s a bonus bonus.

 

[monkeytassle]

A £300 bonus to Greggs workers will be clawed back by the state, but bonuses of hundreds of thousands to bankers will be paid via shell companies in the f***ing Cayman Islands and the state won’t see a penny.

Bankers are not paid via Shell companies. That's a complete fallacy.

 

[Frijj]

Bankers are not paid via Shell companies. That's a complete fallacy.

You know what I mean. The wealthiest individuals have the financial means to engage in tax avoidance schemes to hide their wealth from the treasury.

Through whatever complex financial arrangement it is made isn’t relevant - what is relevant is that regular people can’t afford the accountants and solicitors needed to do this, but those in the top 0.5% can and do, to avoid paying their fair share to the rest of society.