£8 an hour minimum wage?

[ubermaus]

The argument on these boards seems to be from small firms worried they cant afford wages. There's 140bn floating around in unpaid taxes and offshore accounts. We get that sorted and it fills a big whole in the deficit, thus spending/lendn can increase

 

---------- Post added 06-05-2015 at 10:54 ----------

 

100% agreed.

 

It seems obvious doesnt it? We only have a general scarcity mentality because the pie has been squished and the media control peoples minds with fearful rhetoric. Theres loads of money in the economy but 99% of people in the uk will never see it under the current economic env.

 

There are massive tax breaks for wealthy individuals to invest in sme's. I had a 90 minute meeting with one 2 weeks ago. Money is literally sitting in accounts doing nothing.

 

So why not funnel some of that wealth into a nlw, after all a better paid worker is a happy, more skilled and productive worker.

Edited May 6, 2015 by ubermaus
....

[L00b]

Why should public subsidise private wages, any reason?

The "public" can only spend what it raises from the "private"(which, by and large, is tax on profits derived from economic activity).

 

In that context, for the time being, the "public" subsidises "private" wages to help force the redistribution of wealth from businesses (through taxed profits) to their employees and society (taxed profits turned into wtc, etc.)

 

The alternative of increasing wages by Statute (e.g. set NM at living wage level) against a corresponding reduction in profit taxation could work right now, but that is still only an exercise in equilibrating the level of the communicating vases (requirements of public vs taxation of private), and does not begin to touch the deficit and eventually the debt: continuing with the communicating vases analogy, the deficit is only run to stop the level in the system from dropping (because there is a continuing, but now steadily dropping, imbalance), not to increase it.

Lower tax, corp tax and rates etc for small businesses.

Not going to happen whilever there is an imbalance (see above)/deficit to bring down. When the deficit is done with, then yes.

[ubermaus]

Am slowly coming round to the idea of co-operatives. Theres a great business called 'whole foods' in america. I believe its coming to the uk v.soon. its an example of a mne that makes profit that still operates under co-operative principles, sells quality foods yet pays its people from the shop floor upwards a fair wage.

Edited May 6, 2015 by ubermaus
..

[loraward]

There are so, so many studies to show that you are wrong here I cannot even be bothered to post links. Go google a bit and come back.

 

If what you are saying is true then none of us would have anymore than we did 100 years ago. I'm fairly sure I'm better off than my parents were and they were better off than their parents, but surely that must be an illusion because their wages went up so they couldn't have afforded to buy anything more as the cost of living would have gone up in direct proportion.

 

Producing goods today requires less people power than it did a century ago because machines do most of the work, if everything was still produced by people you wouldn't be able to afford a car, a TV and your standard of living would be much lower.

[evil woman]

If the minimum wage goes up to a tenner, does that mean everyone else's wages go up proportionally? If, for example, a skilled worker with a trade currently earns 12 quid an hour, will that go up or are we saying that spending years as an apprentice and getting qualifications and experience is not worth bothering with, as you could earn almost as much collecting trolleys in asda.

 

No it just means that it becomes more attractive for folk to move production to Bulgaria where minimum wages is 184 Euros per month.

 

---------- Post added 06-05-2015 at 11:27 ----------

 

Producing goods today requires less people power than it did a century ago because machines do most of the work, if everything was still produced by people you wouldn't be able to afford a car, a TV and your standard of living would be much lower.

 

But the majority of those comodities are now made overseas and imported into the UK. I don't think their is such a thing as a UK made TV any more. My TV came from a Korean manufacturer but the components mainly come from China.

[loraward]

No it just means that it becomes more attractive for folk to move production to Bulgaria where minimum wages is 184 Euros per month.

 

---------- Post added 06-05-2015 at 11:27 ----------

 

 

But the majority of those comodities are now made overseas and imported into the UK. I don't think their is such a thing as a UK made TV any more. My TV came from a Korean manufacturer but the components mainly come from China.

 

Still made by machines and very cheap labour, could you imagine the cost of a British made TV that didn't involve machines in its manufacture.

[evil woman]

Still made by machines and very cheap labour, could you imagine the cost of a British made TV that didn't involve machines in its manufacture.

 

It would be similar to a Korean built one apart from the labour costs. It is one reason why Dyson had to move production from the UK.

 

We could double or even treble wages but it would only benefit folk who still had a job.

[loraward]

It would be similar to a Korean built one apart from the labour costs. It is one reason why Dyson had to move production from the UK.

 

We could double or even treble wages but it would only benefit folk who still had a job.

 

My point is that only the very wealthy would be able to afford an hand built TV made in the UK. They got cheaper because machines and cheap foreign labour are used instead of British workers.

[Tommo68]

.....the majority of those comodities are now made overseas and imported into the UK. I don't think their is such a thing as a UK made TV any more. My TV came from a Korean manufacturer but the components mainly come from China.

 

Imagine having to pay the real cost of things like tv's, smart phones, computers, cars, white goods etc if they were all produced in this country.

 

How long do you think it would be before people began to realise that they can live without some or even all of them? Its almost unthinkable but some people especially the young would perhaps learn to talk to each other face to face and even begin to realise that anyone who thinks that they have more than a handful of friends is deluding themself.

.

.

[ubermaus]

The "public" can only spend what it raises from the "private"(which, by and large, is tax on profits derived from economic activity).

 

In that context, for the time being, the "public" subsidises "private" wages to help force the redistribution of wealth from businesses (through taxed profits) to their employees and society (taxed profits turned into wtc, etc.)

 

The alternative of increasing wages by Statute (e.g. set NM at living wage level) against a corresponding reduction in profit taxation could work right now, but that is still only an exercise in equilibrating the level of the communicating vases (requirements of public vs taxation of private), and does not begin to touch the deficit and eventually the debt: continuing with the communicating vases analogy, the deficit is only run to stop the level in the system from dropping (because there is a continuing, but now steadily dropping, imbalance), not to increase it.

Not going to happen whilever there is an imbalance (see above)/deficit to bring down. When the deficit is done with, then yes.

 

Firstly, what you call "the redistribution of wealth from businesses (through taxed profits) to their employees and society (taxed profits turned into wtc, etc.) " the effectiveness of such is dependant on how and where the money is distributed. Each party has essentially, starting out in may 2015, the same pot of money to play with. Whether it goes to local public services, into business subsidies or subsidising private wages is for the government in power to decide.

 

What I'm trying to point out is this is a decision - there's no right or wrong answer. It's all down to priorities. It's clear to see where each parties agenda lies if we look closely.

 

In bold. It's a asynchronous cycle, if the public has more money to spend in the economy, private makes more profit thus pays more taxes. Now if big business was forced to pay taxes in much the same way small businesses are wouldnt that be grand.

Edited May 6, 2015 by ubermaus
....