Business chiefs in warning on wages

SOME of the region’s business leaders have warned against plans to increase the minimum wage.

Last week the Chancellor George Osborne said the country was now in a position to put up the minimum wage, which currently stands at £6.31 an hour for over-21s, by more than the rate of inflation.

However, the policy has been criticised as one that could harm businesses still struggling with the effects of a sluggish economy.

The Chamber of Commerce says that any excessive increases in the minimum wage would harm smaller firms.

Clair Prosser, a Policy Executive at the Swindon Chamber of Commerce said: “Although it is clear that there is an increased disparity between the highest and lowest earners, arbitrarily raising the floor isn’t necessarily the solution and could in fact make the UK economy uncompetitive in the long term.

“The adverse effects of an unaffordable minimum wage hike would also be predominantly concentrated among SMEs, young people and graduates.”

The organisation believes that if the minimum wage is raised then the Chancellor will need to take action elsewhere to offset the effects.

“If we want to spread the wealth around as the economy recovers, we need a long-term plan to create a high-skill, high-wage economy, including action on infrastructure and access to finance,” said Clair.

“Certain sectors will be more affected by any change such as domestic services, healthcare and hospitality. Increases in wages would ultimately lead to higher prices for the consumer if the change is not mitigated by other initiatives such as reducing tax or National Insurance.”

Ian Larrard, director of the Initiative in Swindon & Wiltshire, part of Business West, while he would encourage businesses to pay a fair wage he has concerns about the government interfering in wages.

He said: "We recognise both the everyday challenges for those on the lowest wages and the business challenge to recruit and retain the best people. It is for both these reasons that Business West encourages our 16,000 members to consider the Living Wage concept as a part of a sustainable business strategy.

“However, despite early economic recovery signs, we also appreciate the tough trading conditions and margin pressures still faced by many companies, particularly on the High Street, and any obligatory increases in the minimum wage may well have other consequences.

“Business West is concerned by politicians trying to set private sector wage levels. The low pay commission has been set up to objectively evaluate the minimum wage and we should leave it to them.”

Comments (59)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

8:40am Mon 20 Jan 14

swindondad says...

I know it will not be popular with those on the "left" but there is a very good argument for not raising the minimum wage at all (or by less than inflation, 2% ATM).

Overall wage increases (excluding bonuses) was less than 1% last year so pushing up the minimum wage faster than this will decrease the pay differential for experienced staff.

As for the 50pph (nearly 8%) that has been bandied around in the press that could stop some employers from taking on new staff at all.
I know it will not be popular with those on the "left" but there is a very good argument for not raising the minimum wage at all (or by less than inflation, 2% ATM). Overall wage increases (excluding bonuses) was less than 1% last year so pushing up the minimum wage faster than this will decrease the pay differential for experienced staff. As for the 50pph (nearly 8%) that has been bandied around in the press that could stop some employers from taking on new staff at all. swindondad

8:48am Mon 20 Jan 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

swindondad wrote:
I know it will not be popular with those on the "left" but there is a very good argument for not raising the minimum wage at all (or by less than inflation, 2% ATM).

Overall wage increases (excluding bonuses) was less than 1% last year so pushing up the minimum wage faster than this will decrease the pay differential for experienced staff.

As for the 50pph (nearly 8%) that has been bandied around in the press that could stop some employers from taking on new staff at all.
The British Economy much like the Swindon economy is a consumer based economy, if customers have less in their pockets then they have less to spend.
When people have less to spend (consume) then companies struggle to invest and stay afloat.
There will be No Recovery without real wage increases, it is that simple, companies must understand that they are part of an economic ecosystem, if they put nothing in, they will get nothing back.
[quote][p][bold]swindondad[/bold] wrote: I know it will not be popular with those on the "left" but there is a very good argument for not raising the minimum wage at all (or by less than inflation, 2% ATM). Overall wage increases (excluding bonuses) was less than 1% last year so pushing up the minimum wage faster than this will decrease the pay differential for experienced staff. As for the 50pph (nearly 8%) that has been bandied around in the press that could stop some employers from taking on new staff at all.[/p][/quote]The British Economy much like the Swindon economy is a consumer based economy, if customers have less in their pockets then they have less to spend. When people have less to spend (consume) then companies struggle to invest and stay afloat. There will be No Recovery without real wage increases, it is that simple, companies must understand that they are part of an economic ecosystem, if they put nothing in, they will get nothing back. A.Baron-Cohen

9:27am Mon 20 Jan 14

swindondad says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
swindondad wrote: I know it will not be popular with those on the "left" but there is a very good argument for not raising the minimum wage at all (or by less than inflation, 2% ATM). Overall wage increases (excluding bonuses) was less than 1% last year so pushing up the minimum wage faster than this will decrease the pay differential for experienced staff. As for the 50pph (nearly 8%) that has been bandied around in the press that could stop some employers from taking on new staff at all.
The British Economy much like the Swindon economy is a consumer based economy, if customers have less in their pockets then they have less to spend. When people have less to spend (consume) then companies struggle to invest and stay afloat. There will be No Recovery without real wage increases, it is that simple, companies must understand that they are part of an economic ecosystem, if they put nothing in, they will get nothing back.
In a VERY limited way this is true. A small % of the money earned in Swindon is spent in Swindon.

Not everybody who works in Swindon lives in Swindon.
Many bills that workers pay do not go into local economy (mortgage / rent, utilities / online).
Of the money spent locally the majority is spent with large multiple retailers not the corner shop.
The vast majority of large ticket items are imported (even the few built locally Honda cars contain imported parts).

We do live in a Global Market and as we saw from Nationwide last week if the large employers can “off shore” jobs and save money they will.

I do not know what the answer to squaring this circle is but raising the minimum wage by 4 times the rate of inflation (50pph) is NOT IT.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swindondad[/bold] wrote: I know it will not be popular with those on the "left" but there is a very good argument for not raising the minimum wage at all (or by less than inflation, 2% ATM). Overall wage increases (excluding bonuses) was less than 1% last year so pushing up the minimum wage faster than this will decrease the pay differential for experienced staff. As for the 50pph (nearly 8%) that has been bandied around in the press that could stop some employers from taking on new staff at all.[/p][/quote]The British Economy much like the Swindon economy is a consumer based economy, if customers have less in their pockets then they have less to spend. When people have less to spend (consume) then companies struggle to invest and stay afloat. There will be No Recovery without real wage increases, it is that simple, companies must understand that they are part of an economic ecosystem, if they put nothing in, they will get nothing back.[/p][/quote]In a VERY limited way this is true. A small % of the money earned in Swindon is spent in Swindon. Not everybody who works in Swindon lives in Swindon. Many bills that workers pay do not go into local economy (mortgage / rent, utilities / online). Of the money spent locally the majority is spent with large multiple retailers not the corner shop. The vast majority of large ticket items are imported (even the few built locally Honda cars contain imported parts). We do live in a Global Market and as we saw from Nationwide last week if the large employers can “off shore” jobs and save money they will. I do not know what the answer to squaring this circle is but raising the minimum wage by 4 times the rate of inflation (50pph) is NOT IT. swindondad

9:31am Mon 20 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

On average, at least 70% of all money earned in Swindon is immediately taken out of Swindon via Income Tax, NI and VAT.

Also, there's not much point forcing businesses to pay high minimum wages as it simply means many will close and the ones that remain will just put up their prices to cover the additional wage bill... so it just evens out again once you start spending your 'increased' wages.
On average, at least 70% of all money earned in Swindon is immediately taken out of Swindon via Income Tax, NI and VAT. Also, there's not much point forcing businesses to pay high minimum wages as it simply means many will close and the ones that remain will just put up their prices to cover the additional wage bill... so it just evens out again once you start spending your 'increased' wages. ChannelX

9:40am Mon 20 Jan 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

swindondad wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
swindondad wrote: I know it will not be popular with those on the "left" but there is a very good argument for not raising the minimum wage at all (or by less than inflation, 2% ATM). Overall wage increases (excluding bonuses) was less than 1% last year so pushing up the minimum wage faster than this will decrease the pay differential for experienced staff. As for the 50pph (nearly 8%) that has been bandied around in the press that could stop some employers from taking on new staff at all.
The British Economy much like the Swindon economy is a consumer based economy, if customers have less in their pockets then they have less to spend. When people have less to spend (consume) then companies struggle to invest and stay afloat. There will be No Recovery without real wage increases, it is that simple, companies must understand that they are part of an economic ecosystem, if they put nothing in, they will get nothing back.
In a VERY limited way this is true. A small % of the money earned in Swindon is spent in Swindon.

Not everybody who works in Swindon lives in Swindon.
Many bills that workers pay do not go into local economy (mortgage / rent, utilities / online).
Of the money spent locally the majority is spent with large multiple retailers not the corner shop.
The vast majority of large ticket items are imported (even the few built locally Honda cars contain imported parts).

We do live in a Global Market and as we saw from Nationwide last week if the large employers can “off shore” jobs and save money they will.

I do not know what the answer to squaring this circle is but raising the minimum wage by 4 times the rate of inflation (50pph) is NOT IT.
We have had a decade of declining wages and this cannot continue simply because deflation is just around the corner.
However the elephant in the room is that by increasing wages we are reducing the cost of Welfare and reducing taxation, I think from a political angle, this is quite a masterpiece.
From a social and moral point of view, it is great to see that workers are now made to share the Recovery together with Pensioners (which have seen their pensions rise faster than inflation for several years) without any major objections.
[quote][p][bold]swindondad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swindondad[/bold] wrote: I know it will not be popular with those on the "left" but there is a very good argument for not raising the minimum wage at all (or by less than inflation, 2% ATM). Overall wage increases (excluding bonuses) was less than 1% last year so pushing up the minimum wage faster than this will decrease the pay differential for experienced staff. As for the 50pph (nearly 8%) that has been bandied around in the press that could stop some employers from taking on new staff at all.[/p][/quote]The British Economy much like the Swindon economy is a consumer based economy, if customers have less in their pockets then they have less to spend. When people have less to spend (consume) then companies struggle to invest and stay afloat. There will be No Recovery without real wage increases, it is that simple, companies must understand that they are part of an economic ecosystem, if they put nothing in, they will get nothing back.[/p][/quote]In a VERY limited way this is true. A small % of the money earned in Swindon is spent in Swindon. Not everybody who works in Swindon lives in Swindon. Many bills that workers pay do not go into local economy (mortgage / rent, utilities / online). Of the money spent locally the majority is spent with large multiple retailers not the corner shop. The vast majority of large ticket items are imported (even the few built locally Honda cars contain imported parts). We do live in a Global Market and as we saw from Nationwide last week if the large employers can “off shore” jobs and save money they will. I do not know what the answer to squaring this circle is but raising the minimum wage by 4 times the rate of inflation (50pph) is NOT IT.[/p][/quote]We have had a decade of declining wages and this cannot continue simply because deflation is just around the corner. However the elephant in the room is that by increasing wages we are reducing the cost of Welfare and reducing taxation, I think from a political angle, this is quite a masterpiece. From a social and moral point of view, it is great to see that workers are now made to share the Recovery together with Pensioners (which have seen their pensions rise faster than inflation for several years) without any major objections. A.Baron-Cohen

9:43am Mon 20 Jan 14

Hmmmf says...

It's an election year. I thought this comment in the article the most telling, especially in light of the recent IPSA fiasco. Either you let the independent bodies do the job they were set up to do, or everything becomes 'public sector':
Ian Larrard said:
Business West is concerned by politicians trying to set private sector wage levels. The low pay commission has been set up to objectively evaluate the minimum wage and we should leave it to them.
It's an election year. I thought this comment in the article the most telling, especially in light of the recent IPSA fiasco. Either you let the independent bodies do the job they were set up to do, or everything becomes 'public sector': [quote][p][bold]Ian Larrard[/bold] said: Business West is concerned by politicians trying to set private sector wage levels. The low pay commission has been set up to objectively evaluate the minimum wage and we should leave it to them.[/quote] Hmmmf

10:32am Mon 20 Jan 14

benzss says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
swindondad wrote:
I know it will not be popular with those on the "left" but there is a very good argument for not raising the minimum wage at all (or by less than inflation, 2% ATM).

Overall wage increases (excluding bonuses) was less than 1% last year so pushing up the minimum wage faster than this will decrease the pay differential for experienced staff.

As for the 50pph (nearly 8%) that has been bandied around in the press that could stop some employers from taking on new staff at all.
The British Economy much like the Swindon economy is a consumer based economy, if customers have less in their pockets then they have less to spend.
When people have less to spend (consume) then companies struggle to invest and stay afloat.
There will be No Recovery without real wage increases, it is that simple, companies must understand that they are part of an economic ecosystem, if they put nothing in, they will get nothing back.
What economy is NOT consumer-based?

In any case, raising the minimum wage is not the answer - at the very least it has no effect, at the worst it reduces the amount of people in employment.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swindondad[/bold] wrote: I know it will not be popular with those on the "left" but there is a very good argument for not raising the minimum wage at all (or by less than inflation, 2% ATM). Overall wage increases (excluding bonuses) was less than 1% last year so pushing up the minimum wage faster than this will decrease the pay differential for experienced staff. As for the 50pph (nearly 8%) that has been bandied around in the press that could stop some employers from taking on new staff at all.[/p][/quote]The British Economy much like the Swindon economy is a consumer based economy, if customers have less in their pockets then they have less to spend. When people have less to spend (consume) then companies struggle to invest and stay afloat. There will be No Recovery without real wage increases, it is that simple, companies must understand that they are part of an economic ecosystem, if they put nothing in, they will get nothing back.[/p][/quote]What economy is NOT consumer-based? In any case, raising the minimum wage is not the answer - at the very least it has no effect, at the worst it reduces the amount of people in employment. benzss

10:57am Mon 20 Jan 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

benzss wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
swindondad wrote:
I know it will not be popular with those on the "left" but there is a very good argument for not raising the minimum wage at all (or by less than inflation, 2% ATM).

Overall wage increases (excluding bonuses) was less than 1% last year so pushing up the minimum wage faster than this will decrease the pay differential for experienced staff.

As for the 50pph (nearly 8%) that has been bandied around in the press that could stop some employers from taking on new staff at all.
The British Economy much like the Swindon economy is a consumer based economy, if customers have less in their pockets then they have less to spend.
When people have less to spend (consume) then companies struggle to invest and stay afloat.
There will be No Recovery without real wage increases, it is that simple, companies must understand that they are part of an economic ecosystem, if they put nothing in, they will get nothing back.
What economy is NOT consumer-based?

In any case, raising the minimum wage is not the answer - at the very least it has no effect, at the worst it reduces the amount of people in employment.
Well some Economies are less reliant than the UK on consumer demand. For example, countries that have strong performing exports: Germany, China.
In the case of Germany, minimum wage and employers charges are higher than in the UK........yet this country is experiencing full employment and growth rate we have have never experienced in Britain....
[quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swindondad[/bold] wrote: I know it will not be popular with those on the "left" but there is a very good argument for not raising the minimum wage at all (or by less than inflation, 2% ATM). Overall wage increases (excluding bonuses) was less than 1% last year so pushing up the minimum wage faster than this will decrease the pay differential for experienced staff. As for the 50pph (nearly 8%) that has been bandied around in the press that could stop some employers from taking on new staff at all.[/p][/quote]The British Economy much like the Swindon economy is a consumer based economy, if customers have less in their pockets then they have less to spend. When people have less to spend (consume) then companies struggle to invest and stay afloat. There will be No Recovery without real wage increases, it is that simple, companies must understand that they are part of an economic ecosystem, if they put nothing in, they will get nothing back.[/p][/quote]What economy is NOT consumer-based? In any case, raising the minimum wage is not the answer - at the very least it has no effect, at the worst it reduces the amount of people in employment.[/p][/quote]Well some Economies are less reliant than the UK on consumer demand. For example, countries that have strong performing exports: Germany, China. In the case of Germany, minimum wage and employers charges are higher than in the UK........yet this country is experiencing full employment and growth rate we have have never experienced in Britain.... A.Baron-Cohen

11:15am Mon 20 Jan 14

benzss says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
benzss wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
swindondad wrote:
I know it will not be popular with those on the "left" but there is a very good argument for not raising the minimum wage at all (or by less than inflation, 2% ATM).

Overall wage increases (excluding bonuses) was less than 1% last year so pushing up the minimum wage faster than this will decrease the pay differential for experienced staff.

As for the 50pph (nearly 8%) that has been bandied around in the press that could stop some employers from taking on new staff at all.
The British Economy much like the Swindon economy is a consumer based economy, if customers have less in their pockets then they have less to spend.
When people have less to spend (consume) then companies struggle to invest and stay afloat.
There will be No Recovery without real wage increases, it is that simple, companies must understand that they are part of an economic ecosystem, if they put nothing in, they will get nothing back.
What economy is NOT consumer-based?

In any case, raising the minimum wage is not the answer - at the very least it has no effect, at the worst it reduces the amount of people in employment.
Well some Economies are less reliant than the UK on consumer demand. For example, countries that have strong performing exports: Germany, China.
In the case of Germany, minimum wage and employers charges are higher than in the UK........yet this country is experiencing full employment and growth rate we have have never experienced in Britain....
I realise it is really banal of me to say this, but all economic activity is driven by consumer demand. What you're referring to are issues of diversification; i.e., Germany, being as it is a manufacturing power with interests in a range of overseas market, is less affected when demand ('consumer demand' and 'demand' are basically the same thing) in a handful of those markets falls. The UK exports far less than Germany, therefore is more reliant on domestic demand.

Interestingly, this ability to export so readily is in part due to the fact that a large portion of the workforce in Germany did not experience the boom in wages during the 90s/00s as did other European countries (this was quite deliberate on the Germans' part). Consequently they were more productive and much more competitive.

The other interesting thing to note is that Germany's unemployment rate is very low now - 5.2% - and yet in 2005 it was an eye-watering 11%, compared to the UK's 4.6%.

Draw your own conclusions. Overall, I think Germany's and the UK's situations show that minimum wages either don't matter or have a negative net effect on the greater economy.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swindondad[/bold] wrote: I know it will not be popular with those on the "left" but there is a very good argument for not raising the minimum wage at all (or by less than inflation, 2% ATM). Overall wage increases (excluding bonuses) was less than 1% last year so pushing up the minimum wage faster than this will decrease the pay differential for experienced staff. As for the 50pph (nearly 8%) that has been bandied around in the press that could stop some employers from taking on new staff at all.[/p][/quote]The British Economy much like the Swindon economy is a consumer based economy, if customers have less in their pockets then they have less to spend. When people have less to spend (consume) then companies struggle to invest and stay afloat. There will be No Recovery without real wage increases, it is that simple, companies must understand that they are part of an economic ecosystem, if they put nothing in, they will get nothing back.[/p][/quote]What economy is NOT consumer-based? In any case, raising the minimum wage is not the answer - at the very least it has no effect, at the worst it reduces the amount of people in employment.[/p][/quote]Well some Economies are less reliant than the UK on consumer demand. For example, countries that have strong performing exports: Germany, China. In the case of Germany, minimum wage and employers charges are higher than in the UK........yet this country is experiencing full employment and growth rate we have have never experienced in Britain....[/p][/quote]I realise it is really banal of me to say this, but all economic activity is driven by consumer demand. What you're referring to are issues of diversification; i.e., Germany, being as it is a manufacturing power with interests in a range of overseas market, is less affected when demand ('consumer demand' and 'demand' are basically the same thing) in a handful of those markets falls. The UK exports far less than Germany, therefore is more reliant on domestic demand. Interestingly, this ability to export so readily is in part due to the fact that a large portion of the workforce in Germany did not experience the boom in wages during the 90s/00s as did other European countries (this was quite deliberate on the Germans' part). Consequently they were more productive and much more competitive. The other interesting thing to note is that Germany's unemployment rate is very low now - 5.2% - and yet in 2005 it was an eye-watering 11%, compared to the UK's 4.6%. Draw your own conclusions. Overall, I think Germany's and the UK's situations show that minimum wages either don't matter or have a negative net effect on the greater economy. benzss

11:16am Mon 20 Jan 14

swindondad says...

A.Baron-Cohen,

Your arguments might hold more weight if they were based on FACT not FICTION.

The UK GDP growth is higher than Germany's.
http://www.tradingec
onomics.com/country-
list/gdp-annual-grow
th-rate
A.Baron-Cohen, Your arguments might hold more weight if they were based on FACT not FICTION. The UK GDP growth is higher than Germany's. http://www.tradingec onomics.com/country- list/gdp-annual-grow th-rate swindondad

11:38am Mon 20 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.
Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage. Davey Gravey

11:44am Mon 20 Jan 14

benzss says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.
Nobody's saying it's a picnic living on the minimum wage. All I, at least, am saying is that raising the minimum wage won't actually help anything and may make things worse.

Surely it'd make more sense to raise the personal allowance for income tax to the equivalent of a full-time minimum wage worker (~£13k).
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.[/p][/quote]Nobody's saying it's a picnic living on the minimum wage. All I, at least, am saying is that raising the minimum wage won't actually help anything and may make things worse. Surely it'd make more sense to raise the personal allowance for income tax to the equivalent of a full-time minimum wage worker (~£13k). benzss

11:48am Mon 20 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.
At £7p/h, the minimum wage would equate to around £1250 per month for a person working a regular, full-time job. Due to the increased tax thresholds, that means taking home £1,084.81.

Are you suggesting that's a poor wage for, say, a 22 year old who is still living at home?

Of course it's unrealistic to expect to be able to buy a house, run a car and have a couple of kids of the national minimum wage - and it would be utterly crazy to suggest that should be possible.

Interestingly, what's your idea of a decent 'living wage', Davey? Because John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, was on Question Time last week stating that it should be £19 per hour.

Which works out to around £3500 per month before tax. How do you suppose McDonalds are going to be able to pay that to a 19 year old with no experience who's just been taken on?

How is any small business going to be able to afford the £4000 per month it would cost them to hire ANYONE?
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.[/p][/quote]At £7p/h, the minimum wage would equate to around £1250 per month for a person working a regular, full-time job. Due to the increased tax thresholds, that means taking home £1,084.81. Are you suggesting that's a poor wage for, say, a 22 year old who is still living at home? Of course it's unrealistic to expect to be able to buy a house, run a car and have a couple of kids of the national minimum wage - and it would be utterly crazy to suggest that should be possible. Interestingly, what's your idea of a decent 'living wage', Davey? Because John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, was on Question Time last week stating that it should be £19 per hour. Which works out to around £3500 per month before tax. How do you suppose McDonalds are going to be able to pay that to a 19 year old with no experience who's just been taken on? How is any small business going to be able to afford the £4000 per month it would cost them to hire ANYONE? ChannelX

11:56am Mon 20 Jan 14

swindondad says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.
It is a living wage for a single person if they are working full time (42 hours).

£13782 gross pa = £12190 net pa.

Self contained studio flat rent = £400pcm so over £600 a month for utilities and food EASY.

If you want to get married / start a family either work extra hours, both work or get some training / qualifications to up your earning potential.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.[/p][/quote]It is a living wage for a single person if they are working full time (42 hours). £13782 gross pa = £12190 net pa. Self contained studio flat rent = £400pcm so over £600 a month for utilities and food EASY. If you want to get married / start a family either work extra hours, both work or get some training / qualifications to up your earning potential. swindondad

11:56am Mon 20 Jan 14

benzss says...

ChannelX wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.
At £7p/h, the minimum wage would equate to around £1250 per month for a person working a regular, full-time job. Due to the increased tax thresholds, that means taking home £1,084.81.

Are you suggesting that's a poor wage for, say, a 22 year old who is still living at home?

Of course it's unrealistic to expect to be able to buy a house, run a car and have a couple of kids of the national minimum wage - and it would be utterly crazy to suggest that should be possible.

Interestingly, what's your idea of a decent 'living wage', Davey? Because John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, was on Question Time last week stating that it should be £19 per hour.

Which works out to around £3500 per month before tax. How do you suppose McDonalds are going to be able to pay that to a 19 year old with no experience who's just been taken on?

How is any small business going to be able to afford the £4000 per month it would cost them to hire ANYONE?
In fairness, the living wage campaign is for £7.50 (roughly) p/h outside of London.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.[/p][/quote]At £7p/h, the minimum wage would equate to around £1250 per month for a person working a regular, full-time job. Due to the increased tax thresholds, that means taking home £1,084.81. Are you suggesting that's a poor wage for, say, a 22 year old who is still living at home? Of course it's unrealistic to expect to be able to buy a house, run a car and have a couple of kids of the national minimum wage - and it would be utterly crazy to suggest that should be possible. Interestingly, what's your idea of a decent 'living wage', Davey? Because John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, was on Question Time last week stating that it should be £19 per hour. Which works out to around £3500 per month before tax. How do you suppose McDonalds are going to be able to pay that to a 19 year old with no experience who's just been taken on? How is any small business going to be able to afford the £4000 per month it would cost them to hire ANYONE?[/p][/quote]In fairness, the living wage campaign is for £7.50 (roughly) p/h outside of London. benzss

12:23pm Mon 20 Jan 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

swindondad wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen,

Your arguments might hold more weight if they were based on FACT not FICTION.

The UK GDP growth is higher than Germany's.
http://www.tradingec

onomics.com/country-

list/gdp-annual-grow

th-rate
This is an unexpected achievement however an accident rather than a trend..
[quote][p][bold]swindondad[/bold] wrote: A.Baron-Cohen, Your arguments might hold more weight if they were based on FACT not FICTION. The UK GDP growth is higher than Germany's. http://www.tradingec onomics.com/country- list/gdp-annual-grow th-rate[/p][/quote]This is an unexpected achievement however an accident rather than a trend.. A.Baron-Cohen

12:29pm Mon 20 Jan 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

benzss wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
benzss wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
swindondad wrote:
I know it will not be popular with those on the "left" but there is a very good argument for not raising the minimum wage at all (or by less than inflation, 2% ATM).

Overall wage increases (excluding bonuses) was less than 1% last year so pushing up the minimum wage faster than this will decrease the pay differential for experienced staff.

As for the 50pph (nearly 8%) that has been bandied around in the press that could stop some employers from taking on new staff at all.
The British Economy much like the Swindon economy is a consumer based economy, if customers have less in their pockets then they have less to spend.
When people have less to spend (consume) then companies struggle to invest and stay afloat.
There will be No Recovery without real wage increases, it is that simple, companies must understand that they are part of an economic ecosystem, if they put nothing in, they will get nothing back.
What economy is NOT consumer-based?

In any case, raising the minimum wage is not the answer - at the very least it has no effect, at the worst it reduces the amount of people in employment.
Well some Economies are less reliant than the UK on consumer demand. For example, countries that have strong performing exports: Germany, China.
In the case of Germany, minimum wage and employers charges are higher than in the UK........yet this country is experiencing full employment and growth rate we have have never experienced in Britain....
I realise it is really banal of me to say this, but all economic activity is driven by consumer demand. What you're referring to are issues of diversification; i.e., Germany, being as it is a manufacturing power with interests in a range of overseas market, is less affected when demand ('consumer demand' and 'demand' are basically the same thing) in a handful of those markets falls. The UK exports far less than Germany, therefore is more reliant on domestic demand.

Interestingly, this ability to export so readily is in part due to the fact that a large portion of the workforce in Germany did not experience the boom in wages during the 90s/00s as did other European countries (this was quite deliberate on the Germans' part). Consequently they were more productive and much more competitive.

The other interesting thing to note is that Germany's unemployment rate is very low now - 5.2% - and yet in 2005 it was an eye-watering 11%, compared to the UK's 4.6%.

Draw your own conclusions. Overall, I think Germany's and the UK's situations show that minimum wages either don't matter or have a negative net effect on the greater economy.
Maybe we could apply this concept to Pensions, no minimum pensions.....and lets see what happens......
[quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swindondad[/bold] wrote: I know it will not be popular with those on the "left" but there is a very good argument for not raising the minimum wage at all (or by less than inflation, 2% ATM). Overall wage increases (excluding bonuses) was less than 1% last year so pushing up the minimum wage faster than this will decrease the pay differential for experienced staff. As for the 50pph (nearly 8%) that has been bandied around in the press that could stop some employers from taking on new staff at all.[/p][/quote]The British Economy much like the Swindon economy is a consumer based economy, if customers have less in their pockets then they have less to spend. When people have less to spend (consume) then companies struggle to invest and stay afloat. There will be No Recovery without real wage increases, it is that simple, companies must understand that they are part of an economic ecosystem, if they put nothing in, they will get nothing back.[/p][/quote]What economy is NOT consumer-based? In any case, raising the minimum wage is not the answer - at the very least it has no effect, at the worst it reduces the amount of people in employment.[/p][/quote]Well some Economies are less reliant than the UK on consumer demand. For example, countries that have strong performing exports: Germany, China. In the case of Germany, minimum wage and employers charges are higher than in the UK........yet this country is experiencing full employment and growth rate we have have never experienced in Britain....[/p][/quote]I realise it is really banal of me to say this, but all economic activity is driven by consumer demand. What you're referring to are issues of diversification; i.e., Germany, being as it is a manufacturing power with interests in a range of overseas market, is less affected when demand ('consumer demand' and 'demand' are basically the same thing) in a handful of those markets falls. The UK exports far less than Germany, therefore is more reliant on domestic demand. Interestingly, this ability to export so readily is in part due to the fact that a large portion of the workforce in Germany did not experience the boom in wages during the 90s/00s as did other European countries (this was quite deliberate on the Germans' part). Consequently they were more productive and much more competitive. The other interesting thing to note is that Germany's unemployment rate is very low now - 5.2% - and yet in 2005 it was an eye-watering 11%, compared to the UK's 4.6%. Draw your own conclusions. Overall, I think Germany's and the UK's situations show that minimum wages either don't matter or have a negative net effect on the greater economy.[/p][/quote]Maybe we could apply this concept to Pensions, no minimum pensions.....and lets see what happens...... A.Baron-Cohen

12:32pm Mon 20 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

benzss wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.
At £7p/h, the minimum wage would equate to around £1250 per month for a person working a regular, full-time job. Due to the increased tax thresholds, that means taking home £1,084.81.

Are you suggesting that's a poor wage for, say, a 22 year old who is still living at home?

Of course it's unrealistic to expect to be able to buy a house, run a car and have a couple of kids of the national minimum wage - and it would be utterly crazy to suggest that should be possible.

Interestingly, what's your idea of a decent 'living wage', Davey? Because John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, was on Question Time last week stating that it should be £19 per hour.

Which works out to around £3500 per month before tax. How do you suppose McDonalds are going to be able to pay that to a 19 year old with no experience who's just been taken on?

How is any small business going to be able to afford the £4000 per month it would cost them to hire ANYONE?
In fairness, the living wage campaign is for £7.50 (roughly) p/h outside of London.
The official Living Wage campaign are calling for £7.65ph outside of London but, as with all such campaigns, it would never stop there.

If George Osborne said, 'By law, everyone must earn £7.65ph as of tomorrow', by Friday the Living Wage campaign would claim a victory but that 'more must be done' and would be calling for £7.99ph outside of London.

Within a couple of weeks they'd notice that the prices for virtually all goods and services had increased and they'd then be demanding £8.50ph to 'keep things at their previous level'.

It is a never-ending demand. Just ask anyone who is committed to the idea what they think the maximum living wage should be and you'll see what I mean.

They're not interested in the ramifications, they're simply obsessed with the usual left-wing mantra of 'Give everyone more money and everything will be OK'. Of course, due to their stance, it means anyone who puts the argument against their demands must be 'uncaring' or a 'rich toff'.

It's pathetic, really.
[quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.[/p][/quote]At £7p/h, the minimum wage would equate to around £1250 per month for a person working a regular, full-time job. Due to the increased tax thresholds, that means taking home £1,084.81. Are you suggesting that's a poor wage for, say, a 22 year old who is still living at home? Of course it's unrealistic to expect to be able to buy a house, run a car and have a couple of kids of the national minimum wage - and it would be utterly crazy to suggest that should be possible. Interestingly, what's your idea of a decent 'living wage', Davey? Because John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, was on Question Time last week stating that it should be £19 per hour. Which works out to around £3500 per month before tax. How do you suppose McDonalds are going to be able to pay that to a 19 year old with no experience who's just been taken on? How is any small business going to be able to afford the £4000 per month it would cost them to hire ANYONE?[/p][/quote]In fairness, the living wage campaign is for £7.50 (roughly) p/h outside of London.[/p][/quote]The official Living Wage campaign are calling for £7.65ph outside of London but, as with all such campaigns, it would never stop there. If George Osborne said, 'By law, everyone must earn £7.65ph as of tomorrow', by Friday the Living Wage campaign would claim a victory but that 'more must be done' and would be calling for £7.99ph outside of London. Within a couple of weeks they'd notice that the prices for virtually all goods and services had increased and they'd then be demanding £8.50ph to 'keep things at their previous level'. It is a never-ending demand. Just ask anyone who is committed to the idea what they think the maximum living wage should be and you'll see what I mean. They're not interested in the ramifications, they're simply obsessed with the usual left-wing mantra of 'Give everyone more money and everything will be OK'. Of course, due to their stance, it means anyone who puts the argument against their demands must be 'uncaring' or a 'rich toff'. It's pathetic, really. ChannelX

12:37pm Mon 20 Jan 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

benzss wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.
Nobody's saying it's a picnic living on the minimum wage. All I, at least, am saying is that raising the minimum wage won't actually help anything and may make things worse.

Surely it'd make more sense to raise the personal allowance for income tax to the equivalent of a full-time minimum wage worker (~£13k).
The whole point of increasing the minimum wage is to reduce the amount of Welfare that is paid to low paid workers / families, if they earn more, they claim less, and hopefully overall taxation can then be lowered.
Increasing the personal allowance would cost too much to the Exchequer, and this would need to be tackled by increasing taxation.
[quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.[/p][/quote]Nobody's saying it's a picnic living on the minimum wage. All I, at least, am saying is that raising the minimum wage won't actually help anything and may make things worse. Surely it'd make more sense to raise the personal allowance for income tax to the equivalent of a full-time minimum wage worker (~£13k).[/p][/quote]The whole point of increasing the minimum wage is to reduce the amount of Welfare that is paid to low paid workers / families, if they earn more, they claim less, and hopefully overall taxation can then be lowered. Increasing the personal allowance would cost too much to the Exchequer, and this would need to be tackled by increasing taxation. A.Baron-Cohen

12:46pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

benzss wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.
Nobody's saying it's a picnic living on the minimum wage. All I, at least, am saying is that raising the minimum wage won't actually help anything and may make things worse.

Surely it'd make more sense to raise the personal allowance for income tax to the equivalent of a full-time minimum wage worker (~£13k).
Wouldn't that cost the government too much in lost taxation?
That money would have to be recouped from somewhere. Maybe by taxing Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone, etc, etc correctly?
[quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.[/p][/quote]Nobody's saying it's a picnic living on the minimum wage. All I, at least, am saying is that raising the minimum wage won't actually help anything and may make things worse. Surely it'd make more sense to raise the personal allowance for income tax to the equivalent of a full-time minimum wage worker (~£13k).[/p][/quote]Wouldn't that cost the government too much in lost taxation? That money would have to be recouped from somewhere. Maybe by taxing Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone, etc, etc correctly? Davey Gravey

12:50pm Mon 20 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
benzss wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.
Nobody's saying it's a picnic living on the minimum wage. All I, at least, am saying is that raising the minimum wage won't actually help anything and may make things worse.

Surely it'd make more sense to raise the personal allowance for income tax to the equivalent of a full-time minimum wage worker (~£13k).
Wouldn't that cost the government too much in lost taxation?
That money would have to be recouped from somewhere. Maybe by taxing Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone, etc, etc correctly?
The companies you mention have paid every penny that the law states they owe.

You can't just demand they hand over more money because there is none in existence to fund the pie-in-the-sky policies that you've dreamt up.

I'll also ask you again, Davey, what do you feel would be an acceptable amount, per hour, for a 'living wage'?
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.[/p][/quote]Nobody's saying it's a picnic living on the minimum wage. All I, at least, am saying is that raising the minimum wage won't actually help anything and may make things worse. Surely it'd make more sense to raise the personal allowance for income tax to the equivalent of a full-time minimum wage worker (~£13k).[/p][/quote]Wouldn't that cost the government too much in lost taxation? That money would have to be recouped from somewhere. Maybe by taxing Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone, etc, etc correctly?[/p][/quote]The companies you mention have paid every penny that the law states they owe. You can't just demand they hand over more money because there is none in existence to fund the pie-in-the-sky policies that you've dreamt up. I'll also ask you again, Davey, what do you feel would be an acceptable amount, per hour, for a 'living wage'? ChannelX

12:55pm Mon 20 Jan 14

benzss says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
benzss wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.
Nobody's saying it's a picnic living on the minimum wage. All I, at least, am saying is that raising the minimum wage won't actually help anything and may make things worse.

Surely it'd make more sense to raise the personal allowance for income tax to the equivalent of a full-time minimum wage worker (~£13k).
The whole point of increasing the minimum wage is to reduce the amount of Welfare that is paid to low paid workers / families, if they earn more, they claim less, and hopefully overall taxation can then be lowered.
Increasing the personal allowance would cost too much to the Exchequer, and this would need to be tackled by increasing taxation.
If that's how it worked, that'd be fine - but if you raise the cost of hiring workers whose value is below that cost, companies either won't hire, will restructure their existing roles, or hire and pass on the cost to the consumer (which is a net neutral effect). There is no such thing as a free lunch, as they say. Fewer employed means welfare extends.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.[/p][/quote]Nobody's saying it's a picnic living on the minimum wage. All I, at least, am saying is that raising the minimum wage won't actually help anything and may make things worse. Surely it'd make more sense to raise the personal allowance for income tax to the equivalent of a full-time minimum wage worker (~£13k).[/p][/quote]The whole point of increasing the minimum wage is to reduce the amount of Welfare that is paid to low paid workers / families, if they earn more, they claim less, and hopefully overall taxation can then be lowered. Increasing the personal allowance would cost too much to the Exchequer, and this would need to be tackled by increasing taxation.[/p][/quote]If that's how it worked, that'd be fine - but if you raise the cost of hiring workers whose value is below that cost, companies either won't hire, will restructure their existing roles, or hire and pass on the cost to the consumer (which is a net neutral effect). There is no such thing as a free lunch, as they say. Fewer employed means welfare extends. benzss

12:56pm Mon 20 Jan 14

benzss says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
benzss wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.
Nobody's saying it's a picnic living on the minimum wage. All I, at least, am saying is that raising the minimum wage won't actually help anything and may make things worse.

Surely it'd make more sense to raise the personal allowance for income tax to the equivalent of a full-time minimum wage worker (~£13k).
Wouldn't that cost the government too much in lost taxation?
That money would have to be recouped from somewhere. Maybe by taxing Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone, etc, etc correctly?
Maybe it would, but it would certainly boost the economy and, in the long run, if more people are employed and earning more money than before, the treasury's coffers will feel the benefit also.

And those companies are being taxed correctly. You'd have to ask the EU to change their rules if you want them to pay more.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.[/p][/quote]Nobody's saying it's a picnic living on the minimum wage. All I, at least, am saying is that raising the minimum wage won't actually help anything and may make things worse. Surely it'd make more sense to raise the personal allowance for income tax to the equivalent of a full-time minimum wage worker (~£13k).[/p][/quote]Wouldn't that cost the government too much in lost taxation? That money would have to be recouped from somewhere. Maybe by taxing Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone, etc, etc correctly?[/p][/quote]Maybe it would, but it would certainly boost the economy and, in the long run, if more people are employed and earning more money than before, the treasury's coffers will feel the benefit also. And those companies are being taxed correctly. You'd have to ask the EU to change their rules if you want them to pay more. benzss

12:58pm Mon 20 Jan 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

The whole thing is a minefield and it amounts to business having too much power over all of us. I'd have thought a far more acceptable solution would be to limit the wages of the highest paid employees as a multiplier of the lowest paid. Therefore it's in the interests of the highest paid to increase the wages of the lowest paid. That's not without its difficulties either though!
The whole thing is a minefield and it amounts to business having too much power over all of us. I'd have thought a far more acceptable solution would be to limit the wages of the highest paid employees as a multiplier of the lowest paid. Therefore it's in the interests of the highest paid to increase the wages of the lowest paid. That's not without its difficulties either though! The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

1:02pm Mon 20 Jan 14

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
benzss wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.
Nobody's saying it's a picnic living on the minimum wage. All I, at least, am saying is that raising the minimum wage won't actually help anything and may make things worse.

Surely it'd make more sense to raise the personal allowance for income tax to the equivalent of a full-time minimum wage worker (~£13k).
Wouldn't that cost the government too much in lost taxation?
That money would have to be recouped from somewhere. Maybe by taxing Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone, etc, etc correctly?
Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone etc pay all due taxes as appointed under British law. By saying "correctly" you're insinuating that they aren't.

I do however think the tax system is about a gazillion times more complicated than it needs to be and should be simplified. Of course it won't be as those with a vested interest in the status quo are those that make the laws.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.[/p][/quote]Nobody's saying it's a picnic living on the minimum wage. All I, at least, am saying is that raising the minimum wage won't actually help anything and may make things worse. Surely it'd make more sense to raise the personal allowance for income tax to the equivalent of a full-time minimum wage worker (~£13k).[/p][/quote]Wouldn't that cost the government too much in lost taxation? That money would have to be recouped from somewhere. Maybe by taxing Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone, etc, etc correctly?[/p][/quote]Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone etc pay all due taxes as appointed under British law. By saying "correctly" you're insinuating that they aren't. I do however think the tax system is about a gazillion times more complicated than it needs to be and should be simplified. Of course it won't be as those with a vested interest in the status quo are those that make the laws. The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man

1:07pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Davey Gravey says...

The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
benzss wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.
Nobody's saying it's a picnic living on the minimum wage. All I, at least, am saying is that raising the minimum wage won't actually help anything and may make things worse.

Surely it'd make more sense to raise the personal allowance for income tax to the equivalent of a full-time minimum wage worker (~£13k).
Wouldn't that cost the government too much in lost taxation?
That money would have to be recouped from somewhere. Maybe by taxing Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone, etc, etc correctly?
Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone etc pay all due taxes as appointed under British law. By saying "correctly" you're insinuating that they aren't.

I do however think the tax system is about a gazillion times more complicated than it needs to be and should be simplified. Of course it won't be as those with a vested interest in the status quo are those that make the laws.
Ok. Maybe I should have said those companies should not be allowed to find loopholes in the taxation system and go via Luxembourg for example to avoid paying tax here.
[quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.[/p][/quote]Nobody's saying it's a picnic living on the minimum wage. All I, at least, am saying is that raising the minimum wage won't actually help anything and may make things worse. Surely it'd make more sense to raise the personal allowance for income tax to the equivalent of a full-time minimum wage worker (~£13k).[/p][/quote]Wouldn't that cost the government too much in lost taxation? That money would have to be recouped from somewhere. Maybe by taxing Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone, etc, etc correctly?[/p][/quote]Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone etc pay all due taxes as appointed under British law. By saying "correctly" you're insinuating that they aren't. I do however think the tax system is about a gazillion times more complicated than it needs to be and should be simplified. Of course it won't be as those with a vested interest in the status quo are those that make the laws.[/p][/quote]Ok. Maybe I should have said those companies should not be allowed to find loopholes in the taxation system and go via Luxembourg for example to avoid paying tax here. Davey Gravey

1:14pm Mon 20 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

Of course, if certain people got their way and changed the law such that they forced big companies to pay what they'd like to get out of them to fund their odd schemes, all that would happen is that those companies - which virtually everyone uses to some level - would simply increase their charges to cover the additional tax they're being forced to pay.

Which would mean the calls for an increase to the minimum/living wage would inevitably start up again...
Of course, if certain people got their way and changed the law such that they forced big companies to pay what they'd like to get out of them to fund their odd schemes, all that would happen is that those companies - which virtually everyone uses to some level - would simply increase their charges to cover the additional tax they're being forced to pay. Which would mean the calls for an increase to the minimum/living wage would inevitably start up again... ChannelX

1:16pm Mon 20 Jan 14

benzss says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
benzss wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.
Nobody's saying it's a picnic living on the minimum wage. All I, at least, am saying is that raising the minimum wage won't actually help anything and may make things worse.

Surely it'd make more sense to raise the personal allowance for income tax to the equivalent of a full-time minimum wage worker (~£13k).
Wouldn't that cost the government too much in lost taxation?
That money would have to be recouped from somewhere. Maybe by taxing Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone, etc, etc correctly?
Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone etc pay all due taxes as appointed under British law. By saying "correctly" you're insinuating that they aren't.

I do however think the tax system is about a gazillion times more complicated than it needs to be and should be simplified. Of course it won't be as those with a vested interest in the status quo are those that make the laws.
Ok. Maybe I should have said those companies should not be allowed to find loopholes in the taxation system and go via Luxembourg for example to avoid paying tax here.
So write a law which is both simple and devoid of loopholes with which all EU member states agree. Companies are obliged only to follow the letter of the law, which they have done.

In any case, perhaps it is beneficial that any company from one part of the EU can sell their product or service to any other part of the EU and only pay tax once. Many companies do this.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.[/p][/quote]Nobody's saying it's a picnic living on the minimum wage. All I, at least, am saying is that raising the minimum wage won't actually help anything and may make things worse. Surely it'd make more sense to raise the personal allowance for income tax to the equivalent of a full-time minimum wage worker (~£13k).[/p][/quote]Wouldn't that cost the government too much in lost taxation? That money would have to be recouped from somewhere. Maybe by taxing Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone, etc, etc correctly?[/p][/quote]Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone etc pay all due taxes as appointed under British law. By saying "correctly" you're insinuating that they aren't. I do however think the tax system is about a gazillion times more complicated than it needs to be and should be simplified. Of course it won't be as those with a vested interest in the status quo are those that make the laws.[/p][/quote]Ok. Maybe I should have said those companies should not be allowed to find loopholes in the taxation system and go via Luxembourg for example to avoid paying tax here.[/p][/quote]So write a law which is both simple and devoid of loopholes with which all EU member states agree. Companies are obliged only to follow the letter of the law, which they have done. In any case, perhaps it is beneficial that any company from one part of the EU can sell their product or service to any other part of the EU and only pay tax once. Many companies do this. benzss

1:44pm Mon 20 Jan 14

house on the hill says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
benzss wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.
Nobody's saying it's a picnic living on the minimum wage. All I, at least, am saying is that raising the minimum wage won't actually help anything and may make things worse.

Surely it'd make more sense to raise the personal allowance for income tax to the equivalent of a full-time minimum wage worker (~£13k).
Wouldn't that cost the government too much in lost taxation?
That money would have to be recouped from somewhere. Maybe by taxing Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone, etc, etc correctly?
Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone etc pay all due taxes as appointed under British law. By saying "correctly" you're insinuating that they aren't.

I do however think the tax system is about a gazillion times more complicated than it needs to be and should be simplified. Of course it won't be as those with a vested interest in the status quo are those that make the laws.
Ok. Maybe I should have said those companies should not be allowed to find loopholes in the taxation system and go via Luxembourg for example to avoid paying tax here.
The problem with that is that if you close the loophole reducing their profits, they will just up their prices or just go somewhere else. Someone will always offer "loopholes" as they benefit from it and the chances of a common international law are about the same as knitting fog! And trying ti limit wages would never work either as no one would come here if they could make more money elsewhere. As others have said it is a complete minefield but the first thing that happens when you raise wages is that prices go up, firstly to cover the cost of the increased wages and secondly because companies think you have more to spend so raise the prices anyway. Hence the endless boom and bust cycles we go in.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Artist formally known as Grumpy Old Man[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.[/p][/quote]Nobody's saying it's a picnic living on the minimum wage. All I, at least, am saying is that raising the minimum wage won't actually help anything and may make things worse. Surely it'd make more sense to raise the personal allowance for income tax to the equivalent of a full-time minimum wage worker (~£13k).[/p][/quote]Wouldn't that cost the government too much in lost taxation? That money would have to be recouped from somewhere. Maybe by taxing Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone, etc, etc correctly?[/p][/quote]Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone etc pay all due taxes as appointed under British law. By saying "correctly" you're insinuating that they aren't. I do however think the tax system is about a gazillion times more complicated than it needs to be and should be simplified. Of course it won't be as those with a vested interest in the status quo are those that make the laws.[/p][/quote]Ok. Maybe I should have said those companies should not be allowed to find loopholes in the taxation system and go via Luxembourg for example to avoid paying tax here.[/p][/quote]The problem with that is that if you close the loophole reducing their profits, they will just up their prices or just go somewhere else. Someone will always offer "loopholes" as they benefit from it and the chances of a common international law are about the same as knitting fog! And trying ti limit wages would never work either as no one would come here if they could make more money elsewhere. As others have said it is a complete minefield but the first thing that happens when you raise wages is that prices go up, firstly to cover the cost of the increased wages and secondly because companies think you have more to spend so raise the prices anyway. Hence the endless boom and bust cycles we go in. house on the hill

2:29pm Mon 20 Jan 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

benzss wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
benzss wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.
Nobody's saying it's a picnic living on the minimum wage. All I, at least, am saying is that raising the minimum wage won't actually help anything and may make things worse.

Surely it'd make more sense to raise the personal allowance for income tax to the equivalent of a full-time minimum wage worker (~£13k).
The whole point of increasing the minimum wage is to reduce the amount of Welfare that is paid to low paid workers / families, if they earn more, they claim less, and hopefully overall taxation can then be lowered.
Increasing the personal allowance would cost too much to the Exchequer, and this would need to be tackled by increasing taxation.
If that's how it worked, that'd be fine - but if you raise the cost of hiring workers whose value is below that cost, companies either won't hire, will restructure their existing roles, or hire and pass on the cost to the consumer (which is a net neutral effect). There is no such thing as a free lunch, as they say. Fewer employed means welfare extends.
I believe the government is right to intervene, in the spirit of fairness it is right for workers to share the fruits of the "recovery". Like the pensioners, we should make sure that the lowest paid in Society get their fair share.
When it comes down to the numbers, the idea here is to push up salaries to attract Britons into work, back into work, rather than leaving poorly paid jobs to the migrants. It is also a sure way to reduce the amount of Welfare, as the more people earn the less they "can" claim.
The political aim is clear, the Tories are addressing issues very close to UKIP and Labour voters, sympathizers
[quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.[/p][/quote]Nobody's saying it's a picnic living on the minimum wage. All I, at least, am saying is that raising the minimum wage won't actually help anything and may make things worse. Surely it'd make more sense to raise the personal allowance for income tax to the equivalent of a full-time minimum wage worker (~£13k).[/p][/quote]The whole point of increasing the minimum wage is to reduce the amount of Welfare that is paid to low paid workers / families, if they earn more, they claim less, and hopefully overall taxation can then be lowered. Increasing the personal allowance would cost too much to the Exchequer, and this would need to be tackled by increasing taxation.[/p][/quote]If that's how it worked, that'd be fine - but if you raise the cost of hiring workers whose value is below that cost, companies either won't hire, will restructure their existing roles, or hire and pass on the cost to the consumer (which is a net neutral effect). There is no such thing as a free lunch, as they say. Fewer employed means welfare extends.[/p][/quote]I believe the government is right to intervene, in the spirit of fairness it is right for workers to share the fruits of the "recovery". Like the pensioners, we should make sure that the lowest paid in Society get their fair share. When it comes down to the numbers, the idea here is to push up salaries to attract Britons into work, back into work, rather than leaving poorly paid jobs to the migrants. It is also a sure way to reduce the amount of Welfare, as the more people earn the less they "can" claim. The political aim is clear, the Tories are addressing issues very close to UKIP and Labour voters, sympathizers A.Baron-Cohen

2:44pm Mon 20 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

For somebody who has implied they have some knowledge of ecomomics, you seem oddly ill-informed about how the level of salaries is determined.

You can't suddenly just insist/demand that those at the very bottom are paid a lot more overnight, because then they end up being paid the same as those slightly above them who have better qualifications, experience and skills.

So then those people don't feel they're being paid 'fairly' and demand more... and so on and so on.
For somebody who has implied they have some knowledge of ecomomics, you seem oddly ill-informed about how the level of salaries is determined. You can't suddenly just insist/demand that those at the very bottom are paid a lot more overnight, because then they end up being paid the same as those slightly above them who have better qualifications, experience and skills. So then those people don't feel they're being paid 'fairly' and demand more... and so on and so on. ChannelX

2:45pm Mon 20 Jan 14

swindondad says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
swindondad wrote: A.Baron-Cohen, Your arguments might hold more weight if they were based on FACT not FICTION. The UK GDP growth is higher than Germany's. http://www.tradingec onomics.com/country- list/gdp-annual-grow th-rate
This is an unexpected achievement however an accident rather than a trend..
Strange that you should say that as the FACTS actually state that although both Germany and the UK came out of the recession in the same quarter of 2010 it is only the UK's GDP that has NOT had a negative quarter since.

Looks like a trend to me.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swindondad[/bold] wrote: A.Baron-Cohen, Your arguments might hold more weight if they were based on FACT not FICTION. The UK GDP growth is higher than Germany's. http://www.tradingec onomics.com/country- list/gdp-annual-grow th-rate[/p][/quote]This is an unexpected achievement however an accident rather than a trend..[/p][/quote]Strange that you should say that as the FACTS actually state that although both Germany and the UK came out of the recession in the same quarter of 2010 it is only the UK's GDP that has NOT had a negative quarter since. Looks like a trend to me. swindondad

3:00pm Mon 20 Jan 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

swindondad wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
swindondad wrote: A.Baron-Cohen, Your arguments might hold more weight if they were based on FACT not FICTION. The UK GDP growth is higher than Germany's. http://www.tradingec onomics.com/country- list/gdp-annual-grow th-rate
This is an unexpected achievement however an accident rather than a trend..
Strange that you should say that as the FACTS actually state that although both Germany and the UK came out of the recession in the same quarter of 2010 it is only the UK's GDP that has NOT had a negative quarter since.

Looks like a trend to me.
Well I am all for the UK economy outperforming the German economy, looking at the state of our deficit, debts, stock and employment markets, it seems the UK is about to become an Economic superpower.....
[quote][p][bold]swindondad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swindondad[/bold] wrote: A.Baron-Cohen, Your arguments might hold more weight if they were based on FACT not FICTION. The UK GDP growth is higher than Germany's. http://www.tradingec onomics.com/country- list/gdp-annual-grow th-rate[/p][/quote]This is an unexpected achievement however an accident rather than a trend..[/p][/quote]Strange that you should say that as the FACTS actually state that although both Germany and the UK came out of the recession in the same quarter of 2010 it is only the UK's GDP that has NOT had a negative quarter since. Looks like a trend to me.[/p][/quote]Well I am all for the UK economy outperforming the German economy, looking at the state of our deficit, debts, stock and employment markets, it seems the UK is about to become an Economic superpower..... A.Baron-Cohen

3:03pm Mon 20 Jan 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

ChannelX wrote:
For somebody who has implied they have some knowledge of ecomomics, you seem oddly ill-informed about how the level of salaries is determined.

You can't suddenly just insist/demand that those at the very bottom are paid a lot more overnight, because then they end up being paid the same as those slightly above them who have better qualifications, experience and skills.

So then those people don't feel they're being paid 'fairly' and demand more... and so on and so on.
Well I think it is fair that pensioners and lowest paid workers do get their share of the Capitalist dream.
If pensions can go up faster than inflation, I do not see why hard working people could not get the same.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: For somebody who has implied they have some knowledge of ecomomics, you seem oddly ill-informed about how the level of salaries is determined. You can't suddenly just insist/demand that those at the very bottom are paid a lot more overnight, because then they end up being paid the same as those slightly above them who have better qualifications, experience and skills. So then those people don't feel they're being paid 'fairly' and demand more... and so on and so on.[/p][/quote]Well I think it is fair that pensioners and lowest paid workers do get their share of the Capitalist dream. If pensions can go up faster than inflation, I do not see why hard working people could not get the same. A.Baron-Cohen

3:07pm Mon 20 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
For somebody who has implied they have some knowledge of ecomomics, you seem oddly ill-informed about how the level of salaries is determined.

You can't suddenly just insist/demand that those at the very bottom are paid a lot more overnight, because then they end up being paid the same as those slightly above them who have better qualifications, experience and skills.

So then those people don't feel they're being paid 'fairly' and demand more... and so on and so on.
Well I think it is fair that pensioners and lowest paid workers do get their share of the Capitalist dream.
If pensions can go up faster than inflation, I do not see why hard working people could not get the same.
Well, given that I just explained why not, that's quite an odd response.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: For somebody who has implied they have some knowledge of ecomomics, you seem oddly ill-informed about how the level of salaries is determined. You can't suddenly just insist/demand that those at the very bottom are paid a lot more overnight, because then they end up being paid the same as those slightly above them who have better qualifications, experience and skills. So then those people don't feel they're being paid 'fairly' and demand more... and so on and so on.[/p][/quote]Well I think it is fair that pensioners and lowest paid workers do get their share of the Capitalist dream. If pensions can go up faster than inflation, I do not see why hard working people could not get the same.[/p][/quote]Well, given that I just explained why not, that's quite an odd response. ChannelX

3:09pm Mon 20 Jan 14

benzss says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
benzss wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
benzss wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.
Nobody's saying it's a picnic living on the minimum wage. All I, at least, am saying is that raising the minimum wage won't actually help anything and may make things worse.

Surely it'd make more sense to raise the personal allowance for income tax to the equivalent of a full-time minimum wage worker (~£13k).
The whole point of increasing the minimum wage is to reduce the amount of Welfare that is paid to low paid workers / families, if they earn more, they claim less, and hopefully overall taxation can then be lowered.
Increasing the personal allowance would cost too much to the Exchequer, and this would need to be tackled by increasing taxation.
If that's how it worked, that'd be fine - but if you raise the cost of hiring workers whose value is below that cost, companies either won't hire, will restructure their existing roles, or hire and pass on the cost to the consumer (which is a net neutral effect). There is no such thing as a free lunch, as they say. Fewer employed means welfare extends.
I believe the government is right to intervene, in the spirit of fairness it is right for workers to share the fruits of the "recovery". Like the pensioners, we should make sure that the lowest paid in Society get their fair share.
When it comes down to the numbers, the idea here is to push up salaries to attract Britons into work, back into work, rather than leaving poorly paid jobs to the migrants. It is also a sure way to reduce the amount of Welfare, as the more people earn the less they "can" claim.
The political aim is clear, the Tories are addressing issues very close to UKIP and Labour voters, sympathizers
I'm not making a statement on the normative motivation behind raising the minimum wage. I'm just saying that it won't work as intended.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.[/p][/quote]Nobody's saying it's a picnic living on the minimum wage. All I, at least, am saying is that raising the minimum wage won't actually help anything and may make things worse. Surely it'd make more sense to raise the personal allowance for income tax to the equivalent of a full-time minimum wage worker (~£13k).[/p][/quote]The whole point of increasing the minimum wage is to reduce the amount of Welfare that is paid to low paid workers / families, if they earn more, they claim less, and hopefully overall taxation can then be lowered. Increasing the personal allowance would cost too much to the Exchequer, and this would need to be tackled by increasing taxation.[/p][/quote]If that's how it worked, that'd be fine - but if you raise the cost of hiring workers whose value is below that cost, companies either won't hire, will restructure their existing roles, or hire and pass on the cost to the consumer (which is a net neutral effect). There is no such thing as a free lunch, as they say. Fewer employed means welfare extends.[/p][/quote]I believe the government is right to intervene, in the spirit of fairness it is right for workers to share the fruits of the "recovery". Like the pensioners, we should make sure that the lowest paid in Society get their fair share. When it comes down to the numbers, the idea here is to push up salaries to attract Britons into work, back into work, rather than leaving poorly paid jobs to the migrants. It is also a sure way to reduce the amount of Welfare, as the more people earn the less they "can" claim. The political aim is clear, the Tories are addressing issues very close to UKIP and Labour voters, sympathizers[/p][/quote]I'm not making a statement on the normative motivation behind raising the minimum wage. I'm just saying that it won't work as intended. benzss

3:34pm Mon 20 Jan 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
For somebody who has implied they have some knowledge of ecomomics, you seem oddly ill-informed about how the level of salaries is determined.

You can't suddenly just insist/demand that those at the very bottom are paid a lot more overnight, because then they end up being paid the same as those slightly above them who have better qualifications, experience and skills.

So then those people don't feel they're being paid 'fairly' and demand more... and so on and so on.
Well I think it is fair that pensioners and lowest paid workers do get their share of the Capitalist dream.
If pensions can go up faster than inflation, I do not see why hard working people could not get the same.
Well, given that I just explained why not, that's quite an odd response.
The idea is to push up salaries starting with the lowest paid, it is very similar to increasing the number of First time buyers to kick start the housing market.
It has been the policy of this country to subsidize employers offering low paid jobs, by burdening the taxpayers with working tax credits payments, low income benefits.
This is a very liberal idea, by increasing the minimum wage the State is reducing its footprint in the labour Market, I think it is a very smart idea.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: For somebody who has implied they have some knowledge of ecomomics, you seem oddly ill-informed about how the level of salaries is determined. You can't suddenly just insist/demand that those at the very bottom are paid a lot more overnight, because then they end up being paid the same as those slightly above them who have better qualifications, experience and skills. So then those people don't feel they're being paid 'fairly' and demand more... and so on and so on.[/p][/quote]Well I think it is fair that pensioners and lowest paid workers do get their share of the Capitalist dream. If pensions can go up faster than inflation, I do not see why hard working people could not get the same.[/p][/quote]Well, given that I just explained why not, that's quite an odd response.[/p][/quote]The idea is to push up salaries starting with the lowest paid, it is very similar to increasing the number of First time buyers to kick start the housing market. It has been the policy of this country to subsidize employers offering low paid jobs, by burdening the taxpayers with working tax credits payments, low income benefits. This is a very liberal idea, by increasing the minimum wage the State is reducing its footprint in the labour Market, I think it is a very smart idea. A.Baron-Cohen

3:44pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Hmmmf says...

A.B_C wrote:
Well I think it is fair that pensioners and lowest paid workers do get their share of the Capitalist dream.
If pensions can go up faster than inflation, I do not see why hard working people could not get the same.

Their 'fair share' of what, precisely?

You seem to think that 'the economy' is some magical big pot of money to be shared out between pensioners and those on minimum wage, but only when times are good. It isn't.

Pensioners are on a fixed income and don't have the option to work longer hours, multiple jobs, demand payrises, or better themselves through training and education to counter an increase in the cost of living (inflation). That's why pensions are index-linked. They worked all their lives and paid tax and NI to provide for the pensioners of their day. It is of course perfectly reasonable for them to expect the same in return now they're retired and we're paying for them. That's the pension 'contract'.

You need to understand the price/wage spiral and what inflation is, and how a rise in wages helps to fuel both.
[quote][p][bold]A.B_C[/bold] wrote: Well I think it is fair that pensioners and lowest paid workers do get their share of the Capitalist dream. If pensions can go up faster than inflation, I do not see why hard working people could not get the same.[/quote] Their 'fair share' of what, precisely? You seem to think that 'the economy' is some magical big pot of money to be shared out between pensioners and those on minimum wage, but only when times are good. It isn't. Pensioners are on a fixed income and don't have the option to work longer hours, multiple jobs, demand payrises, or better themselves through training and education to counter an increase in the cost of living (inflation). That's why pensions are index-linked. They worked all their lives and paid tax and NI to provide for the pensioners of their day. It is of course perfectly reasonable for them to expect the same in return now they're retired and we're paying for them. That's the pension 'contract'. You need to understand the price/wage spiral and what inflation is, and how a rise in wages helps to fuel both. Hmmmf

4:20pm Mon 20 Jan 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Hmmmf wrote:
A.B_C wrote:
Well I think it is fair that pensioners and lowest paid workers do get their share of the Capitalist dream.
If pensions can go up faster than inflation, I do not see why hard working people could not get the same.

Their 'fair share' of what, precisely?

You seem to think that 'the economy' is some magical big pot of money to be shared out between pensioners and those on minimum wage, but only when times are good. It isn't.

Pensioners are on a fixed income and don't have the option to work longer hours, multiple jobs, demand payrises, or better themselves through training and education to counter an increase in the cost of living (inflation). That's why pensions are index-linked. They worked all their lives and paid tax and NI to provide for the pensioners of their day. It is of course perfectly reasonable for them to expect the same in return now they're retired and we're paying for them. That's the pension 'contract'.

You need to understand the price/wage spiral and what inflation is, and how a rise in wages helps to fuel both.
Nobody is saying that we should not look after the OAPs, however there should be some fairness in the way we redistribute wealth and reward work and enterprise. If we can reward stay at home OAPs, I am sure that we can agree that hard working people on the lower end of the payscale should get rewarded too.
At the moment we subsidize employers paying their employees the lowest wages by providing low income benefits, this must end.
SME need to increase their competitiveness and that means we need to reduce state help and footprint.
Todays wages are lower in real terms that they were back in 2006, so we should not fear a wage war or rampant inflation, this is just not going to happen, if Osborne says that we can afford it, I am sure that he is right.
[quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.B_C[/bold] wrote: Well I think it is fair that pensioners and lowest paid workers do get their share of the Capitalist dream. If pensions can go up faster than inflation, I do not see why hard working people could not get the same.[/quote] Their 'fair share' of what, precisely? You seem to think that 'the economy' is some magical big pot of money to be shared out between pensioners and those on minimum wage, but only when times are good. It isn't. Pensioners are on a fixed income and don't have the option to work longer hours, multiple jobs, demand payrises, or better themselves through training and education to counter an increase in the cost of living (inflation). That's why pensions are index-linked. They worked all their lives and paid tax and NI to provide for the pensioners of their day. It is of course perfectly reasonable for them to expect the same in return now they're retired and we're paying for them. That's the pension 'contract'. You need to understand the price/wage spiral and what inflation is, and how a rise in wages helps to fuel both.[/p][/quote]Nobody is saying that we should not look after the OAPs, however there should be some fairness in the way we redistribute wealth and reward work and enterprise. If we can reward stay at home OAPs, I am sure that we can agree that hard working people on the lower end of the payscale should get rewarded too. At the moment we subsidize employers paying their employees the lowest wages by providing low income benefits, this must end. SME need to increase their competitiveness and that means we need to reduce state help and footprint. Todays wages are lower in real terms that they were back in 2006, so we should not fear a wage war or rampant inflation, this is just not going to happen, if Osborne says that we can afford it, I am sure that he is right. A.Baron-Cohen

4:44pm Mon 20 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
For somebody who has implied they have some knowledge of ecomomics, you seem oddly ill-informed about how the level of salaries is determined.

You can't suddenly just insist/demand that those at the very bottom are paid a lot more overnight, because then they end up being paid the same as those slightly above them who have better qualifications, experience and skills.

So then those people don't feel they're being paid 'fairly' and demand more... and so on and so on.
Well I think it is fair that pensioners and lowest paid workers do get their share of the Capitalist dream.
If pensions can go up faster than inflation, I do not see why hard working people could not get the same.
Well, given that I just explained why not, that's quite an odd response.
The idea is to push up salaries starting with the lowest paid, it is very similar to increasing the number of First time buyers to kick start the housing market.
It has been the policy of this country to subsidize employers offering low paid jobs, by burdening the taxpayers with working tax credits payments, low income benefits.
This is a very liberal idea, by increasing the minimum wage the State is reducing its footprint in the labour Market, I think it is a very smart idea.
But as anyone with even the slightest knowledge of economics would be aware, the moment you artificially 'push up salaries starting with the lowest paid', ALL salaries start to rise in line and thus all goods and services rise in line.

Other than for maybe a few weeks, or a couple of months, the whole thing is almost immediately back 'in line' as it was before, just that everyone thinks they're earning more and everything appears to cost more. What the £1 from your previous pay cheque bought you for £1 now costs £1.25 but you're being paid 25% more... in real terms absolutely nothing has changed.

The state would still be propping up the lowest wages because they would still not be enough to live on once the price of goods and services had risen - which they would do within a matter of weeks.

Your idea just does not work in a free market economy. It could only work if the state was, at the same time as setting minimum wage, able to fix the prices charged by all providers and suppliers.

Once you go down that route, you may as well just go the whole hog and adopt communism as your economic model.

And we know how well THAT works, don't we?
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: For somebody who has implied they have some knowledge of ecomomics, you seem oddly ill-informed about how the level of salaries is determined. You can't suddenly just insist/demand that those at the very bottom are paid a lot more overnight, because then they end up being paid the same as those slightly above them who have better qualifications, experience and skills. So then those people don't feel they're being paid 'fairly' and demand more... and so on and so on.[/p][/quote]Well I think it is fair that pensioners and lowest paid workers do get their share of the Capitalist dream. If pensions can go up faster than inflation, I do not see why hard working people could not get the same.[/p][/quote]Well, given that I just explained why not, that's quite an odd response.[/p][/quote]The idea is to push up salaries starting with the lowest paid, it is very similar to increasing the number of First time buyers to kick start the housing market. It has been the policy of this country to subsidize employers offering low paid jobs, by burdening the taxpayers with working tax credits payments, low income benefits. This is a very liberal idea, by increasing the minimum wage the State is reducing its footprint in the labour Market, I think it is a very smart idea.[/p][/quote]But as anyone with even the slightest knowledge of economics would be aware, the moment you artificially 'push up salaries starting with the lowest paid', ALL salaries start to rise in line and thus all goods and services rise in line. Other than for maybe a few weeks, or a couple of months, the whole thing is almost immediately back 'in line' as it was before, just that everyone thinks they're earning more and everything appears to cost more. What the £1 from your previous pay cheque bought you for £1 now costs £1.25 but you're being paid 25% more... in real terms absolutely nothing has changed. The state would still be propping up the lowest wages because they would still not be enough to live on once the price of goods and services had risen - which they would do within a matter of weeks. Your idea just does not work in a free market economy. It could only work if the state was, at the same time as setting minimum wage, able to fix the prices charged by all providers and suppliers. Once you go down that route, you may as well just go the whole hog and adopt communism as your economic model. And we know how well THAT works, don't we? ChannelX

5:09pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Hmmmf says...

A.B-C wrote:
Nobody is saying that we should not look after the OAPs, however there should be some fairness in the way we redistribute wealth and reward work and enterprise. If we can reward stay at home OAPs, I am sure that we can agree that hard working people on the lower end of the payscale should get rewarded too.

You seem unable to grasp the simple fact that OAPs have bought and paid for their pension entitlement and most did so by working and paying their stamp for more than 30 years. Index-linkage was part of the deal.

Redistribution of wealth is already accounted for in the taxation system which sees the 'rich' paying for the 'poor' and success being increasingly penalised in order to reward failure.
[quote][p][bold]A.B-C[/bold] wrote: Nobody is saying that we should not look after the OAPs, however there should be some fairness in the way we redistribute wealth and reward work and enterprise. If we can reward stay at home OAPs, I am sure that we can agree that hard working people on the lower end of the payscale should get rewarded too.[/quote] You seem unable to grasp the simple fact that OAPs have bought and paid for their pension entitlement and most did so by working and paying their stamp for more than 30 years. Index-linkage was part of the deal. Redistribution of wealth is already accounted for in the taxation system which sees the 'rich' paying for the 'poor' and success being increasingly penalised in order to reward failure. Hmmmf

6:10pm Mon 20 Jan 14

faatmaan says...

the poverty trap will ensure that people who benefit from this increase will effectively lose much of it in benefits, so no real gain, this is a paper exercise to move people off benefits and other entitlements triggered by income levels,
the poor will always be, but I will say that those who work should always receive a net wage equivalent or better than those on benefits, and that benefits are there for safety net for those who find themselves without for good reasons, let everybody who wants to work, work, but make it worthwhile.
the poverty trap will ensure that people who benefit from this increase will effectively lose much of it in benefits, so no real gain, this is a paper exercise to move people off benefits and other entitlements triggered by income levels, the poor will always be, but I will say that those who work should always receive a net wage equivalent or better than those on benefits, and that benefits are there for safety net for those who find themselves without for good reasons, let everybody who wants to work, work, but make it worthwhile. faatmaan

7:19pm Mon 20 Jan 14

Swindonfan says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
swindondad wrote:
I know it will not be popular with those on the "left" but there is a very good argument for not raising the minimum wage at all (or by less than inflation, 2% ATM).

Overall wage increases (excluding bonuses) was less than 1% last year so pushing up the minimum wage faster than this will decrease the pay differential for experienced staff.

As for the 50pph (nearly 8%) that has been bandied around in the press that could stop some employers from taking on new staff at all.
The British Economy much like the Swindon economy is a consumer based economy, if customers have less in their pockets then they have less to spend.
When people have less to spend (consume) then companies struggle to invest and stay afloat.
There will be No Recovery without real wage increases, it is that simple, companies must understand that they are part of an economic ecosystem, if they put nothing in, they will get nothing back.
the consumer will have to pay more for the end product? how will that be a good thing, the increase will mean 83p for every hour worked through out the chain of a product, from raw materials labour to retail price, it will have a knock on effect to everyone
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]swindondad[/bold] wrote: I know it will not be popular with those on the "left" but there is a very good argument for not raising the minimum wage at all (or by less than inflation, 2% ATM). Overall wage increases (excluding bonuses) was less than 1% last year so pushing up the minimum wage faster than this will decrease the pay differential for experienced staff. As for the 50pph (nearly 8%) that has been bandied around in the press that could stop some employers from taking on new staff at all.[/p][/quote]The British Economy much like the Swindon economy is a consumer based economy, if customers have less in their pockets then they have less to spend. When people have less to spend (consume) then companies struggle to invest and stay afloat. There will be No Recovery without real wage increases, it is that simple, companies must understand that they are part of an economic ecosystem, if they put nothing in, they will get nothing back.[/p][/quote]the consumer will have to pay more for the end product? how will that be a good thing, the increase will mean 83p for every hour worked through out the chain of a product, from raw materials labour to retail price, it will have a knock on effect to everyone Swindonfan

8:34am Tue 21 Jan 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
For somebody who has implied they have some knowledge of ecomomics, you seem oddly ill-informed about how the level of salaries is determined.

You can't suddenly just insist/demand that those at the very bottom are paid a lot more overnight, because then they end up being paid the same as those slightly above them who have better qualifications, experience and skills.

So then those people don't feel they're being paid 'fairly' and demand more... and so on and so on.
Well I think it is fair that pensioners and lowest paid workers do get their share of the Capitalist dream.
If pensions can go up faster than inflation, I do not see why hard working people could not get the same.
Well, given that I just explained why not, that's quite an odd response.
The idea is to push up salaries starting with the lowest paid, it is very similar to increasing the number of First time buyers to kick start the housing market.
It has been the policy of this country to subsidize employers offering low paid jobs, by burdening the taxpayers with working tax credits payments, low income benefits.
This is a very liberal idea, by increasing the minimum wage the State is reducing its footprint in the labour Market, I think it is a very smart idea.
But as anyone with even the slightest knowledge of economics would be aware, the moment you artificially 'push up salaries starting with the lowest paid', ALL salaries start to rise in line and thus all goods and services rise in line.

Other than for maybe a few weeks, or a couple of months, the whole thing is almost immediately back 'in line' as it was before, just that everyone thinks they're earning more and everything appears to cost more. What the £1 from your previous pay cheque bought you for £1 now costs £1.25 but you're being paid 25% more... in real terms absolutely nothing has changed.

The state would still be propping up the lowest wages because they would still not be enough to live on once the price of goods and services had risen - which they would do within a matter of weeks.

Your idea just does not work in a free market economy. It could only work if the state was, at the same time as setting minimum wage, able to fix the prices charged by all providers and suppliers.

Once you go down that route, you may as well just go the whole hog and adopt communism as your economic model.

And we know how well THAT works, don't we?
well at the moment the salaries are artificially kept low because the State is subsidizing employers by providing the lowest paid employees with low income benefits.
I would prefer and so does most Tories to have less State intervention in the Labour Market, increasing the minimum wage whilst cutting down on benefits is putting the responsibility of paying a decent wage to the companies not to the taxpayers, I thought this we would agree on?!?
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: For somebody who has implied they have some knowledge of ecomomics, you seem oddly ill-informed about how the level of salaries is determined. You can't suddenly just insist/demand that those at the very bottom are paid a lot more overnight, because then they end up being paid the same as those slightly above them who have better qualifications, experience and skills. So then those people don't feel they're being paid 'fairly' and demand more... and so on and so on.[/p][/quote]Well I think it is fair that pensioners and lowest paid workers do get their share of the Capitalist dream. If pensions can go up faster than inflation, I do not see why hard working people could not get the same.[/p][/quote]Well, given that I just explained why not, that's quite an odd response.[/p][/quote]The idea is to push up salaries starting with the lowest paid, it is very similar to increasing the number of First time buyers to kick start the housing market. It has been the policy of this country to subsidize employers offering low paid jobs, by burdening the taxpayers with working tax credits payments, low income benefits. This is a very liberal idea, by increasing the minimum wage the State is reducing its footprint in the labour Market, I think it is a very smart idea.[/p][/quote]But as anyone with even the slightest knowledge of economics would be aware, the moment you artificially 'push up salaries starting with the lowest paid', ALL salaries start to rise in line and thus all goods and services rise in line. Other than for maybe a few weeks, or a couple of months, the whole thing is almost immediately back 'in line' as it was before, just that everyone thinks they're earning more and everything appears to cost more. What the £1 from your previous pay cheque bought you for £1 now costs £1.25 but you're being paid 25% more... in real terms absolutely nothing has changed. The state would still be propping up the lowest wages because they would still not be enough to live on once the price of goods and services had risen - which they would do within a matter of weeks. Your idea just does not work in a free market economy. It could only work if the state was, at the same time as setting minimum wage, able to fix the prices charged by all providers and suppliers. Once you go down that route, you may as well just go the whole hog and adopt communism as your economic model. And we know how well THAT works, don't we?[/p][/quote]well at the moment the salaries are artificially kept low because the State is subsidizing employers by providing the lowest paid employees with low income benefits. I would prefer and so does most Tories to have less State intervention in the Labour Market, increasing the minimum wage whilst cutting down on benefits is putting the responsibility of paying a decent wage to the companies not to the taxpayers, I thought this we would agree on?!? A.Baron-Cohen

8:52am Tue 21 Jan 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

Hmmmf wrote:
A.B-C wrote:
Nobody is saying that we should not look after the OAPs, however there should be some fairness in the way we redistribute wealth and reward work and enterprise. If we can reward stay at home OAPs, I am sure that we can agree that hard working people on the lower end of the payscale should get rewarded too.

You seem unable to grasp the simple fact that OAPs have bought and paid for their pension entitlement and most did so by working and paying their stamp for more than 30 years. Index-linkage was part of the deal.

Redistribution of wealth is already accounted for in the taxation system which sees the 'rich' paying for the 'poor' and success being increasingly penalised in order to reward failure.
Nobody is saying that OAPs are not getting a superb deal, work should be rewarded and encouraged, it was true then and it should be true today, and in the name of social justice, inflation busting payrises should not be reserved to pensioners and banking execs.
[quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.B-C[/bold] wrote: Nobody is saying that we should not look after the OAPs, however there should be some fairness in the way we redistribute wealth and reward work and enterprise. If we can reward stay at home OAPs, I am sure that we can agree that hard working people on the lower end of the payscale should get rewarded too.[/quote] You seem unable to grasp the simple fact that OAPs have bought and paid for their pension entitlement and most did so by working and paying their stamp for more than 30 years. Index-linkage was part of the deal. Redistribution of wealth is already accounted for in the taxation system which sees the 'rich' paying for the 'poor' and success being increasingly penalised in order to reward failure.[/p][/quote]Nobody is saying that OAPs are not getting a superb deal, work should be rewarded and encouraged, it was true then and it should be true today, and in the name of social justice, inflation busting payrises should not be reserved to pensioners and banking execs. A.Baron-Cohen

9:30am Tue 21 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
For somebody who has implied they have some knowledge of ecomomics, you seem oddly ill-informed about how the level of salaries is determined.

You can't suddenly just insist/demand that those at the very bottom are paid a lot more overnight, because then they end up being paid the same as those slightly above them who have better qualifications, experience and skills.

So then those people don't feel they're being paid 'fairly' and demand more... and so on and so on.
Well I think it is fair that pensioners and lowest paid workers do get their share of the Capitalist dream.
If pensions can go up faster than inflation, I do not see why hard working people could not get the same.
Well, given that I just explained why not, that's quite an odd response.
The idea is to push up salaries starting with the lowest paid, it is very similar to increasing the number of First time buyers to kick start the housing market.
It has been the policy of this country to subsidize employers offering low paid jobs, by burdening the taxpayers with working tax credits payments, low income benefits.
This is a very liberal idea, by increasing the minimum wage the State is reducing its footprint in the labour Market, I think it is a very smart idea.
But as anyone with even the slightest knowledge of economics would be aware, the moment you artificially 'push up salaries starting with the lowest paid', ALL salaries start to rise in line and thus all goods and services rise in line.

Other than for maybe a few weeks, or a couple of months, the whole thing is almost immediately back 'in line' as it was before, just that everyone thinks they're earning more and everything appears to cost more. What the £1 from your previous pay cheque bought you for £1 now costs £1.25 but you're being paid 25% more... in real terms absolutely nothing has changed.

The state would still be propping up the lowest wages because they would still not be enough to live on once the price of goods and services had risen - which they would do within a matter of weeks.

Your idea just does not work in a free market economy. It could only work if the state was, at the same time as setting minimum wage, able to fix the prices charged by all providers and suppliers.

Once you go down that route, you may as well just go the whole hog and adopt communism as your economic model.

And we know how well THAT works, don't we?
well at the moment the salaries are artificially kept low because the State is subsidizing employers by providing the lowest paid employees with low income benefits.
I would prefer and so does most Tories to have less State intervention in the Labour Market, increasing the minimum wage whilst cutting down on benefits is putting the responsibility of paying a decent wage to the companies not to the taxpayers, I thought this we would agree on?!?
Entirely incorrect.

It's actually no possible to keep wages 'artificially low'. If employers believe that paying certain people a higher wage will result in them attracting better employees (with more skills, qualifications, experience, ability etc.) and they perceive a need for better quality employees then they will offer more money.

The 'problem', if it can even be called that, is that a large range of jobs these days just require bodies that can just 'do' what's asked of them. They don't need to be skilled or particularly able at anything. Hence why so many jobs are low paid.

Those jobs would remain low paid if the government removed tax credit benefits - which, because Gordon Brown stupidly introduced them in the first place - no government can/will never do now. We're stuck with this system.

No, we don't agree on your overly simplistic suggestion because, as has been pointed out to you by about six people on this thread, it does now and will not work in reality. You cannot just increase the minimum wage and expect that to take effect in isolation - that expectation would actually fly in the complete opposite face of everything we know about basic economics.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: For somebody who has implied they have some knowledge of ecomomics, you seem oddly ill-informed about how the level of salaries is determined. You can't suddenly just insist/demand that those at the very bottom are paid a lot more overnight, because then they end up being paid the same as those slightly above them who have better qualifications, experience and skills. So then those people don't feel they're being paid 'fairly' and demand more... and so on and so on.[/p][/quote]Well I think it is fair that pensioners and lowest paid workers do get their share of the Capitalist dream. If pensions can go up faster than inflation, I do not see why hard working people could not get the same.[/p][/quote]Well, given that I just explained why not, that's quite an odd response.[/p][/quote]The idea is to push up salaries starting with the lowest paid, it is very similar to increasing the number of First time buyers to kick start the housing market. It has been the policy of this country to subsidize employers offering low paid jobs, by burdening the taxpayers with working tax credits payments, low income benefits. This is a very liberal idea, by increasing the minimum wage the State is reducing its footprint in the labour Market, I think it is a very smart idea.[/p][/quote]But as anyone with even the slightest knowledge of economics would be aware, the moment you artificially 'push up salaries starting with the lowest paid', ALL salaries start to rise in line and thus all goods and services rise in line. Other than for maybe a few weeks, or a couple of months, the whole thing is almost immediately back 'in line' as it was before, just that everyone thinks they're earning more and everything appears to cost more. What the £1 from your previous pay cheque bought you for £1 now costs £1.25 but you're being paid 25% more... in real terms absolutely nothing has changed. The state would still be propping up the lowest wages because they would still not be enough to live on once the price of goods and services had risen - which they would do within a matter of weeks. Your idea just does not work in a free market economy. It could only work if the state was, at the same time as setting minimum wage, able to fix the prices charged by all providers and suppliers. Once you go down that route, you may as well just go the whole hog and adopt communism as your economic model. And we know how well THAT works, don't we?[/p][/quote]well at the moment the salaries are artificially kept low because the State is subsidizing employers by providing the lowest paid employees with low income benefits. I would prefer and so does most Tories to have less State intervention in the Labour Market, increasing the minimum wage whilst cutting down on benefits is putting the responsibility of paying a decent wage to the companies not to the taxpayers, I thought this we would agree on?!?[/p][/quote]Entirely incorrect. It's actually no possible to keep wages 'artificially low'. If employers believe that paying certain people a higher wage will result in them attracting better employees (with more skills, qualifications, experience, ability etc.) and they perceive a need for better quality employees then they will offer more money. The 'problem', if it can even be called that, is that a large range of jobs these days just require bodies that can just 'do' what's asked of them. They don't need to be skilled or particularly able at anything. Hence why so many jobs are low paid. Those jobs would remain low paid if the government removed tax credit benefits - which, because Gordon Brown stupidly introduced them in the first place - no government can/will never do now. We're stuck with this system. No, we don't agree on your overly simplistic suggestion because, as has been pointed out to you by about six people on this thread, it does now and will not work in reality. You cannot just increase the minimum wage and expect that to take effect in isolation - that expectation would actually fly in the complete opposite face of everything we know about basic economics. ChannelX

9:31am Tue 21 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Hmmmf wrote:
A.B-C wrote:
Nobody is saying that we should not look after the OAPs, however there should be some fairness in the way we redistribute wealth and reward work and enterprise. If we can reward stay at home OAPs, I am sure that we can agree that hard working people on the lower end of the payscale should get rewarded too.

You seem unable to grasp the simple fact that OAPs have bought and paid for their pension entitlement and most did so by working and paying their stamp for more than 30 years. Index-linkage was part of the deal.

Redistribution of wealth is already accounted for in the taxation system which sees the 'rich' paying for the 'poor' and success being increasingly penalised in order to reward failure.
Nobody is saying that OAPs are not getting a superb deal, work should be rewarded and encouraged, it was true then and it should be true today, and in the name of social justice, inflation busting payrises should not be reserved to pensioners and banking execs.
What does 'social justice' mean? I suspect what you really mean is, 'I want things the way I want them'.

Social justice would, no doubt, mean something very different to me than it apparently does to you.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.B-C[/bold] wrote: Nobody is saying that we should not look after the OAPs, however there should be some fairness in the way we redistribute wealth and reward work and enterprise. If we can reward stay at home OAPs, I am sure that we can agree that hard working people on the lower end of the payscale should get rewarded too.[/quote] You seem unable to grasp the simple fact that OAPs have bought and paid for their pension entitlement and most did so by working and paying their stamp for more than 30 years. Index-linkage was part of the deal. Redistribution of wealth is already accounted for in the taxation system which sees the 'rich' paying for the 'poor' and success being increasingly penalised in order to reward failure.[/p][/quote]Nobody is saying that OAPs are not getting a superb deal, work should be rewarded and encouraged, it was true then and it should be true today, and in the name of social justice, inflation busting payrises should not be reserved to pensioners and banking execs.[/p][/quote]What does 'social justice' mean? I suspect what you really mean is, 'I want things the way I want them'. Social justice would, no doubt, mean something very different to me than it apparently does to you. ChannelX

10:07am Tue 21 Jan 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Hmmmf wrote:
A.B-C wrote:
Nobody is saying that we should not look after the OAPs, however there should be some fairness in the way we redistribute wealth and reward work and enterprise. If we can reward stay at home OAPs, I am sure that we can agree that hard working people on the lower end of the payscale should get rewarded too.

You seem unable to grasp the simple fact that OAPs have bought and paid for their pension entitlement and most did so by working and paying their stamp for more than 30 years. Index-linkage was part of the deal.

Redistribution of wealth is already accounted for in the taxation system which sees the 'rich' paying for the 'poor' and success being increasingly penalised in order to reward failure.
Nobody is saying that OAPs are not getting a superb deal, work should be rewarded and encouraged, it was true then and it should be true today, and in the name of social justice, inflation busting payrises should not be reserved to pensioners and banking execs.
What does 'social justice' mean? I suspect what you really mean is, 'I want things the way I want them'.

Social justice would, no doubt, mean something very different to me than it apparently does to you.
Most people do understand the concept of social justice, it is common sense.
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.B-C[/bold] wrote: Nobody is saying that we should not look after the OAPs, however there should be some fairness in the way we redistribute wealth and reward work and enterprise. If we can reward stay at home OAPs, I am sure that we can agree that hard working people on the lower end of the payscale should get rewarded too.[/quote] You seem unable to grasp the simple fact that OAPs have bought and paid for their pension entitlement and most did so by working and paying their stamp for more than 30 years. Index-linkage was part of the deal. Redistribution of wealth is already accounted for in the taxation system which sees the 'rich' paying for the 'poor' and success being increasingly penalised in order to reward failure.[/p][/quote]Nobody is saying that OAPs are not getting a superb deal, work should be rewarded and encouraged, it was true then and it should be true today, and in the name of social justice, inflation busting payrises should not be reserved to pensioners and banking execs.[/p][/quote]What does 'social justice' mean? I suspect what you really mean is, 'I want things the way I want them'. Social justice would, no doubt, mean something very different to me than it apparently does to you.[/p][/quote]Most people do understand the concept of social justice, it is common sense. A.Baron-Cohen

10:09am Tue 21 Jan 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
For somebody who has implied they have some knowledge of ecomomics, you seem oddly ill-informed about how the level of salaries is determined.

You can't suddenly just insist/demand that those at the very bottom are paid a lot more overnight, because then they end up being paid the same as those slightly above them who have better qualifications, experience and skills.

So then those people don't feel they're being paid 'fairly' and demand more... and so on and so on.
Well I think it is fair that pensioners and lowest paid workers do get their share of the Capitalist dream.
If pensions can go up faster than inflation, I do not see why hard working people could not get the same.
Well, given that I just explained why not, that's quite an odd response.
The idea is to push up salaries starting with the lowest paid, it is very similar to increasing the number of First time buyers to kick start the housing market.
It has been the policy of this country to subsidize employers offering low paid jobs, by burdening the taxpayers with working tax credits payments, low income benefits.
This is a very liberal idea, by increasing the minimum wage the State is reducing its footprint in the labour Market, I think it is a very smart idea.
But as anyone with even the slightest knowledge of economics would be aware, the moment you artificially 'push up salaries starting with the lowest paid', ALL salaries start to rise in line and thus all goods and services rise in line.

Other than for maybe a few weeks, or a couple of months, the whole thing is almost immediately back 'in line' as it was before, just that everyone thinks they're earning more and everything appears to cost more. What the £1 from your previous pay cheque bought you for £1 now costs £1.25 but you're being paid 25% more... in real terms absolutely nothing has changed.

The state would still be propping up the lowest wages because they would still not be enough to live on once the price of goods and services had risen - which they would do within a matter of weeks.

Your idea just does not work in a free market economy. It could only work if the state was, at the same time as setting minimum wage, able to fix the prices charged by all providers and suppliers.

Once you go down that route, you may as well just go the whole hog and adopt communism as your economic model.

And we know how well THAT works, don't we?
well at the moment the salaries are artificially kept low because the State is subsidizing employers by providing the lowest paid employees with low income benefits.
I would prefer and so does most Tories to have less State intervention in the Labour Market, increasing the minimum wage whilst cutting down on benefits is putting the responsibility of paying a decent wage to the companies not to the taxpayers, I thought this we would agree on?!?
Entirely incorrect.

It's actually no possible to keep wages 'artificially low'. If employers believe that paying certain people a higher wage will result in them attracting better employees (with more skills, qualifications, experience, ability etc.) and they perceive a need for better quality employees then they will offer more money.

The 'problem', if it can even be called that, is that a large range of jobs these days just require bodies that can just 'do' what's asked of them. They don't need to be skilled or particularly able at anything. Hence why so many jobs are low paid.

Those jobs would remain low paid if the government removed tax credit benefits - which, because Gordon Brown stupidly introduced them in the first place - no government can/will never do now. We're stuck with this system.

No, we don't agree on your overly simplistic suggestion because, as has been pointed out to you by about six people on this thread, it does now and will not work in reality. You cannot just increase the minimum wage and expect that to take effect in isolation - that expectation would actually fly in the complete opposite face of everything we know about basic economics.
Well we shall see who was right and who was wrong shortly enough
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: For somebody who has implied they have some knowledge of ecomomics, you seem oddly ill-informed about how the level of salaries is determined. You can't suddenly just insist/demand that those at the very bottom are paid a lot more overnight, because then they end up being paid the same as those slightly above them who have better qualifications, experience and skills. So then those people don't feel they're being paid 'fairly' and demand more... and so on and so on.[/p][/quote]Well I think it is fair that pensioners and lowest paid workers do get their share of the Capitalist dream. If pensions can go up faster than inflation, I do not see why hard working people could not get the same.[/p][/quote]Well, given that I just explained why not, that's quite an odd response.[/p][/quote]The idea is to push up salaries starting with the lowest paid, it is very similar to increasing the number of First time buyers to kick start the housing market. It has been the policy of this country to subsidize employers offering low paid jobs, by burdening the taxpayers with working tax credits payments, low income benefits. This is a very liberal idea, by increasing the minimum wage the State is reducing its footprint in the labour Market, I think it is a very smart idea.[/p][/quote]But as anyone with even the slightest knowledge of economics would be aware, the moment you artificially 'push up salaries starting with the lowest paid', ALL salaries start to rise in line and thus all goods and services rise in line. Other than for maybe a few weeks, or a couple of months, the whole thing is almost immediately back 'in line' as it was before, just that everyone thinks they're earning more and everything appears to cost more. What the £1 from your previous pay cheque bought you for £1 now costs £1.25 but you're being paid 25% more... in real terms absolutely nothing has changed. The state would still be propping up the lowest wages because they would still not be enough to live on once the price of goods and services had risen - which they would do within a matter of weeks. Your idea just does not work in a free market economy. It could only work if the state was, at the same time as setting minimum wage, able to fix the prices charged by all providers and suppliers. Once you go down that route, you may as well just go the whole hog and adopt communism as your economic model. And we know how well THAT works, don't we?[/p][/quote]well at the moment the salaries are artificially kept low because the State is subsidizing employers by providing the lowest paid employees with low income benefits. I would prefer and so does most Tories to have less State intervention in the Labour Market, increasing the minimum wage whilst cutting down on benefits is putting the responsibility of paying a decent wage to the companies not to the taxpayers, I thought this we would agree on?!?[/p][/quote]Entirely incorrect. It's actually no possible to keep wages 'artificially low'. If employers believe that paying certain people a higher wage will result in them attracting better employees (with more skills, qualifications, experience, ability etc.) and they perceive a need for better quality employees then they will offer more money. The 'problem', if it can even be called that, is that a large range of jobs these days just require bodies that can just 'do' what's asked of them. They don't need to be skilled or particularly able at anything. Hence why so many jobs are low paid. Those jobs would remain low paid if the government removed tax credit benefits - which, because Gordon Brown stupidly introduced them in the first place - no government can/will never do now. We're stuck with this system. No, we don't agree on your overly simplistic suggestion because, as has been pointed out to you by about six people on this thread, it does now and will not work in reality. You cannot just increase the minimum wage and expect that to take effect in isolation - that expectation would actually fly in the complete opposite face of everything we know about basic economics.[/p][/quote]Well we shall see who was right and who was wrong shortly enough A.Baron-Cohen

10:51am Tue 21 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Hmmmf wrote:
A.B-C wrote:
Nobody is saying that we should not look after the OAPs, however there should be some fairness in the way we redistribute wealth and reward work and enterprise. If we can reward stay at home OAPs, I am sure that we can agree that hard working people on the lower end of the payscale should get rewarded too.

You seem unable to grasp the simple fact that OAPs have bought and paid for their pension entitlement and most did so by working and paying their stamp for more than 30 years. Index-linkage was part of the deal.

Redistribution of wealth is already accounted for in the taxation system which sees the 'rich' paying for the 'poor' and success being increasingly penalised in order to reward failure.
Nobody is saying that OAPs are not getting a superb deal, work should be rewarded and encouraged, it was true then and it should be true today, and in the name of social justice, inflation busting payrises should not be reserved to pensioners and banking execs.
What does 'social justice' mean? I suspect what you really mean is, 'I want things the way I want them'.

Social justice would, no doubt, mean something very different to me than it apparently does to you.
Most people do understand the concept of social justice, it is common sense.
That's not an answer.

'Social Justice' means different things to different people. 'Common sense' means different things to different people when it comes to how society would be better organised and managed.

Also, what you may view as an individual not having been able to reach their potential in society may be viewed by somebody else as that individual absolutely having reached their potential.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.B-C[/bold] wrote: Nobody is saying that we should not look after the OAPs, however there should be some fairness in the way we redistribute wealth and reward work and enterprise. If we can reward stay at home OAPs, I am sure that we can agree that hard working people on the lower end of the payscale should get rewarded too.[/quote] You seem unable to grasp the simple fact that OAPs have bought and paid for their pension entitlement and most did so by working and paying their stamp for more than 30 years. Index-linkage was part of the deal. Redistribution of wealth is already accounted for in the taxation system which sees the 'rich' paying for the 'poor' and success being increasingly penalised in order to reward failure.[/p][/quote]Nobody is saying that OAPs are not getting a superb deal, work should be rewarded and encouraged, it was true then and it should be true today, and in the name of social justice, inflation busting payrises should not be reserved to pensioners and banking execs.[/p][/quote]What does 'social justice' mean? I suspect what you really mean is, 'I want things the way I want them'. Social justice would, no doubt, mean something very different to me than it apparently does to you.[/p][/quote]Most people do understand the concept of social justice, it is common sense.[/p][/quote]That's not an answer. 'Social Justice' means different things to different people. 'Common sense' means different things to different people when it comes to how society would be better organised and managed. Also, what you may view as an individual not having been able to reach their potential in society may be viewed by somebody else as that individual absolutely having reached their potential. ChannelX

10:54am Tue 21 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
For somebody who has implied they have some knowledge of ecomomics, you seem oddly ill-informed about how the level of salaries is determined.

You can't suddenly just insist/demand that those at the very bottom are paid a lot more overnight, because then they end up being paid the same as those slightly above them who have better qualifications, experience and skills.

So then those people don't feel they're being paid 'fairly' and demand more... and so on and so on.
Well I think it is fair that pensioners and lowest paid workers do get their share of the Capitalist dream.
If pensions can go up faster than inflation, I do not see why hard working people could not get the same.
Well, given that I just explained why not, that's quite an odd response.
The idea is to push up salaries starting with the lowest paid, it is very similar to increasing the number of First time buyers to kick start the housing market.
It has been the policy of this country to subsidize employers offering low paid jobs, by burdening the taxpayers with working tax credits payments, low income benefits.
This is a very liberal idea, by increasing the minimum wage the State is reducing its footprint in the labour Market, I think it is a very smart idea.
But as anyone with even the slightest knowledge of economics would be aware, the moment you artificially 'push up salaries starting with the lowest paid', ALL salaries start to rise in line and thus all goods and services rise in line.

Other than for maybe a few weeks, or a couple of months, the whole thing is almost immediately back 'in line' as it was before, just that everyone thinks they're earning more and everything appears to cost more. What the £1 from your previous pay cheque bought you for £1 now costs £1.25 but you're being paid 25% more... in real terms absolutely nothing has changed.

The state would still be propping up the lowest wages because they would still not be enough to live on once the price of goods and services had risen - which they would do within a matter of weeks.

Your idea just does not work in a free market economy. It could only work if the state was, at the same time as setting minimum wage, able to fix the prices charged by all providers and suppliers.

Once you go down that route, you may as well just go the whole hog and adopt communism as your economic model.

And we know how well THAT works, don't we?
well at the moment the salaries are artificially kept low because the State is subsidizing employers by providing the lowest paid employees with low income benefits.
I would prefer and so does most Tories to have less State intervention in the Labour Market, increasing the minimum wage whilst cutting down on benefits is putting the responsibility of paying a decent wage to the companies not to the taxpayers, I thought this we would agree on?!?
Entirely incorrect.

It's actually no possible to keep wages 'artificially low'. If employers believe that paying certain people a higher wage will result in them attracting better employees (with more skills, qualifications, experience, ability etc.) and they perceive a need for better quality employees then they will offer more money.

The 'problem', if it can even be called that, is that a large range of jobs these days just require bodies that can just 'do' what's asked of them. They don't need to be skilled or particularly able at anything. Hence why so many jobs are low paid.

Those jobs would remain low paid if the government removed tax credit benefits - which, because Gordon Brown stupidly introduced them in the first place - no government can/will never do now. We're stuck with this system.

No, we don't agree on your overly simplistic suggestion because, as has been pointed out to you by about six people on this thread, it does now and will not work in reality. You cannot just increase the minimum wage and expect that to take effect in isolation - that expectation would actually fly in the complete opposite face of everything we know about basic economics.
Well we shall see who was right and who was wrong shortly enough
According to the IMF, who I would probably take a little more notice of than I would your overview, Osborne's economic plan is working out better than even he probably envisaged.

http://www.independe
nt.co.uk/news/busine
ss/news/imf-expects-
uk-growth-to-hit-hig
hest-rate-in-three-y
ears-9073123.html
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: For somebody who has implied they have some knowledge of ecomomics, you seem oddly ill-informed about how the level of salaries is determined. You can't suddenly just insist/demand that those at the very bottom are paid a lot more overnight, because then they end up being paid the same as those slightly above them who have better qualifications, experience and skills. So then those people don't feel they're being paid 'fairly' and demand more... and so on and so on.[/p][/quote]Well I think it is fair that pensioners and lowest paid workers do get their share of the Capitalist dream. If pensions can go up faster than inflation, I do not see why hard working people could not get the same.[/p][/quote]Well, given that I just explained why not, that's quite an odd response.[/p][/quote]The idea is to push up salaries starting with the lowest paid, it is very similar to increasing the number of First time buyers to kick start the housing market. It has been the policy of this country to subsidize employers offering low paid jobs, by burdening the taxpayers with working tax credits payments, low income benefits. This is a very liberal idea, by increasing the minimum wage the State is reducing its footprint in the labour Market, I think it is a very smart idea.[/p][/quote]But as anyone with even the slightest knowledge of economics would be aware, the moment you artificially 'push up salaries starting with the lowest paid', ALL salaries start to rise in line and thus all goods and services rise in line. Other than for maybe a few weeks, or a couple of months, the whole thing is almost immediately back 'in line' as it was before, just that everyone thinks they're earning more and everything appears to cost more. What the £1 from your previous pay cheque bought you for £1 now costs £1.25 but you're being paid 25% more... in real terms absolutely nothing has changed. The state would still be propping up the lowest wages because they would still not be enough to live on once the price of goods and services had risen - which they would do within a matter of weeks. Your idea just does not work in a free market economy. It could only work if the state was, at the same time as setting minimum wage, able to fix the prices charged by all providers and suppliers. Once you go down that route, you may as well just go the whole hog and adopt communism as your economic model. And we know how well THAT works, don't we?[/p][/quote]well at the moment the salaries are artificially kept low because the State is subsidizing employers by providing the lowest paid employees with low income benefits. I would prefer and so does most Tories to have less State intervention in the Labour Market, increasing the minimum wage whilst cutting down on benefits is putting the responsibility of paying a decent wage to the companies not to the taxpayers, I thought this we would agree on?!?[/p][/quote]Entirely incorrect. It's actually no possible to keep wages 'artificially low'. If employers believe that paying certain people a higher wage will result in them attracting better employees (with more skills, qualifications, experience, ability etc.) and they perceive a need for better quality employees then they will offer more money. The 'problem', if it can even be called that, is that a large range of jobs these days just require bodies that can just 'do' what's asked of them. They don't need to be skilled or particularly able at anything. Hence why so many jobs are low paid. Those jobs would remain low paid if the government removed tax credit benefits - which, because Gordon Brown stupidly introduced them in the first place - no government can/will never do now. We're stuck with this system. No, we don't agree on your overly simplistic suggestion because, as has been pointed out to you by about six people on this thread, it does now and will not work in reality. You cannot just increase the minimum wage and expect that to take effect in isolation - that expectation would actually fly in the complete opposite face of everything we know about basic economics.[/p][/quote]Well we shall see who was right and who was wrong shortly enough[/p][/quote]According to the IMF, who I would probably take a little more notice of than I would your overview, Osborne's economic plan is working out better than even he probably envisaged. http://www.independe nt.co.uk/news/busine ss/news/imf-expects- uk-growth-to-hit-hig hest-rate-in-three-y ears-9073123.html ChannelX

11:31am Tue 21 Jan 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
For somebody who has implied they have some knowledge of ecomomics, you seem oddly ill-informed about how the level of salaries is determined.

You can't suddenly just insist/demand that those at the very bottom are paid a lot more overnight, because then they end up being paid the same as those slightly above them who have better qualifications, experience and skills.

So then those people don't feel they're being paid 'fairly' and demand more... and so on and so on.
Well I think it is fair that pensioners and lowest paid workers do get their share of the Capitalist dream.
If pensions can go up faster than inflation, I do not see why hard working people could not get the same.
Well, given that I just explained why not, that's quite an odd response.
The idea is to push up salaries starting with the lowest paid, it is very similar to increasing the number of First time buyers to kick start the housing market.
It has been the policy of this country to subsidize employers offering low paid jobs, by burdening the taxpayers with working tax credits payments, low income benefits.
This is a very liberal idea, by increasing the minimum wage the State is reducing its footprint in the labour Market, I think it is a very smart idea.
But as anyone with even the slightest knowledge of economics would be aware, the moment you artificially 'push up salaries starting with the lowest paid', ALL salaries start to rise in line and thus all goods and services rise in line.

Other than for maybe a few weeks, or a couple of months, the whole thing is almost immediately back 'in line' as it was before, just that everyone thinks they're earning more and everything appears to cost more. What the £1 from your previous pay cheque bought you for £1 now costs £1.25 but you're being paid 25% more... in real terms absolutely nothing has changed.

The state would still be propping up the lowest wages because they would still not be enough to live on once the price of goods and services had risen - which they would do within a matter of weeks.

Your idea just does not work in a free market economy. It could only work if the state was, at the same time as setting minimum wage, able to fix the prices charged by all providers and suppliers.

Once you go down that route, you may as well just go the whole hog and adopt communism as your economic model.

And we know how well THAT works, don't we?
well at the moment the salaries are artificially kept low because the State is subsidizing employers by providing the lowest paid employees with low income benefits.
I would prefer and so does most Tories to have less State intervention in the Labour Market, increasing the minimum wage whilst cutting down on benefits is putting the responsibility of paying a decent wage to the companies not to the taxpayers, I thought this we would agree on?!?
Entirely incorrect.

It's actually no possible to keep wages 'artificially low'. If employers believe that paying certain people a higher wage will result in them attracting better employees (with more skills, qualifications, experience, ability etc.) and they perceive a need for better quality employees then they will offer more money.

The 'problem', if it can even be called that, is that a large range of jobs these days just require bodies that can just 'do' what's asked of them. They don't need to be skilled or particularly able at anything. Hence why so many jobs are low paid.

Those jobs would remain low paid if the government removed tax credit benefits - which, because Gordon Brown stupidly introduced them in the first place - no government can/will never do now. We're stuck with this system.

No, we don't agree on your overly simplistic suggestion because, as has been pointed out to you by about six people on this thread, it does now and will not work in reality. You cannot just increase the minimum wage and expect that to take effect in isolation - that expectation would actually fly in the complete opposite face of everything we know about basic economics.
Well we shall see who was right and who was wrong shortly enough
According to the IMF, who I would probably take a little more notice of than I would your overview, Osborne's economic plan is working out better than even he probably envisaged.

http://www.independe

nt.co.uk/news/busine

ss/news/imf-expects-

uk-growth-to-hit-hig

hest-rate-in-three-y

ears-9073123.html
Since I support Mr Osborne plan to increase minimum wage, this is great news and it does validate the view that this will kick start the Recovery, increase living standards and reduce the cost of Welfare.
Sorry Mr Farage:-)
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: For somebody who has implied they have some knowledge of ecomomics, you seem oddly ill-informed about how the level of salaries is determined. You can't suddenly just insist/demand that those at the very bottom are paid a lot more overnight, because then they end up being paid the same as those slightly above them who have better qualifications, experience and skills. So then those people don't feel they're being paid 'fairly' and demand more... and so on and so on.[/p][/quote]Well I think it is fair that pensioners and lowest paid workers do get their share of the Capitalist dream. If pensions can go up faster than inflation, I do not see why hard working people could not get the same.[/p][/quote]Well, given that I just explained why not, that's quite an odd response.[/p][/quote]The idea is to push up salaries starting with the lowest paid, it is very similar to increasing the number of First time buyers to kick start the housing market. It has been the policy of this country to subsidize employers offering low paid jobs, by burdening the taxpayers with working tax credits payments, low income benefits. This is a very liberal idea, by increasing the minimum wage the State is reducing its footprint in the labour Market, I think it is a very smart idea.[/p][/quote]But as anyone with even the slightest knowledge of economics would be aware, the moment you artificially 'push up salaries starting with the lowest paid', ALL salaries start to rise in line and thus all goods and services rise in line. Other than for maybe a few weeks, or a couple of months, the whole thing is almost immediately back 'in line' as it was before, just that everyone thinks they're earning more and everything appears to cost more. What the £1 from your previous pay cheque bought you for £1 now costs £1.25 but you're being paid 25% more... in real terms absolutely nothing has changed. The state would still be propping up the lowest wages because they would still not be enough to live on once the price of goods and services had risen - which they would do within a matter of weeks. Your idea just does not work in a free market economy. It could only work if the state was, at the same time as setting minimum wage, able to fix the prices charged by all providers and suppliers. Once you go down that route, you may as well just go the whole hog and adopt communism as your economic model. And we know how well THAT works, don't we?[/p][/quote]well at the moment the salaries are artificially kept low because the State is subsidizing employers by providing the lowest paid employees with low income benefits. I would prefer and so does most Tories to have less State intervention in the Labour Market, increasing the minimum wage whilst cutting down on benefits is putting the responsibility of paying a decent wage to the companies not to the taxpayers, I thought this we would agree on?!?[/p][/quote]Entirely incorrect. It's actually no possible to keep wages 'artificially low'. If employers believe that paying certain people a higher wage will result in them attracting better employees (with more skills, qualifications, experience, ability etc.) and they perceive a need for better quality employees then they will offer more money. The 'problem', if it can even be called that, is that a large range of jobs these days just require bodies that can just 'do' what's asked of them. They don't need to be skilled or particularly able at anything. Hence why so many jobs are low paid. Those jobs would remain low paid if the government removed tax credit benefits - which, because Gordon Brown stupidly introduced them in the first place - no government can/will never do now. We're stuck with this system. No, we don't agree on your overly simplistic suggestion because, as has been pointed out to you by about six people on this thread, it does now and will not work in reality. You cannot just increase the minimum wage and expect that to take effect in isolation - that expectation would actually fly in the complete opposite face of everything we know about basic economics.[/p][/quote]Well we shall see who was right and who was wrong shortly enough[/p][/quote]According to the IMF, who I would probably take a little more notice of than I would your overview, Osborne's economic plan is working out better than even he probably envisaged. http://www.independe nt.co.uk/news/busine ss/news/imf-expects- uk-growth-to-hit-hig hest-rate-in-three-y ears-9073123.html[/p][/quote]Since I support Mr Osborne plan to increase minimum wage, this is great news and it does validate the view that this will kick start the Recovery, increase living standards and reduce the cost of Welfare. Sorry Mr Farage:-) A.Baron-Cohen

11:37am Tue 21 Jan 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Hmmmf wrote:
A.B-C wrote:
Nobody is saying that we should not look after the OAPs, however there should be some fairness in the way we redistribute wealth and reward work and enterprise. If we can reward stay at home OAPs, I am sure that we can agree that hard working people on the lower end of the payscale should get rewarded too.

You seem unable to grasp the simple fact that OAPs have bought and paid for their pension entitlement and most did so by working and paying their stamp for more than 30 years. Index-linkage was part of the deal.

Redistribution of wealth is already accounted for in the taxation system which sees the 'rich' paying for the 'poor' and success being increasingly penalised in order to reward failure.
Nobody is saying that OAPs are not getting a superb deal, work should be rewarded and encouraged, it was true then and it should be true today, and in the name of social justice, inflation busting payrises should not be reserved to pensioners and banking execs.
What does 'social justice' mean? I suspect what you really mean is, 'I want things the way I want them'.

Social justice would, no doubt, mean something very different to me than it apparently does to you.
Most people do understand the concept of social justice, it is common sense.
That's not an answer.

'Social Justice' means different things to different people. 'Common sense' means different things to different people when it comes to how society would be better organised and managed.

Also, what you may view as an individual not having been able to reach their potential in society may be viewed by somebody else as that individual absolutely having reached their potential.
Only UKIP could not understand this basic concept......
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.B-C[/bold] wrote: Nobody is saying that we should not look after the OAPs, however there should be some fairness in the way we redistribute wealth and reward work and enterprise. If we can reward stay at home OAPs, I am sure that we can agree that hard working people on the lower end of the payscale should get rewarded too.[/quote] You seem unable to grasp the simple fact that OAPs have bought and paid for their pension entitlement and most did so by working and paying their stamp for more than 30 years. Index-linkage was part of the deal. Redistribution of wealth is already accounted for in the taxation system which sees the 'rich' paying for the 'poor' and success being increasingly penalised in order to reward failure.[/p][/quote]Nobody is saying that OAPs are not getting a superb deal, work should be rewarded and encouraged, it was true then and it should be true today, and in the name of social justice, inflation busting payrises should not be reserved to pensioners and banking execs.[/p][/quote]What does 'social justice' mean? I suspect what you really mean is, 'I want things the way I want them'. Social justice would, no doubt, mean something very different to me than it apparently does to you.[/p][/quote]Most people do understand the concept of social justice, it is common sense.[/p][/quote]That's not an answer. 'Social Justice' means different things to different people. 'Common sense' means different things to different people when it comes to how society would be better organised and managed. Also, what you may view as an individual not having been able to reach their potential in society may be viewed by somebody else as that individual absolutely having reached their potential.[/p][/quote]Only UKIP could not understand this basic concept...... A.Baron-Cohen

11:58am Tue 21 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Hmmmf wrote:
A.B-C wrote:
Nobody is saying that we should not look after the OAPs, however there should be some fairness in the way we redistribute wealth and reward work and enterprise. If we can reward stay at home OAPs, I am sure that we can agree that hard working people on the lower end of the payscale should get rewarded too.

You seem unable to grasp the simple fact that OAPs have bought and paid for their pension entitlement and most did so by working and paying their stamp for more than 30 years. Index-linkage was part of the deal.

Redistribution of wealth is already accounted for in the taxation system which sees the 'rich' paying for the 'poor' and success being increasingly penalised in order to reward failure.
Nobody is saying that OAPs are not getting a superb deal, work should be rewarded and encouraged, it was true then and it should be true today, and in the name of social justice, inflation busting payrises should not be reserved to pensioners and banking execs.
What does 'social justice' mean? I suspect what you really mean is, 'I want things the way I want them'.

Social justice would, no doubt, mean something very different to me than it apparently does to you.
Most people do understand the concept of social justice, it is common sense.
That's not an answer.

'Social Justice' means different things to different people. 'Common sense' means different things to different people when it comes to how society would be better organised and managed.

Also, what you may view as an individual not having been able to reach their potential in society may be viewed by somebody else as that individual absolutely having reached their potential.
Only UKIP could not understand this basic concept......
The basic concept is very clear - the problem comes with how different people interpret it.

You, for example, erroneously believe that increasing salaries for the lowest paid can happen in isolation - such that their salaries are increased in real terms.

Others with greater knowledge of economics understand that it cannot, and does not, ever work that way in real life - and nor can it in a free market economy.

So while the concept should be understandable by most people, the implementation of it is an entirely different matter.

The current thinking is that it's a good thing to encourage and sustain a massive underclass who are wholly dependent on benefits. A policy of uncontrolled immigration has also been adopted. Some will view that as an excellent idea, others will not.
[quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.B-C[/bold] wrote: Nobody is saying that we should not look after the OAPs, however there should be some fairness in the way we redistribute wealth and reward work and enterprise. If we can reward stay at home OAPs, I am sure that we can agree that hard working people on the lower end of the payscale should get rewarded too.[/quote] You seem unable to grasp the simple fact that OAPs have bought and paid for their pension entitlement and most did so by working and paying their stamp for more than 30 years. Index-linkage was part of the deal. Redistribution of wealth is already accounted for in the taxation system which sees the 'rich' paying for the 'poor' and success being increasingly penalised in order to reward failure.[/p][/quote]Nobody is saying that OAPs are not getting a superb deal, work should be rewarded and encouraged, it was true then and it should be true today, and in the name of social justice, inflation busting payrises should not be reserved to pensioners and banking execs.[/p][/quote]What does 'social justice' mean? I suspect what you really mean is, 'I want things the way I want them'. Social justice would, no doubt, mean something very different to me than it apparently does to you.[/p][/quote]Most people do understand the concept of social justice, it is common sense.[/p][/quote]That's not an answer. 'Social Justice' means different things to different people. 'Common sense' means different things to different people when it comes to how society would be better organised and managed. Also, what you may view as an individual not having been able to reach their potential in society may be viewed by somebody else as that individual absolutely having reached their potential.[/p][/quote]Only UKIP could not understand this basic concept......[/p][/quote]The basic concept is very clear - the problem comes with how different people interpret it. You, for example, erroneously believe that increasing salaries for the lowest paid can happen in isolation - such that their salaries are increased in real terms. Others with greater knowledge of economics understand that it cannot, and does not, ever work that way in real life - and nor can it in a free market economy. So while the concept should be understandable by most people, the implementation of it is an entirely different matter. The current thinking is that it's a good thing to encourage and sustain a massive underclass who are wholly dependent on benefits. A policy of uncontrolled immigration has also been adopted. Some will view that as an excellent idea, others will not. ChannelX

12:24pm Tue 21 Jan 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
ChannelX wrote:
A.Baron-Cohen wrote:
Hmmmf wrote:
A.B-C wrote:
Nobody is saying that we should not look after the OAPs, however there should be some fairness in the way we redistribute wealth and reward work and enterprise. If we can reward stay at home OAPs, I am sure that we can agree that hard working people on the lower end of the payscale should get rewarded too.

You seem unable to grasp the simple fact that OAPs have bought and paid for their pension entitlement and most did so by working and paying their stamp for more than 30 years. Index-linkage was part of the deal.

Redistribution of wealth is already accounted for in the taxation system which sees the 'rich' paying for the 'poor' and success being increasingly penalised in order to reward failure.
Nobody is saying that OAPs are not getting a superb deal, work should be rewarded and encouraged, it was true then and it should be true today, and in the name of social justice, inflation busting payrises should not be reserved to pensioners and banking execs.
What does 'social justice' mean? I suspect what you really mean is, 'I want things the way I want them'.

Social justice would, no doubt, mean something very different to me than it apparently does to you.
Most people do understand the concept of social justice, it is common sense.
That's not an answer.

'Social Justice' means different things to different people. 'Common sense' means different things to different people when it comes to how society would be better organised and managed.

Also, what you may view as an individual not having been able to reach their potential in society may be viewed by somebody else as that individual absolutely having reached their potential.
Only UKIP could not understand this basic concept......
The basic concept is very clear - the problem comes with how different people interpret it.

You, for example, erroneously believe that increasing salaries for the lowest paid can happen in isolation - such that their salaries are increased in real terms.

Others with greater knowledge of economics understand that it cannot, and does not, ever work that way in real life - and nor can it in a free market economy.

So while the concept should be understandable by most people, the implementation of it is an entirely different matter.

The current thinking is that it's a good thing to encourage and sustain a massive underclass who are wholly dependent on benefits. A policy of uncontrolled immigration has also been adopted. Some will view that as an excellent idea, others will not.
The idea of increasing wages for those willing to get up and work hard is great.
If inactive people can get inflation busting rises (Pensioners etc..), I think we can pay a little extra for the 1.3million workers contributing to the growth of the Gross Domestic Product.
Since the lowest paid spend their entire earning, this is a great way to fuel consumer demand which at this point is still fragile.
As for inflation, you are behind the curve......today's risk is deflation, please do keep up.
As for the underclass as you like to call inactive people, I will leave that to you and your great ideas....
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.Baron-Cohen[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hmmmf[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]A.B-C[/bold] wrote: Nobody is saying that we should not look after the OAPs, however there should be some fairness in the way we redistribute wealth and reward work and enterprise. If we can reward stay at home OAPs, I am sure that we can agree that hard working people on the lower end of the payscale should get rewarded too.[/quote] You seem unable to grasp the simple fact that OAPs have bought and paid for their pension entitlement and most did so by working and paying their stamp for more than 30 years. Index-linkage was part of the deal. Redistribution of wealth is already accounted for in the taxation system which sees the 'rich' paying for the 'poor' and success being increasingly penalised in order to reward failure.[/p][/quote]Nobody is saying that OAPs are not getting a superb deal, work should be rewarded and encouraged, it was true then and it should be true today, and in the name of social justice, inflation busting payrises should not be reserved to pensioners and banking execs.[/p][/quote]What does 'social justice' mean? I suspect what you really mean is, 'I want things the way I want them'. Social justice would, no doubt, mean something very different to me than it apparently does to you.[/p][/quote]Most people do understand the concept of social justice, it is common sense.[/p][/quote]That's not an answer. 'Social Justice' means different things to different people. 'Common sense' means different things to different people when it comes to how society would be better organised and managed. Also, what you may view as an individual not having been able to reach their potential in society may be viewed by somebody else as that individual absolutely having reached their potential.[/p][/quote]Only UKIP could not understand this basic concept......[/p][/quote]The basic concept is very clear - the problem comes with how different people interpret it. You, for example, erroneously believe that increasing salaries for the lowest paid can happen in isolation - such that their salaries are increased in real terms. Others with greater knowledge of economics understand that it cannot, and does not, ever work that way in real life - and nor can it in a free market economy. So while the concept should be understandable by most people, the implementation of it is an entirely different matter. The current thinking is that it's a good thing to encourage and sustain a massive underclass who are wholly dependent on benefits. A policy of uncontrolled immigration has also been adopted. Some will view that as an excellent idea, others will not.[/p][/quote]The idea of increasing wages for those willing to get up and work hard is great. If inactive people can get inflation busting rises (Pensioners etc..), I think we can pay a little extra for the 1.3million workers contributing to the growth of the Gross Domestic Product. Since the lowest paid spend their entire earning, this is a great way to fuel consumer demand which at this point is still fragile. As for inflation, you are behind the curve......today's risk is deflation, please do keep up. As for the underclass as you like to call inactive people, I will leave that to you and your great ideas.... A.Baron-Cohen

12:47pm Tue 21 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

You don't appear to understand that an individual needs to earn at least £25,000 pa in order to be a contributor to the UK economy. Under that and you cost the nation more than you contribute.

So your idea that paying the lowest earning 1.3m workers an extra £1 an hour, or something, means they'll help the economy is simply deluded nonsense. They'll still be costing the nation FAR more than they're contributing.

You often come out with these ridiculous statements, such as 'deflation is the risk today', and have always been proven entirely incorrect. I recall you continually telling everyone there would definitely be a triple-dip recession... and that's when you weren't going on about a 'depression'. You genuinely appear to have not the slightest clue about what you're talking about.
You don't appear to understand that an individual needs to earn at least £25,000 pa in order to be a contributor to the UK economy. Under that and you cost the nation more than you contribute. So your idea that paying the lowest earning 1.3m workers an extra £1 an hour, or something, means they'll help the economy is simply deluded nonsense. They'll still be costing the nation FAR more than they're contributing. You often come out with these ridiculous statements, such as 'deflation is the risk today', and have always been proven entirely incorrect. I recall you continually telling everyone there would definitely be a triple-dip recession... and that's when you weren't going on about a 'depression'. You genuinely appear to have not the slightest clue about what you're talking about. ChannelX

4:04pm Tue 21 Jan 14

A.Baron-Cohen says...

ChannelX wrote:
You don't appear to understand that an individual needs to earn at least £25,000 pa in order to be a contributor to the UK economy. Under that and you cost the nation more than you contribute.

So your idea that paying the lowest earning 1.3m workers an extra £1 an hour, or something, means they'll help the economy is simply deluded nonsense. They'll still be costing the nation FAR more than they're contributing.

You often come out with these ridiculous statements, such as 'deflation is the risk today', and have always been proven entirely incorrect. I recall you continually telling everyone there would definitely be a triple-dip recession... and that's when you weren't going on about a 'depression'. You genuinely appear to have not the slightest clue about what you're talking about.
And how exactly someone not earning 25K a year cannot be a contributor to the UK economy, please enlighten us.....
The UK economy is gaining traction but the numbers are not great: debts, unemployment are too high, whilst investments and exports too low.
So for the time being, consumer demand will remain the main driver of Growth, by increasing wages and reducing taxation, we leave people with more money in their pockets to spend, I think this is a basic principle that you should be able to understand?!?
As for your rant well, the UK GDP is yet to regain its 2008 level.....
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: You don't appear to understand that an individual needs to earn at least £25,000 pa in order to be a contributor to the UK economy. Under that and you cost the nation more than you contribute. So your idea that paying the lowest earning 1.3m workers an extra £1 an hour, or something, means they'll help the economy is simply deluded nonsense. They'll still be costing the nation FAR more than they're contributing. You often come out with these ridiculous statements, such as 'deflation is the risk today', and have always been proven entirely incorrect. I recall you continually telling everyone there would definitely be a triple-dip recession... and that's when you weren't going on about a 'depression'. You genuinely appear to have not the slightest clue about what you're talking about.[/p][/quote]And how exactly someone not earning 25K a year cannot be a contributor to the UK economy, please enlighten us..... The UK economy is gaining traction but the numbers are not great: debts, unemployment are too high, whilst investments and exports too low. So for the time being, consumer demand will remain the main driver of Growth, by increasing wages and reducing taxation, we leave people with more money in their pockets to spend, I think this is a basic principle that you should be able to understand?!? As for your rant well, the UK GDP is yet to regain its 2008 level..... A.Baron-Cohen

7:22pm Tue 21 Jan 14

ChannelX says...

@Politicrat:

And how exactly someone not earning 25K a year cannot be a contributor to the UK economy, please enlighten us.....

The figures are widely available online. As far as I am aware they are not disputed by anyone, mainly because they're simple financial fact. You may not like it or believe it, but that's hardly relevant to the reality.

well, the UK GDP is yet to regain its 2008 level.....

A year ago you were merrily claiming the UK was going into a 'Third Dip' recession and often harped on about an impending 'depression'. None of that happened.

Yet just a year or so later you expect that same economy to be back to the artificial, 'boom' high-point of Brown's economic and financial disasterpiece?

Come off it, even you know that's just absurd.

It's staggering that the UK economy is currently doing as well as it is, yet the likes of you demand it to be better than it's ever been.

Still, with Labour's hopeless minions safely out of harm's way, things are certainly getting a lot better. From today's BBC News:

The IMF upgraded its forecast for the UK in 2014 by more than for any other economy. It also raised its forecast for growth in 2015 to 2.2%.

The report provides further evidence that the government's long term economic plan is working.

It must pain you to read such good news. And I'm sure Messrs Balls & Miliband share your pain.
@Politicrat: [quote] And how exactly someone not earning 25K a year cannot be a contributor to the UK economy, please enlighten us..... [/quote] The figures are widely available online. As far as I am aware they are not disputed by anyone, mainly because they're simple financial fact. You may not like it or believe it, but that's hardly relevant to the reality. [quote] well, the UK GDP is yet to regain its 2008 level..... [/quote] A year ago you were merrily claiming the UK was going into a 'Third Dip' recession and often harped on about an impending 'depression'. None of that happened. Yet just a year or so later you expect that same economy to be back to the artificial, 'boom' high-point of Brown's economic and financial disasterpiece? Come off it, even you know that's just absurd. It's staggering that the UK economy is currently doing as well as it is, yet the likes of you demand it to be better than it's ever been. Still, with Labour's hopeless minions safely out of harm's way, things are certainly getting a lot better. From today's BBC News: [quote] The IMF upgraded its forecast for the UK in 2014 by more than for any other economy. It also raised its forecast for growth in 2015 to 2.2%. The report provides further evidence that the government's long term economic plan is working. [/quote] It must pain you to read such good news. And I'm sure Messrs Balls & Miliband share your pain. ChannelX

9:29pm Thu 23 Jan 14

BeardyBill says...

ChannelX wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
benzss wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.
Nobody's saying it's a picnic living on the minimum wage. All I, at least, am saying is that raising the minimum wage won't actually help anything and may make things worse.

Surely it'd make more sense to raise the personal allowance for income tax to the equivalent of a full-time minimum wage worker (~£13k).
Wouldn't that cost the government too much in lost taxation?
That money would have to be recouped from somewhere. Maybe by taxing Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone, etc, etc correctly?
The companies you mention have paid every penny that the law states they owe.

You can't just demand they hand over more money because there is none in existence to fund the pie-in-the-sky policies that you've dreamt up.

I'll also ask you again, Davey, what do you feel would be an acceptable amount, per hour, for a 'living wage'?
That's because the law is poorly drafted, and companies spend millions of pounds in complex tax avoidance schemes which save them billions. The answer of course is to tighten up the laws and close the loopholes - the likes of Amazon should pay tax on the same basis as the local family run bookshop.

Unfortunately, big business and the big accountancy firms give a lot of money to political parties, particularly the Tories, and buy influence. Dress it up however you like, it's corruption pure and simple.

Meanwhile, the minimum wage is kept low, and the taxpayer subsidises wage bills through tax credits - all the time big businesses post record profits.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.....
[quote][p][bold]ChannelX[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]benzss[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: Let those who say it shouldn't go up try living on the measly wages. Even if it went up it would be nowhere near the living wage.[/p][/quote]Nobody's saying it's a picnic living on the minimum wage. All I, at least, am saying is that raising the minimum wage won't actually help anything and may make things worse. Surely it'd make more sense to raise the personal allowance for income tax to the equivalent of a full-time minimum wage worker (~£13k).[/p][/quote]Wouldn't that cost the government too much in lost taxation? That money would have to be recouped from somewhere. Maybe by taxing Amazon, Starbucks, Vodafone, etc, etc correctly?[/p][/quote]The companies you mention have paid every penny that the law states they owe. You can't just demand they hand over more money because there is none in existence to fund the pie-in-the-sky policies that you've dreamt up. I'll also ask you again, Davey, what do you feel would be an acceptable amount, per hour, for a 'living wage'?[/p][/quote]That's because the law is poorly drafted, and companies spend millions of pounds in complex tax avoidance schemes which save them billions. The answer of course is to tighten up the laws and close the loopholes - the likes of Amazon should pay tax on the same basis as the local family run bookshop. Unfortunately, big business and the big accountancy firms give a lot of money to political parties, particularly the Tories, and buy influence. Dress it up however you like, it's corruption pure and simple. Meanwhile, the minimum wage is kept low, and the taxpayer subsidises wage bills through tax credits - all the time big businesses post record profits. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad..... BeardyBill

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree