Greggs £300 staff bonus

For me if I was a director or whatever of Greggs I would of put it to staff would each of you rather have a £300 bonus or would you all rather go into a draw for the chance of winning a £70000 bonus so 100 people would win a massive amount. I reckon if I was an employee I would of voted for the draw
I'm sure they wouldn't be allowed as it would be treated like a lottery. Good idea mind.
 


Arthur80

Midfield
No one in work should need benefits.

instead of benefits to those in work, reduce the tax bill to greggs and increase the minimum wage. The company is no worse off, neither is the employee and the government doesn’t have to manage a broken system anymore.
Agree with your first point but why should any big companies making millions in profit have their tax bill reduced?
 

AndrewP

Striker
No it wouldn't.

The idea is whatever you lose in UC you gain in an increase to Minimum wage.
Then it would bankrupt businesses. They couldn't afford say £15 per hour, even then the lowest paid would be worse off than they are currently.
 

Hep

Winger
Then it would bankrupt businesses. They couldn't afford say £15 per hour, even then the lowest paid would be worse off than they are currently.
No it wouldn't.

The extra money is given to the business in the form a tax reduction from the government using the money they don't pay in UC.

Today...
Worker get £100 a week from work and £50 UC = £150

My Proposal
Worker gets £150 from work and £0 from UC
The company pays £50 less in taxes but £50 more in wages - no difference to the bottom line.
Government receives £50 less in taxes but pays £50 less in UC - no difference to the bottom line. In fact, the government would save a fortune in not having to administer as much UC.
 

AndrewP

Striker
No it wouldn't.

The extra money is given to the business in the form a tax reduction from the government using the money they don't pay in UC.

Today...
Worker get £100 a week from work and £50 UC = £150

My Proposal
Worker gets £150 from work and £0 from UC
The company pays £50 less in taxes but £50 more in wages - no difference to the bottom line.
Government receives £50 less in taxes but pays £50 less in UC - no difference to the bottom line. In fact, the government would save a fortune in not having to administer as much UC.
What about someone working 16 hours per week on £8 an hour currently, they earn £128 per week. Let's say they also receive £375 per week Universal Credit.

So you think a company could pay them £31 per hour? Of course not therefore, as I already pointed out the poorest would be worse off.

It's nowhere near as simple as you're saying, otherwise I'm work benefits wouldn't have existed for the last 40 years or so.
 
Last edited:

Hep

Winger
What about someone working 16 hours per week on £8 an hour currently, they earn £128 per week. Let's say they also receive £375 per week Universal Credit.

So you think a company could pay them £31 per hour? Of course not therefore, as I already pointed out the poorest would be worse off.

It's nowhere near as simple as you're saying, otherwise I'm work benefits wouldn't have existed for the last 40 years or so.
I'm not saying remove all UC, for your case, it would still exist but for full time workers it shouldn't need to.
 

AndrewP

Striker
I'm not saying remove all UC, for your case, it would still exist but for full time workers it shouldn't need to.
I know plenty who would be loads worse off if their full time wage was increased to say £15 per hour in lieu of universal credit.
 

Hep

Winger
I know plenty who would be loads worse off if their full time wage was increased to say £15 per hour in lieu of universal credit.
Increase to whatever their UC is, if they are working full time it makes no difference.
 

AndrewP

Striker
Increase to whatever their UC is, if they are working full time it makes no difference.
Universal credit makes a huge difference to many full time workers. Unless you mean having a variable minimum wage based on circumstances? Either way, what you're suggesting won't work, not without making the poorest worse off anyway.
 
No it wouldn't.

The extra money is given to the business in the form a tax reduction from the government using the money they don't pay in UC.

Today...
Worker get £100 a week from work and £50 UC = £150

My Proposal
Worker gets £150 from work and £0 from UC
The company pays £50 less in taxes but £50 more in wages - no difference to the bottom line.
Government receives £50 less in taxes but pays £50 less in UC - no difference to the bottom line. In fact, the government would save a fortune in not having to administer as much UC.
Not everyone on minimum wage gets universal credit.
 

Hep

Winger
Universal credit makes a huge difference to many full time workers. Unless you mean having a variable minimum wage based on circumstances? Either way, what you're suggesting won't work, not without making the poorest worse off anyway.
I don’t know why you don’t understand.

i‘m not staying get rid of UC, I’m saying increase minimum wage so a lot less people need it. No one will be worse off.
Not everyone on minimum wage gets universal credit.
So we adapt the tax system to match. It makes no sense to tax companies and then give their workers the cash back. Fix the tax and UC system so the majority of that isn’t needed.
 
Last edited:
I don’t know why you don’t understand.

i‘m not staying get rid of UC, I’m saying increase minimum wage so a lot less people need it. No one will be worse off.

So we adapt the tax system to match. It makes no sense to tax companies and then give their workers the cash back. Fix the tax and UC system so the majority of that isn’t needed.
Many workers will be part time (students, living with higher earners, 2nd jobs) who don't qualify for UC. In fact there will be full time workers who don't qualify for UC.

Increasing their wages won't be net nil to government/business.
 

Hep

Winger
Many workers will be part time (students, living with higher earners, 2nd jobs) who don't qualify for UC. In fact there will be full time workers who don't qualify for UC.

Increasing their wages won't be net nil to government/business.
That can be offset with intelligent tax allowances that factor in children etc.
 

AndrewP

Striker
That can be offset with intelligent tax allowances that factor in children etc.
I'm sorry like, but you're basically going to make a difficult situation more difficult and make certain demographics unemployable.

I do get your basic point, I'm not trying to take the piss.
It’s very easy to implement for companies, just a tax code as per the millions I have today.
So minimum wage is £12 next week in lieu of universal credit. Someone works full time with 4 kids. How much does the employer pay them per hour so they're no worse off than they are now? How could a simple tax code adjustment fix the issue when the person pays very little tax anyway?
 
Last edited:

Top