View Single Post
Old 17-02-2015, 08:33 PM #15
Kizzy's Avatar
Kizzy Kizzy is offline
Likes cars that go boom
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 41,755


Kizzy Kizzy is offline
Likes cars that go boom
Kizzy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 41,755


Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toy Soldier View Post
This only really applies to the super - rich multinationals, though. Most businesses in the UK have a pretty strict budget for wages in order to stay in profit, and a large mandatory increase in wages across the board would simply force many of them to reduce staffing levels to compensate. Excess staff would be trimmed and unemployment would rise fairly dramatically, and there would also be no extra money (same wages going out, just to fewer people) in the consumer economy.

The only way it would be workable is if the compensation came from the other end, and the government cut certain taxes on businesses to allow them the extra money for wages. But then, of course, the money that the govt. has saved in tax credits is now swallowed up by those tax cuts.

In other words, I don't think it particularly matters where the money is coming from, at the end of the day it will all even out anyway. Although it at least might make people feel better to have bigger payslips and lower tax credits claims, I guess. More like it's really "theirs". It probably does make more sense to allow companies to keep their money to give out to employees themselves, rather than taken it from them only to pay it back out to those same employees as benefits.

It might mean those aforementioned multinationals getting even richer, though, in theory.
I think the onus in private enterprise is fixed firmly on maximising profit for shareholders, they're driving wages down.
They've already had tax cuts... what was that for? soon the govt will be paying employers people credits for affording people the luxury of employment.
__________________
Kizzy is offline