The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

We should abolish the minimum wage to help the poor

Scroll to see replies

Original post by AlexandrTheGreat
It doesn't necessarily mean more people working. Do you understand the concept of price elasticity?

Also, because of the tax credit system, the lower you push wages the more the government pays in benefits to working people. You did realise that it's not just the unemployed who receive benefits, didn't you? That it's means tested... you realised that, didn't you?


And as we've started discussing the economic principles, lets say that with the lower price level - resulting from lower production costs and therefore lower price level, exports will increase (as exports are now comparatively cheaper). This provides and injection of capital into the economy, using the multiplier principle, a small injection causes a proportionally larger increase in consumption --> increased demand for labour, pushing wages up.

Also the government doesn't subsidise people's incomes (provided they work over a given number of hours) they just don't tax the proceeds.
Original post by Hunarench95
You lower the price of anything then consumption (or in this case employment) increases..?


That's called the law of supply of demand, not price elasticity.
Original post by Hunarench95

Also the government doesn't subsidise people's incomes


Oh how cute. You've never heard of "tax" credits.
Minimum wage might mean fewer employed in the first instance
However, those employed would have more money, giving some disposable income
Giving increased spending
More buoyant economy
Employment increases

Or is that too simple
Original post by TenOfThem
Minimum wage might mean fewer employed in the first instance
However, those employed would have more money, giving some disposable income
Giving increased spending
More buoyant economy
Employment increases

Or is that too simple


Common sense. How very dare you ;-)
Original post by AlexandrTheGreat
Oh how cute. You've never heard of "tax" credits.


Does this mean that I've won our little debate? :cool:
Original post by Hunarench95
Does this mean that I've won our little debate? :cool:


Does this mean you're dodging the question?

I accept your surrender.
Original post by CelticSymphony67
It will rise because people would rather be on the dole than get paid £5 a hour. Would you work for £5 a hour? Or would you stay at home, claims £72 a week JSA and have your rent and council tax paid? Trust me, the welfare bill would shoot through the roof, because there is no incentive to work for £5 a hour, not in 2013.

We all agree that the welfare bill needs to come down, and to do this:

Slash corporation tax from 22% to 12% for businesses, which will cost £18 Billon.
Hike the minimum wage to £9 a hour.
Put the Personal Allowance up from £9,440 to £15,000, which will cost £15 Billion.

How do we pay for this? You are thinking.

We put VAT up to 22%, that will raise £14 Billion a year.
Abolish all in work tax credits, which will save £24 Billion.
Put the higher tax rate back up to 50%.

I have a small pub in Scotland, and I have a manager and four staff. The most expensive cost I have is corporation tax. My Corporation Tax bill for 2012 was £97,000. If I could have this halved, then I would be more than happy to pay my staff a new NMW of £9 a hour, as I would be able to afford too.

I know what I'm suggesting is not going to happen in this country, but all you have to do is look over the Irish Sea, and they don't tax you on your first €16,500 of earnings and the NMW is €8.60 a hour, 12.5% Corporation Tax, and VAT is 23%, which pays for the NMW and the massive Personal Allowance. My Uncle is Mechanic, and he takes home €800 a week.

Before someone mentions the Bailout, it has nothing to do with NMW, the bankers got greedy and the government had to bail out the banks, like here in the UK, the reason Ireland went under is because it has a population of 4 Million, the UK has 60 Million, so the UK has more tax revenue. also in Ireland, the years Council Tax is capped at just €100 a year!


Forgive me, I thought that to receive unemployment welfare you must be actively seeking work - if you are offered a number of suitable job and refuse to take any, you lose that welfare?

Oh I do agree with reducing corporation tax and increasing the minimum tax-free allowance!
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by AlexandrTheGreat
Yeah, this would absolutely be the case if we didn't have a massive reserve army of immigrant scab labour.

Then again, the corporate right absolutely loves immigration because it undermines the pay, conditions and job security of the working class.


Yes, it gives them a bigger pool of labour. Furthermore, it gives them more consumers.

On the other hand, you have to consider that immigrants tend to have better attitudes than British working class. I'm all for British First, as long as they can do a good job. Unfortunately, the working class in this country have a terrible attitude problem and sense of entitlement. That's why I'm glad for the Eastern European workers.
Original post by AlexandrTheGreat
Does this mean you're dodging the question?

I accept your surrender.


Hahaha you sir should be in the House of Commons :wink:

I didn't think there was anything left to question?
Original post by rcummins1
Surely a compromise would be to allow companies to pay free-market wages, then for the Government to subsidise it so that it falls in line with a minimum wage figure?


which is a 'big government' , 'client state', Labour ( the party) wet dream

how do you propose the government provides even more subsidy to these individuals ? ( bearing in mind that working tax credits and at least some HB /CTB is payable to many minimum wage earners especially if they have a partner and /or children)
Original post by Hunarench95
Hahaha you sir should be in the House of Commons :wink:


Lol, how can I debate you now? What you just said to me is like when you rub the back of a cats neck and they go all spas tic and contented.
Original post by PythianLegume
Doesn't this just leave companies open to paying 1p/hour because the government are happy to top it up, thus getting the government to pay for private sector wages?


exactly , abandoning the NMW and putting that kind of policy in place would just lead to a race to the bottom on wages ... and it wouldn't just be Minimum wage jobs that would have a race to the bottom either ...
Reply 73
Why not just shoot poor people,


Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Dirac Delta Function
Yes, it gives them a bigger pool of labour. Furthermore, it gives them more consumers.

On the other hand, you have to consider that immigrants tend to have better attitudes than British working class. I'm all for British First, as long as they can do a good job. Unfortunately, the working class in this country have a terrible attitude problem and sense of entitlement. That's why I'm glad for the Eastern European workers.


like the third generation doleites in ex mining areas complaining there are 'no jobs' meanwhile local employers are bussing in a mixture of the few natives who are prepared to work for a living and EU accession state nationals from the nearest big city , then people wonder why supervisory and management roles in these firms are up to half EU accession state nationals ...
Original post by Hunarench95
Forgive me, I thought that to receive unemployment welfare you must be actively seeking work - if you are offered a number of suitable job and refuse to take any, you lose that welfare?

Oh I do agree with reducing corporation tax and increasing the minimum tax-free allowance!

You are spot on. You do supposed to look for work to receive JSA, but there are a lot of folk out there who don't unfortunately. I personally am in favour of people getting JSA at say a full rate for nine months, and if they have failed to get a job busy that date, then the persons JSA should be halved until that person gets a job.
Original post by AlexandrTheGreat
Actually it hasn't. In fact, just the opposite has been shown in many cases.

Those who make the case you do seem to be completely ignorant of price elasticity.


You've made a few posts in this thread I've read all saying pretty much the same thing. All you do is insert an academic term and comment on the assumed ignorance of those you quote, as if it simply makes your argument for you.

And to be honest I really don't understand the point you seem to think it so elegantly makes. Minimum wage labour probably is fairly price inelastic for those with room in their budget. But if the cost of employment is increased, then there will be companies who simply cannot afford to hire a new employee who would have otherwise done so. Is that not accepted as a determining factor in price elasticity anyway?
Reply 77
Lets be honest the poor are lazy and they barely get off their arses for the minimum wage when they can sit at home sponging off benefits so why would they get out of bed for less.
So many Keynesians in this thread; how depressing.
Reply 79
Original post by AlexandrTheGreat
Oh how cute. You've never heard of "tax" credits.


You could also argue that tax credits are subsidising big business to allow them to attract staff without paying a living wage.

I understand the argument for having more people employed if there was no minimum wage. However I'm not sure it would help the poor. Would someone really be better off if their wages were so low that their commute to work cost more than they earned? Where's the retail spending power to help drive the economy if there are a significant number of people who can't even afford to eat? Also by extension what would that do to health services?

Latest

Trending

Trending