£8 an hour minimum wage?

[Tommo68]

Im a firm believer in much of what you said ubermaus.

 

I aslo believe the government has the power to spend only very little where it wants. Different parties are allowed to spend that little with a little autonomy the rest they spend as they are told to and the policies they each make they only do so after getting approval.

 

I also believe that they sometimes try to spend money a certain way or introduce a new policy or legislation only to fail ... because the attempt was only for show.

.

.

[Bonzo77]

It wouldn't free up anything because the money freed up by not paying in work benefits will be swallowed up by those on out of work benefits, remember that the cost of living will go up for everyone when employers increase prices to cover increased wages.

 

Why would the cost of living go up? There's no evidence to suggest that that happens.

 

---------- Post added 06-05-2015 at 14:58 ----------

 

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.

 

What a load of rubbish! The car industry employs millions of people. The technology used to build cars still requires people to create it.

[L00b]

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.

That bit of my post was not about the effectiveness of the redistribution, just about its nature. For that matter, the effectiveness of that redistribution depends on much more than 'how and where the money is distributed', particularly 'how long', 'under what conditions' plus the non-quantifiable direct and indirect effects of independently-acting stakeholders.

Each party has essentially, starting out in may 2015, the same pot of money to play with.

True.

Whether it goes to local public services, into business subsidies or subsidising private wages is for the government in power to decide.

False-ish: the money goes into all of that, and more. The difference between the parties' policies lies the ratio in which the money goes to each, and the expected effect of the varying combinations of ratios. The Tories believe that focusing on self-improvement (private enterprise, job creation) and cost-cutting is key, and set the ratios according to that. Labour believes that interfering pro-actively in the private sector, Keynesian investment and a bit more social engineering is key, and set the ratios according to that. <etc.>

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.

True again, which surprises as to how you got the above bit wrong

 

Bear in mind also, that taking 'no' decision is always a decision, whether the procrastinating government wants it or not.

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.

It would, and nation states have been working the problem awhile.

 

Considering the problem is global (the scale of tax avoidance, in the UK as much as anywhere else, is a by-product of the interplay of international treaties and agreements of old...and I can tell that the US/IRS is the most p***ed about it of them all, and wields the biggest stick about it), unsurprisingly it's taking a while to get it sorted. Just like tax heavens, about done with in this day (notwithstanding the continuing interference from enduring popular myths), and for which it's taken close to 20 years. Thank the US/IRS (mostly) for that one as well.

 

And that's before we've touched on the competitive nature of the beast, i.e. the fact that countries have always competed against one another (via tax incentives and other subsidies) to attract capital & investments (from which jobs and eventually taxable wealth are born) - all the more so since late 2007.

 

And you thought it would be this easy?

Edited May 6, 2015 by L00b

[loraward]

Why would the cost of living go up? There's no evidence to suggest that that happens.

 

---------- Post added 06-05-2015 at 14:58 ----------

 

 

What a load of rubbish! The car industry employs millions of people. The technology used to build cars still requires people to create it.

 

Because business expenses would go up and businesses have a tendency to pass on those increases by increasing their prices and there is zero evidence which counters that fact.

 

You mean design it with the aid of other machines and then build it with other machines, get rids of the machines and you wouldn't be able to afford much at all.

[Bonzo77]

Because business expenses would go up and businesses have a tendency to pass on those increases by increasing their prices and there is zero evidence which counters that fact.

 

You mean design it with the aid of other machines and then build it with other machines, get rids of the machines and you wouldn't be able to afford much at all.

 

Increasing the minimum wage does not trigger inflation.

[sgtkate]

Increasing the minimum wage does not trigger inflation.

 

Give up. It's falling on deaf ears.

[loraward]

Increasing the minimum wage does not trigger inflation.

 

This should help you.

 

http://www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/inflation/causes-inflation/

 

1. Rising wages

 

If trades unions can present a common front then they can bargain for higher wages. Rising wages are a key cause of cost push inflation because wages are the most significant cost for many firms. (higher wages may also contribute to rising demand)

[Bonzo77]

This should help you.

 

http://www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/inflation/causes-inflation/

 

1. Rising wages

 

If trades unions can present a common front then they can bargain for higher wages. Rising wages are a key cause of cost push inflation because wages are the most significant cost for many firms. (higher wages may also contribute to rising demand)

 

No, sorry. Raising the minimum wage does NOT increase the cost of living

[ubermaus]

That bit of my post was not about the effectiveness of the redistribution, just about its nature. For that matter, the effectiveness of that redistribution depends on much more than 'how and where the money is distributed', particularly 'how long', 'under what conditions' plus the non-quantifiable direct and indirect effects of independently-acting stakeholders.

True.

False-ish: the money goes into all of that, and more. The difference between the parties' policies lies the ratio in which the money goes to each, and the expected effect of the varying combinations of ratios. The Tories believe that focusing on self-improvement (private enterprise, job creation) and cost-cutting is key, and set the ratios according to that. Labour believes that interfering pro-actively in the private sector, Keynesian investment and a bit more social engineering is key, and set the ratios according to that. <etc.>

True again, which surprises as to how you got the above bit wrong

 

Bear in mind also, that taking 'no' decision is always a decision, whether the procrastinating government wants it or not.

It would, and nation states have been working the problem awhile.

 

Considering the problem is global (the scale of tax avoidance, in the UK as much as anywhere else, is a by-product of the interplay of international treaties and agreements of old...and I can tell that the US/IRS is the most p***ed about it of them all, and wields the biggest stick about it), unsurprisingly it's taking a while to get it sorted. Just like tax heavens, about done with in this day (notwithstanding the continuing interference from enduring popular myths), and for which it's taken close to 20 years. Thank the US/IRS (mostly) for that one as well.

 

And that's before we've touched on the competitive nature of the beast, i.e. the fact that countries have always competed against one another (via tax incentives and other subsidies) to attract capital & investments (from which jobs and eventually taxable wealth are born) - all the more so since late 2007.

 

And you thought it would be this easy?

 

True, true..every party has the same fundemental issue. I can't see the keynesian economic system changing anytime soon and Until we get that deficit down, borrowing down and work out sustainable revenue generators its a robbing peter to pay paul scenario.

 

---------- Post added 07-05-2015 at 10:38 ----------

 

No, sorry. Raising the minimum wage does NOT increase the cost of living

 

Agreed. Look at the countries with the highest standard of living..norway, denmark etc. Pay is high, tax is high, costs are higher...but society as a whole is richer because people should not live in an economic bubble. Money is spent in the economies on ground level.

[Hotmale 1954]

Spending power goes up and burden on the welfare system comes down. Not all bad.

 

---------- Post added 05-05-2015 at 19:05 ----------

 

As someone else said why should the tax payer subsidise big business which doesnt pay its workers properly and in many cases dodges tax?

 

Nope. You'll buy less for your £8 an hour when it's introduced, than you can with the minimum hourly wage now.

Like I said, if companies costs go up by £2 a man, they'll all raise their prices by £3 a man so that they continue to rip us off.