discodown Posted July 4, 2010 Share Posted July 4, 2010 So are you arguing that the quality of the work done by the person on the Minimum Wage is responsible for the differing performance between the companies. From my experiences in Businesses there are far more important factors than this that determine the profits of the company. It sounds to me that you think company directors/owners/managers can be as crap as they like because at the end of the day then can pay their staff a pittance and get them supported by the state. Of course he isn't. Are you seriously and really arguing that all companies are the same with the same profit margins and could afford to keep all their employees at a higher wage rate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted July 4, 2010 Author Share Posted July 4, 2010 So when Labour paid Tax Credits it was ok but now its not Labour they suck? Is that the jist of what you're saying? Not at all, Tax Credits are there to support those people whose employes pay them a low wage. Point of the thread is why don't we make employers pay more to reduce this cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discodown Posted July 4, 2010 Share Posted July 4, 2010 Not at all, Tax Credits are there to support those people whose employes pay them a low wage. Point of the thread is why don't we make employers pay more to reduce this cost. Why didn't Labour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted July 4, 2010 Author Share Posted July 4, 2010 Of course he isn't. Are you seriously and really arguing that all companies are the same with the same profit margins and could afford to keep all their employees at a higher wage rate? Of course companies aren't the same, what is the same though is that under existing rules companies can be different rates for the same roles and one of them will need to be subsidised by the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted July 4, 2010 Author Share Posted July 4, 2010 Why didn't Labour? Well they actually did by introduing the Minimum Wage, if they hadn't done the situation would have been a lot worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted July 4, 2010 Share Posted July 4, 2010 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. Sounds fair. Provided that the money that you earn you keep and can dispose of as you see fit while you are alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted July 4, 2010 Share Posted July 4, 2010 Sorry to bother you, but I will point out the discussion has interested others who have decided to debate it in a civilised manner. I wasn't aware of a Forum rule that stated threads can only be started if you find them interesting, but I will consider this in the future. Regardless of who the thread may or may not be interesting to that fact is that this is yet another of the threads you've started to try and knock the coalition and its policies since your party was finally turfed out of office. The fact is though that Labour had over a decade to repeatedly "increase the Minimum Wage to cut the Welfare Bill" and I don't recall you starting threads complaining about this. Yet with your party in opposition as if by magic you're suddenly you seem to be starting thread after thread complaining about the new government not implementing within a few weeks your party failed to do in over a decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted July 4, 2010 Author Share Posted July 4, 2010 Sounds fair. Provided that the money that you earn you keep and can dispose of as you see fit while you are alive. How do you define "Earn", to me this means someone who is meriting and deserving of something and I can see how being born into a particular family means you are more deserving of something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discodown Posted July 4, 2010 Share Posted July 4, 2010 Of course companies aren't the same, what is the same though is that under existing rules companies can be different rates for the same roles and one of them will need to be subsidised by the state.And that is free market economics. People are free to change jobs, you aren't married to your employer What would you like to see? You want the NMW raised which might, just might force people out of work. I say why don't we lower tax and allow people to keep what they earn, that probably wouldn't put people out of work and might help us out recession and provide a further incentive to work and stay off benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discodown Posted July 4, 2010 Share Posted July 4, 2010 How do you define "Earn", to me this means someone who is meriting and deserving of something and I can see how being born into a particular family means you are more deserving of something.Do you not feel your children merit what you leave them when you die? If not make a will and leave it all to your favourite union! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.