Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#41
It wouldn't cost the businesses any more because the Government would be paying them the difference; it would mean that people are paid more so will have more money in their pockets to spend.
I take your point though about learning skills and some may not bother if they could earn more doing a fairly menial job. But everyone (?) has aspirations don't they ? People on apprenticeships now, earn low money until they qualify, so they'd probably continue learning.
Self pride and job satisfaction must come into the equation somewhere.
Keith, Barry didn't think it was a good idea before, so I don't expect him to support it now. I'm not losing any sleep over it.
Roger
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#42
But Roger, where would govt find the money - we are £1 trillion in debt
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#43
Instead of paying individuals benefit money, they'd pay the businesses, so they won't be paying out twice.
Roger
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#44
Eh?
So where do the businesses get the money?
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#45
The difference between minimum/living wage and £10.00 would be paid by the Government.
I didn't think I'm being that unclear/obscure.
Roger
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#46
So what about those currently earning £10.00ph, does that rise by £3.00 too?
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#47
1-The self employed work
for themselves,
2-The self employed employ people to work
for them.
3-The employed work
for their living.
a-Yippee!
b-Damn right too!
c-Who gives a damn?
Where do the customers of 1&2 come from?
Why is it
normal for those who work
for themselves to wish to relieve themselves of the burden of the actual work and blame those they employ for all ills?
How is it that those who move from 1 to 2 automatically assume an overlordship as of right? If there
is nothing preventing them from (again) working
for themselves why are the employees always at fault?
'c', it seems, is self explanatory.
I blame Tom More, or his readers, or those who do not read him...
http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/utopia/section3.rhtml
The book, Utopia, itself...
http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/more/utopia-contents.htmlIgnorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#48
although roger's plan is unlikely to come to fruition it is certainly "out of the box" thinking, i haven't seen anything from blue politicians, supporters or fellow travellers that suggests they know how to stimulate growth.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#49
Howard - adding to the deficit with extra state benefits does not stimulate growth.
Your post #48 is factually incorrect. You said """i haven't seen anything from blue politicians, supporters or fellow travellers that suggests they know how to stimulate growth"""
I do not know whether you would label me a 'blue supporter' of 'fellow traveller' but I have been consistent in my suggestions for stimulating growth. These are also shared by many in Parliament including former Chancellors and Ministers. I cannot believe that you have never read my many posts on the subject.
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
#50
I'm with Barry on this one.
It's pretty simple less taxes means more spending & investment for the economy.
Less direct taxation delivers higher tax growth [proven], means more investment. More people working less people on benefits.
Less tax means more investment in training. Successful businesses share their success with their workers.
Less regulation delivers more productive time for business to thrive.
Most businesses are responsible & know to deliver fairness to their workforce delivers benefits to the organisation.
Business entrepreneurs take the risks & should be rewarded according to what the business can sustain given , the above factors.
There is more but that's the basics
Watty
Guest 649- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 14,118
#51
The more the min/wage goes up,the more out of work you will have.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#52
You are with Barry, and no mistake Watty, but twice nothing is still nothing.
less tax=more spending and investment.
Here we are today, and today we hear that those who do not expend much effort in reducing their tax liabilities are fools unto themselves. Do we hear that those who do expend this effort are the ones who are spending and investing today?
What is it that is for the economy tomorrow that is not for the economy today? What magic is to come that is to give freely, to those who today take, all that they could wish and this is to result in there being more for all?
"Less direct taxation delivers higher tax growth [proven]"
Less direct taxation requires higher indirect taxation which in turn increases the tax burden on the less well off. FACT!
Only while the less well off have the wherewithal to spend can there be such "tax growth". Another miracle! Those that have little today will be taxed more and this is to result in there being more for all?
"Less regulation delivers more productive time for business to thrive"
The shops will have to stay open until late, because all the shoppers will be striving for those that are thriving all the live-long day, in turn they will be paid less but have more through less direct taxation, but everything they wish to buy will have risen in price because of higher and higher indirect taxation and this is to result in there being more for all? Miracle number three, can the nailing to the cross be far behind?
"Most businesses are responsible & know to deliver fairness to their workforce delivers benefits to the organisation."
This is just a lie!
"Business entrepreneurs take the risks ...bla bla bla"
These people make a promise to themselves that they will do anything to keep: "To thine own self accrue."
If a new venture falters;wages, income tax, NIC, rent & rates and money owed to suppliers vanishes into thin air. The (so called) entrepreneurs change the company name and continue virtually unscathed. Wiser, perhaps - they may have learned to jump- ship sooner next time.
It is as if it is to become possible to build a tower with few bricks...you just keep on putting one atop another...and so on. Next stop, Cloud Cuckoo Land?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Paul Watkins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 9 Nov 2011
- Posts: 2,226
#53
Tom most businesses in UK are not companies but individually owned businesses who invest their savings, put up their property as bank guarantees and work beyond the working hours norm to see their businesses thrive or fail.
Get some perspective.
Watty
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#54
barry
the imf amongst others have expressed concerns that current coalition policies are leading to stagnation with no prospect of growth.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#55
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.
Guest 651- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 5,673
#56
Bonkers is all I have to say about #55 !!
Been nice knowing you :)
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#57
Returning to the thread.....everyone and his brother in the UK agree it is the way forward .....except the `few`............
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
#58
Paul, my plan would result in a big increase in spending in the economy, as people on £10 an hour NET would have more essential pocket money. This in turn could lead to increased local manufacture as the demand goes up.
Rather than buying 5 Chinese T shirts for 10p, people could afford British made clothes, for example. So we'd restart our lost textile industry, for starters.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#59
reg
57
what is the way forward you refer to?
Guest 745- Registered: 27 Mar 2012
- Posts: 3,370
#60
Give the boss the right to employ and lay of as his business needs, private sector and public sector.
No more need for employment agencies' and the cut they take, it's just an extra tax on workers.
We are living in the age of the .NET, easy for a boss to get in contact with workers today.
Give china and India the ultimatum clean up production practises, balance currencies, and open up there markets, or stop trading with them
Send back the cheep EU workers ,unless they come from countries that have currency balances Similar to the UK
Dump the EU and all the crap.