Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Awol]

 

 

I think the minimum wage debate has been one sided for years, all I ever hear is small business can't afford it - soon after which it gets kicked into the long grass. That's why people are starving and freezing in their rented accommodation.

Part of the answer has already been mooted by Awol, with the lowering of tax on small and new businesses.

That's exactly the point though, isn't it? How many of those who would reflexively call for an increase in minimum wage would be as vociferous about taxes on SME's being lowered? Not many I'd wager, because it seems to me that many view employers/business in general as the 'enemy' exploiting the poor workers. Great for one's Marxist cred's but not so smart for running an economy.

I'd wager it would be more than you think. The biggest enemy of small business at the moment is the current free market model that only looks after the big corporations. Us lefty's want a nation of small businesses.

 

I'm with you, the big corporations are the enemy of small business, which in turn makes them the enemy of strong communities (although I despise the way that word has been hijacked by the race industry in the UK) which are built around small businesses.

 

My point was simply this: A minimum wage set at a liveable standard is a good thing in principal and would have to be universally applied if rolled out. Therefore how is that achieved without pushing under small businesses with tight margins that cannot afford it? Is it best done as a blunt instrument through a higher minimum wage with corresponding tax reductions on a sliding scale - i.e. the smaller the company the lower the corporation tax - or is there another way that avoids the fiendishly complicated and expensive methods of redistribution favoured by the last government?

 

Strange as it may seem from someone allegedly from the far-right of VTland, I think giving all people the chance to earn a living wage and the corresponding dignity and pride that bestows is massively important for society.  Small businesses also play their part, as do stable families. Big capital and the monopolies it creates is anathema to all of those things.      

Edited January 26, 2014 by Awol

[Kingfisher]

I think the minimum wage debate has been one sided for years, all I ever hear is small business can't afford it - soon after which it gets kicked into the long grass. That's why people are starving and freezing in their rented accommodation.

Part of the answer has already been mooted by Awol, with the lowering of tax on small and new businesses.

That's exactly the point though, isn't it? How many of those who would reflexively call for an increase in minimum wage would be as vociferous about taxes on SME's being lowered? Not many I'd wager, because it seems to me that many view employers/business in general as the 'enemy' exploiting the poor workers. Great for one's Marxist cred's but not so smart for running an economy.

I'd wager it would be more than you think. The biggest enemy of small business at the moment is the current free market model that only looks after the big corporations. Us lefty's want a nation of small businesses.

I'm with you, the big corporations are the enemy of small business, which in turn makes them the enemy of strong communities (although I despise the way that word has been hijacked by the race industry in the UK) which are built around small businesses.

My point was simply this: A minimum wage set at a liveable standard is a good thing in principal and would have to be universally applied if rolled out. Therefore how is that achieved without pushing under small businesses with tight margins that cannot afford it? Is it best done as a blunt instrument through a higher minimum wage with corresponding tax reductions on a sliding scale - i.e. the smaller the company the lower the corporation tax - or is there another way that avoids the fiendishly complicated and expensive methods of redistribution favoured by the last government?

Strange as it may seem from someone allegedly from the far-right of VTland, I think giving all people the chance to earn a living wage and the corresponding dignity and pride that bestows is massively important for society. Small businesses also play their part, as do stable families. Big capital and the monopolies it creates is anathema to all of those things.

If you're for the principal of a decent living wage for all, and if you're for the principal of helping small businesses. If you understand the value of those principals within within the context of community and the wider society, you may as well face it...

You're a sissy lefty.

[Awol]

You're a sissy lefty.

 

Outside. Now.

[Kingfisher]

You're a sissy lefty.

Outside. Now.

Careful guys, the tree hugger's losing it. The sandals are off, I think he means business.

[Awol]

 

 

You're a sissy lefty.

Outside. Now.

Careful guys, the tree hugger's losing it. The sandals are off, I think he means business.

 

Keep going. Soon as I can find a hairband and someone to hold my lute, you're for it son.

[Kingfisher]

The mafia (I mean media, apt autocorrect left in) response to Labour's 50p tax rate reminded me of this study.

http://www.newstatesman.com/broadcast/2013/08/hard-evidence-how-biased-bbc

BBC bias?

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

'Anti-business'

 

What a horrid little term.

[Kingfisher]

'Anti-business'

What a horrid little term.

Yeah, it's as bad as unpatriotic. A word which Gove used recently I noticed.

[peterms]

 

'Anti-business'

What a horrid little term.

Yeah, it's as bad as unpatriotic. A word which Gove used recently I noticed.

 

 

No mention of Michael Gove is complete without a passing reference to this book.

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

 

 

 

IDS is trying to induce people on long-term benefits to believe the dubious promises of capitalism and put themselves on the treadmill of low-paid work for the reward of a few extra consumerist jujus which are supposed to give meaning to their lives.

Interesting. So those on long term benefits shouldn't be conned into taking low paid jobs like some other suckers, eschewing the world of work and sticking it to the man. Meanwhile someone who has a bit more self respect can subsidise their lifestyle choice. Seems perfectly fair to me....

Those who deserve benefits like the disabled and the genuinely needy should get them, in full, no messing around. Those who simply can't be arsed to work because, well, why bother? Screw them.

 

I think the vast majority of people would agree with that sentiment. However the one thing I would add is that pay everyone a fair and decent wage for working. Therefore the minimum wage needs increasing. It is currently £6.31 and much less for someone under 21. That needs increasing by £1.50 an hour. This mob talk about making work pay and the way to do that is not reduce benefit payments it is by upping the minimum wage. The way the Tories have gone about things it has been very much about a race to the bottom and it is wrong.

 

If you are talking about big and very profitable company's paying an extra £1.50 an hour then maybe they can afford it. For smaller businesses that employ staff on minimum wage it simply isn't an option, as a publican interviewed on Radio 4 the other day lucidly explained. Once he'd paid all his overheads his take home was actually below minimum wage. Being forced to pay his staff £1 per hour more would to lead to either fewer staff or the business going under completely.

Obviously you can't have a situation where minimum wage is varied by occupation, so when the margins in a business are that tight then what to do? Reduce corporation tax so the employer can pay their employees more?

Don't get me wrong I agree with the principle of what you are saying, I just think that sometimes these debates about 'fairness' are carried out in a vacuum that ignores economic reality for many businesses.

 

So his business isn't that viable in the first place either that or he needs to put about 10p on a pint

 

Now if only we hadn't had that rush to increase regressive taxation (purchase taxes) maybe these industries wouldn't be running on such tight margins as to make many of them not viable if people working in them are payed a fair living wage. That's before we get onto other legislation that has had massive effects on the industry.

Edited January 26, 2014 by mockingbird_franklin

[mockingbird_franklin]

The real criminals of TV's benefit street, everyone meet the Tory slum landlord

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/benefits-street-millionaire-tory-paul-3062319#.UuUX6fvLeUk

[Kingfisher]

Editor of the virulently anti-EU ‘Daily Mail’, Paul Dacre, has landed more than a quarter of a million pounds in EU subsidies.

http://www.whfp.com/2014/01/24/anti-eu-editor-pockets-european-subsidies/

[colhint]

Editor of the virulently anti-EU ‘Daily Mail’, Paul Dacre, has landed more than a quarter of a million pounds in EU subsidies.

http://www.whfp.com/2014/01/24/anti-eu-editor-pockets-european-subsidies/

 

As much as I dislike the man, I can't see what he has done wrong. He doesn't make the rules, he fights against them. Unless you think the rules only apply to the people who are in favour of the EU.

[Kingfisher]

Editor of the virulently anti-EU ‘Daily Mail’, Paul Dacre, has landed more than a quarter of a million pounds in EU subsidies.

http://www.whfp.com/2014/01/24/anti-eu-editor-pockets-european-subsidies/

As much as I dislike the man, I can't see what he has done wrong. He doesn't make the rules, he fights against them. Unless you think the rules only apply to the people who are in favour of the EU.

Perhaps he might report the benefits of the EU someday, the personal financial benefit to him, if only in the interests of balance.

[chrisp65]

 

Editor of the virulently anti-EU ‘Daily Mail’, Paul Dacre, has landed more than a quarter of a million pounds in EU subsidies.

http://www.whfp.com/2014/01/24/anti-eu-editor-pockets-european-subsidies/

 

As much as I dislike the man, I can't see what he has done wrong. He doesn't make the rules, he fights against them. Unless you think the rules only apply to the people who are in favour of the EU.

 

 

Land owner Paul Dacre of Daily Mail infamy outed as money grubbing hypocrit.

In other news, bear poop found in densely wooded area and religious leader has odd millinery fetish.

[markavfc40]

The real criminals of TV's benefit street, everyone meet the Tory slum landlord

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/benefits-street-millionaire-tory-paul-3062319#.UuUX6fvLeUk

 

 

What this bastard is doing, and many like him, is bleeding people without a pot to piss in dry with extortionate rents whilst renting out shit holes. Either that or the state is lining his pocket for renting out these shit holes. It needs to be stopped. Greedy bastards like him have no morals and are just as much part of the problem as those playing the system at the bottom end. In fact even more so but whilst the government focus on demonizing those at the bottom those at the upper end go left untouched.

[blandy]

 

...big corporations are the enemy of small business, which in turn makes them the enemy of strong communities ... which are built around small businesses.

 

My point was simply this: A minimum wage set at a liveable standard is a good thing in principal and would have to be universally applied if rolled out. Therefore how is that achieved without pushing under small businesses with tight margins that cannot afford it? Is it best done as a blunt instrument through a higher minimum wage with corresponding tax reductions on a sliding scale - i.e. the smaller the company the lower the corporation tax - or is there another way that avoids the fiendishly complicated and expensive methods of redistribution favoured by the last government?

 

Strange as it may seem from someone allegedly from the far-right of VTland, I think giving all people the chance to earn a living wage and the corresponding dignity and pride that bestows is massively important for society.  Small businesses also play their part, as do stable families. Big capital and the monopolies it creates is anathema to all of those things.

I think the answer to the question is that it's not a single issue. The discussion is always along the lines of the pub example from earlier - "if we raise the min wage, then some small co.s will go bust" and on the face of it, that's at least partially true, of course.

But that all assumes that everything else stays the same, that no other changes are made at the same time.

People working for the likes of Amazon on a miminum wage are currently having their wages topped up by the state via working benefits. So my/our taxes are subsidising Amazon paying it's workers low wages, while Amazon doesn't pay any tax. That's just moving money from me/us to Amazon's off shore account, while some poor soul shuffles books and CDs around in a big shed for 6 quid and hour, and a bookshop or record store on my local high street goes out of business because their business rates and taxes also effectively are moved to Amazon's off shore account and they can't compete.

There's not a lack of money, or lack of ability to afford fair wages due to the defecit or whatever other excuse politicians use. There's a lack of balance in the way people are treated.

While banks lend to folk for mortgages, because the Gov't is underwriting the loans via their housing policy, they won't lend to small businesses, because there's not the same level of guarantee.

The whole thing needs to change. A complete re-alignment of the way the county is run and operates.

But back to the fair wage thing, bring it in at the same time as redressing the tilted playing field that exists between big and small business, at the same time as lowering rents and rates on the high street and closing mega corp tax avoidance let offs.

[peterms]

 

...big corporations are the enemy of small business, which in turn makes them the enemy of strong communities ... which are built around small businesses.

 

My point was simply this: A minimum wage set at a liveable standard is a good thing in principal and would have to be universally applied if rolled out. Therefore how is that achieved without pushing under small businesses with tight margins that cannot afford it? Is it best done as a blunt instrument through a higher minimum wage with corresponding tax reductions on a sliding scale - i.e. the smaller the company the lower the corporation tax - or is there another way that avoids the fiendishly complicated and expensive methods of redistribution favoured by the last government?

 

Strange as it may seem from someone allegedly from the far-right of VTland, I think giving all people the chance to earn a living wage and the corresponding dignity and pride that bestows is massively important for society.  Small businesses also play their part, as do stable families. Big capital and the monopolies it creates is anathema to all of those things.

I think the answer to the question is that it's not a single issue. The discussion is always along the lines of the pub example from earlier - "if we raise the min wage, then some small co.s will go bust" and on the face of it, that's at least partially true, of course.

But that all assumes that everything else stays the same, that no other changes are made at the same time.

People working for the likes of Amazon on a miminum wage are currently having their wages topped up by the state via working benefits. So my/our taxes are subsidising Amazon paying it's workers low wages, while Amazon doesn't pay any tax. That's just moving money from me/us to Amazon's off shore account, while some poor soul shuffles books and CDs around in a big shed for 6 quid and hour, and a bookshop or record store on my local high street goes out of business because their business rates and taxes also effectively are moved to Amazon's off shore account and they can't compete.

There's not a lack of money, or lack of ability to afford fair wages due to the defecit or whatever other excuse politicians use. There's a lack of balance in the way people are treated.

While banks lend to folk for mortgages, because the Gov't is underwriting the loans via their housing policy, they won't lend to small businesses, because there's not the same level of guarantee.

The whole thing needs to change. A complete re-alignment of the way the county is run and operates.

But back to the fair wage thing, bring it in at the same time as redressing the tilted playing field that exists between big and small business, at the same time as lowering rents and rates on the high street and closing mega corp tax avoidance let offs.

 

 

Once in a while, it seems a shame that you can only "like" a post once.

[blandy]

very kind. I always assume that all my posts with no "likes" have simply been liked by someone twice, which then shows up as not "liked"

(it'll serve me right if you now do exactly that)

[Awol]

 The whole thing needs to change. A complete re-alignment of the way the county is run and operates.

Absolutely agree, pity there is no one to vote for who offers the type of realignment you suggest.