maxmaximus Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 a company that pays low wages - Starbucks make more profit and pay more tax - err, not Starbucks It's the rest of we taxpayers who are subsidising Starbucks' shareholders' income. Maybe you should buy some shares if it bothers you, at least that way you will get some of the money back you think you are paying in subsidies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Nope, I thought about it plenty. Clearly still not enough. The current system is a complete shamblesI agree and your argument is poor - But a better argument than you thinking everyone who pays tax subsidises low wages. the bit were it all falls apart for you is companies paying tax. A lot of companies avoid paying huge chunks of tax. But most do and it is the tax they pay that subsidises low wages. It would be better if living costs weren't artificially high and there was no complex system in place to top up wages to cope.Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 If the Government of the day took back all the brass that the extreeeeemly rich have and then gave every man in the Country a million pounds, within a year there would be multimillionaires, and some with bugger all - fact of life. Angel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caparo Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Yes, agree with that. If businesses had to pay wages that met the full cost of living they would get a shock - the minimum wage would be nearer £10/hour for one breadwinner to support a very basic lifestyle for their family. Like you say the taxpayer funds the difference. But that would mean we were even less competitive compared to manufacturers in places like Slovakia where the average wage is around 20% of what it is here. Slovakia is part of the EU and is already making massive inroads into the UK market with motor manufactures such as KIA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 But that would mean we were even less competitive compared to manufacturers in places like Slovakia where the average wage is around 20% of what it is here. Slovakia is part of the EU and is already making massive inroads into the UK market with motor manufactures such as KIA. We pay it anyway. We pay it now through tax credits, housing benefit etc... We're already incompetitive because of it. The biggest drag is unsustainable rents and house prices - a nut that has to be cracked before interest rates rise because otherwise we're sitting on a time bomb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caparo Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 If the Government of the day took back all the brass that the extreeeeemly rich have and then gave every man in the Country a million pounds, within a year there would be multimillionaires, and some with bugger all - fact of life. Angel. The French have a new president called Francois Hollande. He came to power promising a 75% tax rate for the super rich. By the time he came to office the French hardly had any super rich to tax. Most had moved their registered addresses to their homes in Brussels, London and Geneva. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 But a better argument than you thinking everyone who pays tax subsidises low wages. Everybody who pays tax subsidises low wages. It's a fact. Again, you can't claim that it is only the tax paid by high earners that does this. It doesn't work that way - nobody can say what exactly their taxes go to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 ...The biggest drag is unsustainable rents and house prices - a nut that has to be cracked before interest rates rise because otherwise we're sitting on a time bomb. I agree - but I'm not sure how that could be done in England (Wales and Scotland are different cases, IMO.) It's not the case that 'market forces' cap rents. - There are plenty of low-income people living in London who can't afford the rent of their homes. The rents don't go down because the taxpayer subsidises many of those who cannot afford to pay the full amount. If there were no rent subsidies, or rent subsidies were capped, then either: (a) The people who had to pay those rents would have to be paid more or (b) They would have to move away and the work they do would not be done. 40 or so year ago, if you were looking for a job, you might have had to move to a place where there were jobs. Nowadays, you have to move to a place where there are not only jobs, but where there is also an adequate supply of accommodation at a standard you are prepared to accept and a price you are prepared to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxmaximus Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 Everybody who pays tax subsidises low wages. It's a fact. Again, you can't claim that it is only the tax paid by high earners that does this. It doesn't work that way - nobody can say what exactly their taxes go to. If it gives you a warm feeling thinking they do, then go for it, but clearly you are wrong. As an example a family with two children with one working adult on minimum wage gets substantially more tax credits and child tax credits then they pay out in tax, so they are not subsidizing their next door neighbours tax credits or their own tax credits. They won’t even be paying enough tax to cover the cost of educating their children let alone all the other services they receive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted October 21, 2012 Share Posted October 21, 2012 The French have a new president called Francois Hollande. He came to power promising a 75% tax rate for the super rich. By the time he came to office the French hardly had any super rich to tax. Most had moved their registered addresses to their homes in Brussels, London and Geneva. so its not only the super rich who live here who get out of paying taxes they even do it abroad? i wonder why some people still think its ok for the super rich to avoid paying their taxes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.