Dover.uk.com
If this post contains material that is offensive, inappropriate, illegal, or is a personal attack towards yourself, please report it using the form at the end of this page.

All reported posts will be reviewed by a moderator.
  • The post you are reporting:
     
    A £10 an hour NET minimum wage would generally mean redistribution of wealth, be it through a one-off rise in inflation. or by way of the rich and their models the super-rich paying more tax (wealth tax).

    The first option, a one-off rise in inflation of, say, 10-20%, would not negatively effect those passing to £10 an hour NET minimum wage, as they'd still be MUCH better off, whereas those already on £10 an hour could go up to £12 an hour to iron out the difference in inflation. And those on £12 an hour could likewise go up to £14 an hour.
    But that's about it!

    The bonus-bonkers bank-manager kind of top salaries certainly would not be effected by a one-off inflation rise.

    The second option is to avoid an inflation adjustment by simply wealth-taxing the rich to cover a £10 NET minimum wage.

    The third option would be a combination of the first two.

    This is also know as wealth pre-distribution by Labour.

Report Post

 
end link