Blog powered by Typepad

« So what's the Greek for 'when I say NO I mean YES'? | Main | Whoopi for Whoopi! »

Thursday, 09 July 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

As I understand it, you have to view the Living Wage as part of a package designed to shift the cost of employing people from the taxpayer to the employer. And, of course, the state will get more income tax.

If 'the state', quite properly, decides that it no longer wishes to provide the same welfare benefits then it should just cut them and take the cheers and the boos as they come. What they have done, in effect, is to shift welfare benefits onto the wage bills of private businesses. Result? You can expect to see even more empty shops on your High Street!

It's simple, right: -

The only state spending we need is 2% for Defence and 2% for the Police.

Raise the Life Wage to £14k per annum.

Corporation Tax 0%.
VAT 0%.
Income tax 0%.
All other tax 0%.

Print 4% per annum to ensure low, but steady, inflation, and to afford the Toms and Cops.


That's a true 21st century "Liberty Democracy", squared up good and proper to the failed experiment from the 20th century: "Social Democracy".


it seems to me that Osborne is taking a gradualist approach to lots of things. He is reducing working tax credits and increasing the minimum wage. Eventually people will just get what the employer pays them - undoing the Great Snot Gobbler's scheme to make us all slaves of the State.

I quite agree that the primary aim of the government should be to maintain internal law and order and provide external defence. However, it is dreaming to imagine that government activity can be reduced at a stroke - just like that as someone said. Not even Lady Thatcher (pbuh) thought that.

Crikey, SoD, what did you pour over your cornflakes this morning? But just a couple of questions- who pays for roads and who decides where they run? Similarly for power-lines. What happens when emergencies arise - flooding, for example? And so on and on . . .

"Eventually people will just get what the employer pays them". But they won't anymore, BOE, because Osborne has seized that power unto himself - and his successors. Chancellors will now decide how much people are paid. Now is that not the biggest, fattest bribe any politician could wish for?

I just don't understand why he didn't make it £30 an hour.

Then we'd all be rich.

Wouldn't we?

Did I miss something?

Good point about France there. Living wage higher than UK. High unemployment. So migrants don't go there.

Our beloved leaders raise living wage here, unemployment goes up and that should mean that less migrants want to come.

Less immigration, that must be what he was trying to do. Isn't that what we have always wanted.

Makes me reconsider my opinion of politicians.

A. Duffin. Everyone cannot be rich because the clever rich will only extract the money from the not so clever rich. The rich will always be with us.

"But just a couple of questions- who pays for roads and who decides where they run?"

Whichever transport company you decide to give the "Transport" portion of your "Life Wage" to.

Remember, the "Life Wage" covers: -


"Similarly for power-lines."

Similarly, whoever you decide to give the Energy portion of your "Life Wage" to.

"What happens when emergencies arise - flooding, for example?"

Whichever of the "Social 8" that is affected by emergencies to whom you are paying that portion of your "Life Wage" sorts it out.

So if your home is flooded, contact the landlord to whom you are paying the "Shelter" portion of your "Life Wage", etc.

"And so on and on . . ."

And what else are we missing from the now redundant state that isn't covered by the "Life Wage" and the "Social 8"? Having our children abused, old and vulnerable people snuffed out, shit cars, etc. etc., perhaps?


David I agree. A small business person who works hard and cannot afford the wage will fold and join the system he she wanted to avoid.

The devil is in the detail. If overall costs of employing somebody fall then good. If they rise then bad.

The job market is that - a market, the clue is in the name. Raise the price tag you reduce demand. It's not a complicated concept even for members of the government.

As a general rule reducing benefits is good but I have my doubts whether manadting a higher minimum wage won't just increase unemployment among the most vulnerable, esp. the young.

But you're not raising the net price because you're offsetting it with tax cuts for businesses.

You're saying to businesses: 'Instead of taxing you to pay for the Welfare State we're going to give you back the taxes, but, you've got to "pay the tax" to the employees instead, so they can sort their own welfare out'.


I maintain there is no need to raise the minmum wage. The same tax cuts would achieve the same result without pricing young people and under skilled out of low value adding jobs.

The comments to this entry are closed.