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

[Titanic99]

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.

 

It did repeatedly increase the Minimum Wage, not enough as I'd have liked but certainly more than the other major parties.

 

The difference between now and then is that this Government want to reduce the Welfare Bill, I've offered a suggestion for discussion which most people have entered into in a civilised way.

[discodown]

The difference between now and then is that this Government want to reduce the Welfare Bill, I've offered a suggestion for discussion which most people have entered into in a civilised way.

And you oppose lowering the welfare bill because?

[plekhanov]

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.

I'm arguing nothing of the kind and fail to see how you could honestly conclude that I did. You seem particularly hard of understanding today so I shall try to explain again using a specific example. Take two hypothetical businesses:

 

A pub

An accountants

 

The pub is clearly likely to have a much higher proportion of employees on the minimum wage than an accountants that's just the nature of the business they're in. So even if the two companies were equally profitable the pub is likely to find a rise in the minimum wage harder to afford. How can you not understand this? It really isn't complicated.

[Titanic99]

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!

 

No they've done nothing to merit this so they haven't earned the right to receive it.

 

I would of course be happy to trade my worth for my average share of the nations wealth (£125,000 *4=£500,000) so if you can arrange a swap then I'd be more than grateful.

[Titanic99]

I'm arguing nothing of the kind and fail to see how you could honestly conclude that I did. You seem particularly hard of understanding today so I shall try to explain again using a specific example. Take two hypothetical businesses:

 

A pub

An accountants

 

The pub is clearly likely to have a much higher proportion of employees on the minimum wage than an accountants that's just the nature of the business they're in. So even if the two companies were equally profitable the pub is likely to find a rise in the minimum wage harder to afford. How can you not understand this? It really isn't complicated.

 

The Pub is a good example, some Pubs will pay above minimum wage whilst others don't.

 

Why should those earning the higher figure subsidise those who aren't when they are effectively doing the same job.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Not at all, Tax Credits are there to support those people whose employes pay them a low wage.

 

Really? From the Inland Revenue webpage on tax credits:

 

"Example 1

 

Mr and Mrs Khan both work full-time. Between them, they earn about £25,000 a year. They have three children. They get about £92 a week in tax credits.

 

If their income was higher, and they earned about £50,000 a year, they'd get about £10 a week instead."

 

So somebody on £50,000 a year is a low paid worker?

 

Not on my planet, he isn't.

 

Point of the thread is why don't we make employers pay more to reduce this cost.

 

Because there is a thing called 'the point of diminishing returns.' If you increase taxes on employers then eventually they will reduce the number of people they employ. If you make employing people in the UK unattractive, the employer may well move out of the UK. (Does anybody remember a guy called Dyson?)

 

There are only 2 or 3 ways of creating wealth:

 

1. Mine something out of the earth. (You can only do that once.)

2. Grow something. Plant seeds, grow a crop, sell the crop. - You have created wealth.

3. Make something. Use raw materials and your skill to create something which is more valuable than the cost of the materials. Painting a picture on canvas may not be a manufacturing industry, but if people want to buy that picture and are prepared to pay more than the cost of the materials, then the person who painted it has created wealth.

 

All other jobs are services which - although they may be highly desirable because they improve the quality of life (and in some cases improve the length of it too) - do not create any wealth. All those services have to be paid for and to pay for them you need the wealth-producing activities.

 

Printing money does not create wealth. If a country prints money then other countries will be less willing to buy that money and will be prepared to pay less for it.

[plekhanov]

It did repeatedly increase the Minimum Wage,

And their was a corresponding fall in the welfare bill each time was there?

 

not enough as I'd have liked but certainly more than the other major parties.

 

The difference between now and then is that this Government want to reduce the Welfare Bill, I've offered a suggestion for discussion which most people have entered into in a civilised way.

Really so Labour didn't want to reduce the welfare bill then? I don't recall them saying this.

 

Do you honestly expect your pathetic evasions to convince anyone this most recent thread of yours is anything but yet another attempt at party political point scoring from one of the boards most abject party hacks.

[Titanic99]

Really? From the Inland Revenue webpage on tax credits:

 

"Example 1

 

Mr and Mrs Khan both work full-time. Between them, they earn about £25,000 a year. They have three children. They get about £92 a week in tax credits.

 

If their income was higher, and they earned about £50,000 a year, they'd get about £10 a week instead."

 

So somebody on £50,000 a year is a low paid worker?

 

Not on my planet, he isn't.

 

 

 

Because there is a thing called 'the point of diminishing returns.' If you increase taxes on employers then eventually they will reduce the number of people they employ. If you make employing people in the UK unattractive, the employer may well move out of the UK. (Does anybody remember a guy called Dyson?)

 

There are only 2 or 3 ways of creating wealth:

 

1. Mine something out of the earth. (You can only do that once.)

2. Grow something. Plant seeds, grow a crop, sell the crop. - You have created wealth.

3. Make something. Use raw materials and your skill to create something which is more valuable than the cost of the materials. Painting a picture on canvas may not be a manufacturing industry, but if people want to buy that picture and are prepared to pay more than the cost of the materials, then the person who painted it has created wealth.

 

All other jobs are services which - although they may be highly desirable because they improve the quality of life (and in some cases improve the length of it too) - do not create any wealth. All those services have to be paid for and to pay for them you need the wealth-producing activities.

 

Printing money does not create wealth. If a country prints money then other countries will be less willing to buy that money and will be prepared to pay less for it.

 

So are you arguing that some types of jobs will always be dependent on financial assistance from the state, irrespective of how much money the owner of the Business makes?

[Titanic99]

And their was a corresponding fall in the welfare bill each time was there?

 

 

 

I think you display a lack of understanding of how the Benefit sytem works, quite simply if you increase someones net wages then you decrease the amount of Benefits and Tax Credits you pay out to them.

 

So Yes is the answer if the rules have been applied correctly.

[discodown]

So are you arguing that some types of jobs will always be dependent on financial assistance from the state, irrespective of how much money the owner of the Business makes?

No he isn't. But some jobs are like that.

 

Do you only take what you want from posts and not read them properly?