Why don’t we increase the Minimum Wage to cut the Welfare Bill?

[Mr_Squirrel]

And if the employer hasn't got enough money to pay more, how are you going to force him/her to pay it?

 

If the employer has to cease trading, then the employees can all become self-employed and pay themselves as much as they like.

 

'Self-employed' will be the only alternative if all the employers are forced out of business.

 

Most employers can afford to pay substantially more in wages than the current pitiful national minimum wage. they choose not to simply because they can legally get away with not doing so.

When the NMW was introduced, employers protested with passion that "this will put us out of business".... not so! As it turned out, employers soon realised that they ONLY had to pay the NMW... as such, many people who did earn more saw their pay rises reduce and even cease altogether.

 

The NMW became the benchmark for earnings to actually be restricted by.

[Titanic99]

Well probably Tesco's could afford it but does that mean their competitor should just fold? What about the vast amount of companies which are small firms and employ only a few people what would you see happen to them?

 

I'm not sure why you think someone working as a Shop Assistant in Tesco should be worth more than Shop Assistants in other stores.

[Rupert_Baehr]

So you are saying that the Taxpayers from employers who pay decent wages should subsidise those employers who pay poor wages.

 

It's even worse than that. Ultimately it's the taxpayer (be that taxpayer an employer or an employee) who pays for all government expenditure. Under Labour, the government tried to pretend that it could simply borrow money when the taxpayer couldn't pay all the bills. That fallacy has been exposed and people are beginning to realise that you can't just go on borrowing money if you have no intention and no means of paying it back. The taxpayer is subsidising paying for everything the government spends money on.

 

If an employer can only afford to pay, say, £5 an hour but the employee needs £10 an hour to live on, then is it better that the employer should pay £5 and the state should make up the difference, or would you like to see the employer go out of business and the state pay both the (ex) employee and his (ex) employer £10 an hour each?

 

I can see how that would be attractive to those employers interested in making as much money as possible out of others, not particularly fair on the decent employers though.

 

So make the employer who claims he can only afford a low wage prove it. Does he not submit tax returns? Does he not file an annual company return?

[Berberis]

I would ask the obvious question why one particular company can't afford it whilst others can.

 

Economies of scale etc? Are companies with the same job paying such huge differences? Does a toilet cleaner working in company get paid notably more in another company or are such salaries regulated by the market?

[discodown]

I'm not sure why you think someone working as a Shop Assistant in Tesco should be worth more than Shop Assistants in other stores.

I've never ever said that. Stop extrapolating and taking what i'm saying out of context.

 

Tesco's could afford to pay their employees more because they have massive profits. A smaller firm may be working to a tighter budget and not be able to afford it.

 

The fact is you've not thought this thing through. If you think that all firms and employers are on equal ground you're very very wrong

[Titanic99]

I've never ever said that. Stop extrapolating and taking what i'm saying out of context.

 

Tesco's could afford to pay their employees more because they have massive profits. A smaller firm may be working to a tighter budget and not be able to afford it.

 

The fact is you've not thought this thing through. If you think that all firms and employers are on equal ground you're very very wrong

 

It's all relative though, the percentage of profit on a sale should be around the same.

 

What is there to think through, do you think taxpayers should subsidise employers that pay low wages when they could pay more.

[discodown]

It's all relative though, the percentage of profit on a sale should be around the same.

 

What is there to think through, do you think taxpayers should subsidise employers that pay low wages when they could pay more.

Is it though? Take a look at the price of a can of branded beans. Are they the same in every shop?

 

No I think income tax rates should be cut across the board and let people keep the money they've earned. Its a nonsense to give people back their own tax.

[plekhanov]

It always seems ridiculous to me that we have a Welfare System that supports those in low-paid jobs, instead of the lower paid job paying enough to avoid the necessity of Benefit.

 

So rather than us all arguing for cuts in Welfare, why don’t we argue that employers are forced to pay a decent wage to people instead of paying them a pittance and letting the Welfare make up the difference.

Instead of bothering us with your inane ideas why don't email your party bosses in the Labour Party and ask them why they didn't implement this policy of yours?

[Danield]

I think that the answer to our current problem is to ban inheritence, so that the money earned in a generation stays with that generation . The wealth that you created thus dies with you.

[andyofborg]

What is there to think through, do you think taxpayers should subsidise employers that pay low wages when they could pay more.

 

shouldn't you have been saying this while gordon was encouraging the practice with his working tax credits ?