Labour's £113,000 tax rise for people on £80k

Thrugelmir

scaredofdebt wrote: »

Same argument when the minimum wage was first introduced, the inflationary effects were minimal.

The result was the creation of zero hour contracts. Labour costs can only be paid out of profits made.

phillw

Thrugelmir wrote: »

The result was the creation of zero hour contracts. Labour costs can only be paid out of profits made.

zero hour contracts predated minimum wage.

They are mostly used as a way to reprimand staff who complain about working conditions.

Thrugelmir

scaredofdebt wrote: »

The Tories always try to run the economy like a household budget, which it isn't. If you look at how austerity has affected UK wage growth, you'll see that the treasury is about £50bn a year shy of income/VAT receipts due to this policy.

Where do you get your figures from Dianne Abbott?

Wage growth comes from being productive and generating wealth. Not from borrowing yet more money on your credit card.

scaredofdebt

westernpromise wrote: »

No it won't, because that pay rise is a deduction elsewhere. It is not revenue neutral because if someone's not worth £10 an hour, they'll just get sacked.

So it will increase unemployment and the benefits bill and add nothing to any tax receipts. Classic Labournomics.

In fact, given that the top 5% haven't got the £733 billion Labour needs (nearer £800 billion now including the WASPI bribe), people on minimum wage are going to have to be taxed harder, i.e. start paying some.

This is the same nonsense that was trotted out before the minimum wage was first introduced. Didn't happen then, won't happen this time either.

scaredofdebt

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Where do you get your figures from Dianne Abbott?

Wage growth comes from being productive and generating wealth. Not from borrowing yet more money on your credit card.

Look at UK wages vs G7 wages since 2008. UK wages are 10-15% below where they should be, due to austerity. Diane Abbott? Really.

phillw

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Wage growth comes from being productive and generating wealth. Not from borrowing yet more money on your credit card.

Growth requires investment, which normally requires borrowing money.

The idea you can keep scaring people into being more productive because they are just lazy is what the conservatives party is built on.

westernpromise

So when universities were allowed to charge £9,000 a year for a degree rather than £3,000, the price of a degree didn't immediately rise to £9,000?

Increased money supply causes inflation. Absolute textbook example.

Increased minimum wage = inflation, and this time there won't be any 8 million immigrants coming in to offer wages down.

swindiff

Herzlos wrote: »

So you dont think, for instance, Asda forcing staff to move to contracts which reduce their pay and benefits or lose their job is shafting them?

Asda's staff hourly rate actually increased not reduced when they were moved onto the new contract.

westernpromise

scaredofdebt wrote: »

I think the £700bn figure is bogus and the £800bn even more so. Where are these figures from?

Well, they're not from Labour because being utterly dishonest to the bone, the lice are not about to admit to the real number.

However, the IFS suggests they add up to £135 billion a year not including the WASPI bribe or the cost of freezing the pension age at 66 (£24 billion a year by the 2050s) or the free train tickets or any other as yet unannounced bung.
https://www.ifs.org.uk/election/2019/article/labour-manifesto-an-initial-reaction-from-ifs-researchers

They also don't include the cost of renationalising the utilities, trains etc. The CBI suggests this would about £200 billion or more
https://www.cbi.org.uk/media-centre/articles/price-tag-for-labours-renationalisation-starts-at-196-billion-cbi/

So £700 to 800 billion is very, very conservative. As the planned tax raid on "the rich" (= anyone greedy people envy) will raise "less than a tenth of the additional revenue Labour says it would raise", this means robbing other people as well. They will have to rob companies (which will raise prices, reduce salaries and dividends, or simply relocate offshore), and in robbing companies they will rob pensioners.

Basically, everyone will get robbed apart from "the rich" who in many cases can just leave. This means all the taxes will fall on whoever's left. At this point it will become rather painful because the top 1% of taxpayers earn 14% of the money but pay about 30% of the income tax. When that 30% disappears it's going to have to come from someone else.

Income tax and national insurance are about a third of the taxes the state raises. A third of that comes from the 1% so about 10% of the state's revenue, call it £80 billion, comes from that handful. They'll all be gone, so that's another £400 billion to find. So we're up at around £1.2 trillion that will have to be found.

So any nasty little gob5hite who thought they could vote Labour for higher taxes on people they envy and hate can look forward to losing their own job, to higher taxes if they keep it, and to higher prices either way.

Edit: I should also add that the £1.2 trillion does not include the cost of the four-day week. So the NHS, for example, which costs £130 billion a year, will have to spend 25% more on wages. I'm guessing most of that cost is its wage bill so that's probably another £25 billion a year right there. We're closing rapidly in on £1.5 trillion...

Thrugelmir

phillw wrote: »

zero hour contracts predated minimum wage.

They are mostly used as a way to reprimand staff who complain about working conditions.

You seem to know little about employment law in that case.