Cut in Minimum Wage

CLAPTON

better to let the market decide and abolish the NMW
then politicians need not be involved

stinktankcynic

CLAPTON wrote: »

better to let the market decide and abolish the NMW
then politicians need not be involved

Market forces, no minimum wage, no tax credits... how did we ever manage before?

I'm tickled by the wording of some of these benefits.

Single tier pension. - work longer, pay longer get less out.
Universal credit. - it's not Universal if the majority don't get it ever.
Tax credits. - the government gives you tax payers money for free.

The reality for most is Universal tax debit.

N1AK

CLAPTON wrote: »

and presumably in the mean time, while we get the population trained and motived etc.
we accept high unemployment and massive benefits payments even though thee may be people willing to work for low wages

maybe we should also ban unpaid voluntary work as not really being the sort of nonsense we want in the UK

If you need to create that many straw-men to debate a point with then a) you're ability to discuss what others are actually saying doesn't impress and b) you might as well have the whole conversation offline as you're just skipping the interactive part anyway

I haven't made a case here, or elsewhere, for increasing the current MW. Unless we really think we're going to see rampant unemployment at the current MW then your first paragraph is redundant. Beyond which is retraining 100,000 30 year olds who could only justify £6.50ph to be able to do work worth £10ph meant 100,000 higher 'unemployment' for a year then it's money well spent.

As to your second paragraph; unless we're currently subsidising voluntary work then again the points redundant. My issue is with people who want to bring in masses of extremely low paid jobs (which will have to be topped up by the state) thinking that it is a solution to welfare. It isn't, the solution to welfare is to get people into work that can support their lifestyle.

N1AK

stinktankcynic wrote: »

The reality for most is Universal tax debit.

UK government spending (ignoring ALL welfare) is £7,000 per person. To be paying more in tax than is spent on your behalf you need to earn:
> Single person ~£31,000
> Couple (single income) ~£53,000
> Couple (Two equal incomes) 2 children ~£105,000

Remember that this is ignoring ALL welfare again. Also, remember that this is based on current pension and health spending not the ever increasing future costs that we will face that we aren't accruing for. The reality for most is that they are net draws from the public purse.

ukcarper

N1AK wrote: »

UK government spending (ignoring ALL welfare) is £7,000 per person. To be paying more in tax than is spent on your behalf you need to earn:
> Single person ~£31,000
> Couple (single income) ~£53,000
> Couple (Two equal incomes) 2 children ~£105,000

Remember that this is ignoring ALL welfare again. Also, remember that this is based on current pension and health spending not the ever increasing future costs that we will face that we aren't accruing for. The reality for most is that they are net draws from the public purse.

You missed all indirect taxes.

CLAPTON

N1AK wrote: »

If you need to create that many straw-men to debate a point with then a) you're ability to discuss what others are actually saying doesn't impress and b) you might as well have the whole conversation offline as you're just skipping the interactive part anyway

I haven't made a case here, or elsewhere, for increasing the current MW. Unless we really think we're going to see rampant unemployment at the current MW then your first paragraph is redundant. Beyond which is retraining 100,000 30 year olds who could only justify £6.50ph to be able to do work worth £10ph meant 100,000 higher 'unemployment' for a year then it's money well spent.

As to your second paragraph; unless we're currently subsidising voluntary work then again the points redundant. My issue is with people who want to bring in masses of extremely low paid jobs (which will have to be topped up by the state) thinking that it is a solution to welfare. It isn't, the solution to welfare is to get people into work that can support their lifestyle.

I think it better for the market to decide what jobs are available and at what price.

Abolishing the NMW will allow more people to start up businesses and/ot take on more staff.

I am all for more education and training and am happy for my tax pouinds to pay for that; however I am unconvinced that there are loads of jobs out there just waiting for high trained people to step into them.

I have no idea what you mean 'bring in jobs' : how does that work?

And for the record I don't think the state should top up the income of low paid jobs.. it didn't used to happen until Brown came along and totally distorted the market.

StevieJ

Sweden seem to have a higher standard of living and higher taxes than here, while no minimum wage is applicable it seems that minimum wages are levered by the unions. But all is apparently not rosy, the OECD think that these minimum wages are too high restricting employment opportunities for immigrants. As you can guess the natives are not happy with that proposition

Another Einsteinien quote: "relatively high minimum wages tend to ''push up''' labor costs." WOW how much money do they get paid to come up with gems like that? I can't wait to tell everyone of this new discovery, that paying more raises your costs.

It sounds more like they want to exploit the current social climate that Sweden isn't 'doing enough to help immigrants integrate' as a way to help rich companies get richer. They want to boost employment in any group they could pay unlivable wages to.

As far as immigrant groups being 'mired in poverty' goes, that's some kind of a joke.

Their economy must be in a bad way, let us have a look, read em and weep Georgy Boy

The OECD also said it expects Swedish economic growth to drop to 1.2 percent this year, down from a growth rate of 3.9 percent in 2011.
Growth is expected to recover somewhat in 2013, rising to 1.9 percent before increasing to 3.0 percent in 2014, according to the OECD.

http://www.thelocal.se/jobs/?site=tlse&AID=45122#.UWKbkTc2LTw

N1AK

ukcarper wrote: »

You missed all indirect taxes.

Doh! It's a fair cop. I knew something seemed wrong because I'm sure last time I worked it out including welfare it came out slightly lower should have trusted my gut and double checked. Sorry for misleading people.

The income required to be a net contributor is still quite considerable. You're unlikely to be a net contributor if you have any kids and no one in your household is a higher rate tax payer for example. Even without kids the 'average' wage is below the break even point.

N1AK

CLAPTON wrote: »

I think it better for the market to decide what jobs are available and at what price.

And for the record I don't think the state should top up the income of low paid jobs.. it didn't used to happen until Brown came along and totally distorted the market.

As a basic starting point would you accept that there is, or is not, a point at which a wage would be so low that it would not support someone? If you do then are you suggesting that wages that low should be allowed, that no income support should be provided and the person should be left to starve, freeze or top up their income by crime? Would you take the same position with regards to child benefit; if not are you not concerned you then make having children a very attractive option, if so are you happy with the considerable level of children abandoned to the state due to poverty this would bring?

Benefits for low income households, especially those with children, were around considerably before the last Labour government.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

better to let the market decide and abolish the NMW
then politicians need not be involved

Markets will decide nice and low. Shame the cost of living can't be decided by those paying for it.

In that case be prepared for the shanty towns coming to a town near you.

Perhaps we can get rid of governments and just have a cosy dictator too.