tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141759542968821728.post750617403903551294..comments2024-01-01T16:01:35.711+00:00Comments on Dick Puddlecote: "We're Broke!", Cries MilibandDick Puddlecotehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01481866882188932892noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141759542968821728.post-50868008228852408082012-11-08T23:12:56.917+00:002012-11-08T23:12:56.917+00:00I thought we already had this - it's called th...I thought we already had this - it's called the statutory minimum wage isn't it?Dioclesenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141759542968821728.post-65870900738968716492012-11-06T12:28:11.012+00:002012-11-06T12:28:11.012+00:00Each year, following the budget, the Times publish...Each year, following the budget, the Times publishes take home pay for households in various financial situations. For a familyy on a low income, with two children, family tax credits and other benefits are responsible for a marginal rate of income tax of over 70%. Therefore an increase in the minimum wage of £1.26 an hour will give those involved only 38p an hour extra. It will, though, benefit the single childless person on the minimum wage, which in my view is a good thing. Family tax credits are a cunning way of hiding what is effectively a large tax on the childless poor (they are a negative income tax). In 1977, the sort of low skilled warehouse stacking jobs I'd do as a student paid a decent wage. These summer job wages were about the same as a good graduate starting salary (when they really were graduate jobs). Today that would be at least £20K. They probably now pay £12K and, for those with children, this is brought up to £20 with tax credits and benefits. The single childless receive no such benefits and their income has fallen sharply in relative terms.JonathanBagleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141759542968821728.post-34220975299703833982012-11-06T01:32:23.004+00:002012-11-06T01:32:23.004+00:00It also causes some employers for certain lower pa...It also causes some employers for certain lower paid job skills to not hire legally and keeping tax records of payments but to hire illegally and paying cash wages under the table. It's sort of like how higher sin-taxes lead to more black-marketeering, so mandated higher minimum wages, higher benefits, etc., all at no cost to government but at great cost to struggling businesses results in a black-market of labour pool who are often in the country illegally on top of working cash under the table and nobody, employer or employee, paying taxes on it, avoiding the tax the same way black-market goods avoid the high sin taxes.Tomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141759542968821728.post-4446904729671769422012-11-05T21:09:46.137+00:002012-11-05T21:09:46.137+00:00I often feel it must be a constant source of embar...I often feel it must be a constant source of embarrassment to politicians who believe in the minimum wage that they still tax what they claim is a basic income. I think it's the Joseph Rowntree Foundation or some such who said it was the difference between subsistence and poverty. In which case, why is the state taxing the destitute? <br /><br /><br />They can moralise to us once the tax threshold rises above around £12k per annum, until then ... <br /><br /><br />(of course, when the living wage is brought in, they will have to raise it to £14.5k to avoid being hypocritical)Dick_Puddlecotenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141759542968821728.post-55918311010322447842012-11-05T20:28:22.803+00:002012-11-05T20:28:22.803+00:00Inflationary, indeed. It's a potential return ...Inflationary, indeed. It's a potential return to the price/wages spiral of the 1970s. Is it really that long ago that people have forgotten?<br /><br /><br />As for government paying extra for external services, we all know who pays eventually for that, don't we?Dick_Puddlecotenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141759542968821728.post-12595498660343582192012-11-05T19:58:50.579+00:002012-11-05T19:58:50.579+00:00As has been pointed out else-internet[1]...
37.5h...As has been pointed out else-internet[1]...<br /><br />37.5hrs * 48 weeks * £7.45 'living wage' produces a net salary of £11,650.84[2] this tax year.<br /><br />That works out to (£11,650.84/(37.5*48)) = £6.472*<br /><br />The current minimum wage is £6.19[3]<br /><br />"If you want to improve the incomes of the working poor the obvious answer is to stop taxing them so damn much.[1]" i.e. set the lower bound of Income tax and NI to exactly the wage provided by a full year's employment at the minimum wage.<br /><br /><br /><br />[1] http://timworstall.com/2012/11/04/more-of-this-living-wage-shit (among others)<br />[2] http://www.listentotaxman.com/index.php<br />[3] https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage-ratesP JHhttp://profiles.google.com/pauljherringnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3141759542968821728.post-15221800390423464982012-11-05T19:43:35.667+00:002012-11-05T19:43:35.667+00:00Well, if the government wants to pay more for exte...Well, if the government wants to pay more for external services, go ahead. And surely the whole thing is inherently inflationary.Curmudgeonnoreply@blogger.com