We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Cut in Minimum Wage
Comments
-
This beggars belief. As others have said, if this happens it will just pull more people into benefits. The current situation in this country is insane. Take Barclays for example. Half their employees are eligible for "tax credits", yet they have executives on Multi-million pound salaries. Essentially the tax payer is subsidising executive pay by allowing companies to pay a wage that is below what is needed for basic living.
If these comments about Barclays are true, then we have a situation where the market believes that those upper middle and top earners are "worth" their megabucks salaries and bonuses at the same time as taxpayer support is needed for the front line staff.
As companies are not renowned for employing or retaining staff who are "unnecessary" in strictly business terms, this suggests that these state-subsidised staff are necessary to allow the company to generate sufficient profit to allow the high top end salaries and bonuses. Therefore are not the highest paid in Barclays having their earnings directly subsidised by taxpayers, including those struggling to get by on low wages/the minimum wage?
!!!!!!!
Time to light blue touchpaper - tax bonuses for those in the higher rate tax bracket at 95% if any member of staff in their company is on tax credits!:rotfl:.
I know, I know, that would never happen - bonuses converted to salary, ... and what was that cartoon that someone posted a wee while ago - "we can't pay you a bonus this year but we'd like to buy your tie for a million pounds" :rotfl: ; there'd also be the usual "disincentives for investment", "rewarding effort" etc etc. but as it is the "system" stinks.
If someone on benefits "takes advantage of the system" for personal gain at taxpayers' expense, they are ritually slaughtered in the media, called scroungers and told that they should be ashamed; if a big company's top executives "take advantage of the system" for personal gain at taxpayers' expense, they are called captains of industry and told that they deserve all the success they achieve.
Aye, right.
WR0 -
This beggars belief. As others have said, if this happens it will just pull more people into benefits. The current situation in this country is insane. Take Barclays for example. Half their employees are eligible for "tax credits", yet they have executives on Multi-million pound salaries. Essentially the tax payer is subsidising executive pay by allowing companies to pay a wage that is below what is needed for basic living.
The government could cut entitlement to tax credits so, say, 0% of employees are entitled to them.
It would leave a shortfall in employees household income so they'll have to live with that or; maybe the employer could make up some/all of the difference; maybe they reduce headcount as a result; maybe the consumer would be willing to pay more?
It certainly does beggar belief that I subsidise Barclays cashier wages (I don't bank there), Morrisons shelf stacker wages (I don't shop there), Vodafone call centre wages (I don't use their service) etc. etc.
Tax credits are a great deal for employers but not really a great incentive to encourage people into productive jobs. Also gives people the false perception that they are taxpayers.0 -
The government could cut entitlement to tax credits so, say, 0% of employees are entitled to them.
It would leave a shortfall in employees household income so they'll have to live with that or; maybe the employer could make up some/all of the difference; maybe they reduce headcount as a result; maybe the consumer would be willing to pay more?
Tax credits are a great deal for employers but not really a great incentive to encourage people into productive jobs. Also gives people the false perception that they are taxpayers.
If employers can't afford to pay their staff a living wage then their business model must be questionable.
Removing tax credits, that were not replaced by earnings, would have many effects.
Perhaps it should be tried see what happens. I would suggest it would not be pretty. I very much doubt employers would make up the shortfall. I think it would make a hike in interest rates, HPC scenarios, look like a walk in the park."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Perhaps it should be tried see what happens. I would suggest it would not be pretty. I very much doubt employers would make up the shortfall. I think it would make a hike in interest rates, HPC scenarios, look like a walk in the park.
The current system works as follows; if a business is successful the taxpayer pays but if it's unsuccessful then the taxpayer pays. It's also hidden - many people don't see WTC as a benefit to support business and the low paid. If a business needs taxpayer support then this should be debated and a direct payment made to them.
I'm all for the withdrawal of WTC although maybe using a phased approach rather than taking it away tomorrow.
Let consumers decide what they're willing to pay and the benefits system to exist to provide a basic safety net.0 -
The concept of tax credits is rediculous. You either pay tax or you don't, so why invent an overly complex system where some are entitled to a tax rebate because they don't earn enough?
It's also way too generous.
Most would agree that a couple with 2 children, earning £50k should be able to live reasonably comfortably. However, would you believe that they are entitled to claim tax credits? Preposterous.0 -
The concept of tax credits is rediculous. You either pay tax or you don't, so why invent an overly complex system where some are entitled to a tax rebate because they don't earn enough?
It's also way too generous.
Most would agree that a couple with 2 children, earning £50k should be able to live reasonably comfortably. However, would you believe that they are entitled to claim tax credits? Preposterous.
Whilst it is a pointless exercise any idea how much someone on £50k actually gets? I doubt it is worth worrying about."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
The concept of tax credits is rediculous. You either pay tax or you don't, so why invent an overly complex system where some are entitled to a tax rebate because they don't earn enough?
It's also way too generous.
Most would agree that a couple with 2 children, earning £50k should be able to live reasonably comfortably. However, would you believe that they are entitled to claim tax credits? Preposterous.
I agree. If "benefits" for the poorer are in the firing line, what sort of society can look its citizens in the eye and leave "benefits" for the better off alone?
AHHHH! Of course - subsidies for the poor are called "benefits" - subsidises for the rich are "allowances" or "incentives":rotfl:.
If we as a country think it fair to take a pound a week off someone on benefits, as the country is financially knackered, we should be prepared to take at least the same off someone on 50k. I personally have benefited from the above inflation rise in personal allowances, and will benefit again from the rise to 10k next year. If the country is as donald ducked as we are told, how can the country forego the lost basic rate income tax revenue? IFS gives a figure of 5.3 billion for the 10k level instead of "normal" price indexation.
Leave the tax thresholds alone at normal inflation increases until the country can afford it!
WR0 -
The concept of tax credits is rediculous. You either pay tax or you don't, so why invent an overly complex system where some are entitled to a tax rebate because they don't earn enough?
It's also way too generous.
Most would agree that a couple with 2 children, earning £50k should be able to live reasonably comfortably. However, would you believe that they are entitled to claim tax credits? Preposterous.
It's also prone to error. In it's first year it cost £400m+ to run, 3 times more than planned. It paid out £2.2bn too much, and didn't do much better in the second year.
We shouldn't encourage and support systems prone to such levels of error.
Set a long term plan to phase out tax credits over a decade or more, to give people time to adjust.0 -
The concept of tax credits is rediculous. You either pay tax or you don't, so why invent an overly complex system where some are entitled to a tax rebate because they don't earn enough?
It seemed a fair response to the charge that people couldn't afford to work, it was a way of attempting to move the long term unemployed off the dole, a good intention, and what is the road to hell paved with
'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »If employers can't afford to pay their staff a living wage then their business model must be questionable.
Not that the unskilled working population of the UK expects to be paid at a rate far above that in China, Vietnam, India, Mexico or Eastern Europe?
Plenty of people are willing to work for far less.
The UK has to be competitive for certain industries to return to these shores.0
![[Deleted User]](https://us-noi.v-cdn.net/6031891/uploads/defaultavatar/nFA7H6UNOO0N5.jpg)
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards