On Benefits & Proud

[Dolph]

Where you the bloke who wrote on the government's e-petitions page that rioters should "loose" benefits? Because I'm wondering who to shout at about everything wrong with that sentence.

I am finding something about the above paragraph highly amusing.

 

[arknor]

that just sounds tight now!

 

[Monkeynut]

I am finding something about the above paragraph highly amusing.

OH FGS WHAT HAVE I DONE.

 

[Rofflay]

Imo, these people deserve to loose thier benefits.

And how will they create food and attain water and shelter without money? You are just laughable and could be tore apart in five minutes.Do you realise what Capital means? Do you know the minimum requirements of our society?

What is your suggestion genius? Let them all starve? Workhouses? SS Waffen gas chambers?

Has anyone considering abolishing corporation tax and tax havens at the same time? With the money saved they should be able to put that tax into higher minimum wages of say £9 per hour minimum? Put a cap on weekly working to 40 hours as well to encourage training of multiple staff and put a cap on profits based on the number of employee's as it is only fair big employers get to attain big profits unlike bankers.And stop letting in lots of migrants.How would the system change if any? Would the goverments tax revenues end up equal but people earning more and more in employment?

 

[Dolph]

OH FGS WHAT HAVE I DONE.

Where instead of were. Where refers to a place, were is a verb.

 

[Dolph]

And how will they create food and attain water and shelter without money? You are just laughable and could be tore apart in five minutes.Do you realise what Capital means? Do you know the minimum requirements of our society?

What is your suggestion genius? Let them all starve? Workhouses? SS Waffen gas chambers?

Has anyone considering abolishing corporation tax and tax havens at the same time? With the money saved they should be able to put that tax into higher minimum wages of say £9 per hour minimum? Put a cap on weekly working to 40 hours as well to encourage training of multiple staff and put a cap on profits based on the number of employee's as it is only fair big employers get to attain big profits unlike bankers.And stop letting in lots of migrants.How would the system change if any? Would the goverments tax revenues end up equal but people earning more and more in employment?

Employment costs rise with the number of employees so probably not.

 

[Biohazard]

But if everyone pays the current living wage it becomes a kinimum wage and the living wage rises because increased employment costs are passed to consumers...

Can you show that minimum wage was passed directly to consumers?

As far as I am concerned this is scantly evidenced and nothing more than right wing voodoo economics.

This is what a report to the Government's Low Pay Commission had to say on the impact of a NMW on prices and productivity;

Conclusions.

We show that profitability was significantly reduced by the minimum wage. Importantly, we also show that low wage firms were not forced out of business by the higher wage costs resulting from the minimum wage. On possible explanation (that requires more research attention in future) is that firms were making profits from paying low wages prior to the minimum wage introduction and that one consequence of the introduction of the minimum wage to the UK labour market was to moderate the excess profits by channeling them back to the wages of low paid workers.

We are unable to detect significant price effects, by looking at a limited range of consumer prices and by studying links between changes in producer prices and wages. The evidence that higher wage costs can be passed on in terms of higher prices does not seem to be present for the UK national minimum wage.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives....owpay/research/pdf/NMW_profits_and_prices.pdf

 

[Tokenbrit]

But if everyone pays the current living wage it becomes a kinimum wage and the living wage rises because increased employment costs are passed to consumers...

It might, even if it did do you think that process would continue indefinitely?

Transparently not (if you have the vaguest mathematical education).

This is without even acknowledging that if government didn't have to subsidise crap wages, then the benefit bill would decrease and so could taxes, hence a compensatory lowering of costs to consumers.

 

[Rofflay]

Employment costs rise with the number of employees so probably not.

But the business would expand also? Maybe you misunderstood me slightly as how would it create more jobs or cost more? I mean that if you make tax havens illegal and make it a requirement to have no tax havens if doing business in the UK then you snare all that invisable money hidden in Luxemburg and The Virgin Island's.So now Corporation tax gets abolished too and instead of paying corporation tax they instead pay all thier workers a minimum working wage of £9 per hour.Now they might be out a little bit of cash due to having some low paid workers but really for most employers it should be no big deal they are always moaning about excessive tax and red tape.Just let them pay zero tax and give workers higher wages.Now the tax revenue comes from workers earning more instead of a business.




If people are also capped at 40-45 hours per week instead of the old codge working 60 hours per week and running the show he would have to let someone else learn the trade and even promote someone to share his workload.That should create an employment spot down the chain as well.




And if anyone thinks they will be sneaky by hiring fewer workers and reaping the rewards of having to pay no tax and perhaps rely on on zero hour contracts or workfare then make those both illegal as well and slap them with a profits cap based on how many workers to profit ratio they have.Im sure someone could devise a system to reign in small business's making millions while hiring min wage workers.The whole idea of business's fleeing Britain for Europe/Asia/America i do not buy one bit.They will at the end of the day stay here and play by our rules as there is still profit to be made for them.And the UK is a big market too would you close your business beause your profit margin was now only 500k a year instead of 1 million? I think not you may be tempted to relocate it to Asia and make 1m but it would only be a matter of time until you wanted that 500k per year rom the UK as well.

 

[Dolph]

Can you show that minimum wage was passed directly to consumers?

As far as I am concerned this is scantly evidenced and nothing more than right wing voodoo economics.

This is what the a report on the Government's Low Pay Commission had to say on the impact of a NMW on prices and productivity;



http://webarchive.nationalarchives....owpay/research/pdf/NMW_profits_and_prices.pdf

Just to see if I am reading you right, you are quoting a report by the low pay commission, who have a remit to manage rises in the minimum wage appropriately by weighting various factors, that acknowledges their success in this, to support a massive rise calculated using none of their weightings and based solely on what a few left wing think tanks and trade unions calculated was a living wage? I am just confirming before I decide on the appropriate response.

 

[Dolph]

But the business would expand also? Maybe you misunderstood me slightly as how would it create more jobs or cost more? I mean that if you make tax havens illegal and make it a requirement to have no tax havens if doing business in the UK then you snare all that invisable money hidden in Luxemburg and The Virgin Island's.

So now Corporation tax gets abolished too and instead of paying corporation tax they instead pay all thier workers a minimum working wage of £9 per hour.Now they might be out a little bit of cash due to having some low paid workers but really for most employers it should be no big deal they are always moaning about excessive tax and red tape.Just let them pay zero tax and give workers higher wages.Now the tax revenue comes from workers earning more instead of a business.


If people are also capped at 40-45 hours per week instead of the old codge working 60 hours per week and running the show he would have to let someone else learn the trade and even promote someone to share his workload.That should create an employment spot down the chain as well.


And if anyone thinks they will be sneaky by hiring fewer workers and reaping the rewards of having to pay no tax and perhaps rely on on zero hour contracts or workfare then make those both illegal as well and slap them with a profits cap based on how many workers to profit ratio they have.Im sure someone could devise a system to reign in small business's making millions while hiring min wage workers.

The whole idea of business's fleeing Britain for Europe/Asia/America i do not buy one bit.They will at the end of the day stay here and play by our rules as there is still profit to be made for them.And the UK is a big market too would you close your business beause your profit margin was now only 500k a year instead of 1 million? I think not you may be tempted to relocate it to Asia and make 1m but it would only be a matter of time until you wanted that 500k per year rom the UK as well.

Firstly, you appear to have no understanding of international taxation whatsoever. So called tax havens are nothing of the sort, they are just alternate locations to bade your business and pay tax in. Trying to tax money thay has been taxed elsewhere is a tactic that will cripple the economy, not raise the tax take.

With regards to the increased employees due to fixed hours argument, you ignore the fixed costs per employee (such as training) that do not reduce with volume.

 

[Biohazard]

Just to see if I am reading you right, you are quoting a report by the low pay commission, who have a remit to manage rises in the minimum wage appropriately by weighting various factors, that acknowledges their success in this, to support a massive rise calculated using none of their weightings and based solely on what a few left wing think tanks and trade unions calculated was a living wage? I am just confirming before I decide on the appropriate response.

It doesn't matter who it was from, the only response you should be considering is counter evidence on the subject matter.

 

[Biohazard]

Firstly, you appear to have no understanding of international taxation whatsoever. So called tax havens are nothing of the sort, they are just alternate locations to bade your business and pay tax in. Trying to tax money thay has been taxed elsewhere is a tactic that will cripple the economy, not raise the tax take.

With regards to the increased employees due to fixed hours argument, you ignore the fixed costs per employee (such as training) that do not reduce with volume.

So why is a tax haven not a tax haven?

 

[Dolph]

It might, even if it did do you think that process would continue indefinitely?

Transparently not (if you have the vaguest mathematical education).

This is without even acknowledging that if government didn't have to subsidise crap wages, then the benefit bill would decrease and so could taxes, hence a compensatory lowering of costs to consumers.

It wouldn't continue forever, but unemployment would remain higher as you have increased the benefits of outsourcing and automation by closing the cost benefit ratio.

We would end up like France, with large scale unemployment and few new opportunities as companies minimised the requirements for troublemaking staff.

 

[Dolph]

It doesn't matter who it was from, the only response you should be considering is counter evidence on the subject matter.

It matters a lot, unless you are deliberately trying for a loaded question fallacy.

The low pay commission has worked to a specific remit that included cost and price factors in its decision making process.

The living wage discards all those safeguards in its calculation, and as such the comparison is irrelevant and the statistics useless.

 

[Dolph]

So why is a tax haven not a tax haven?

Being a location offering a lower tax rate than other countries is not wrong, nor is a company taking advantage of that low rate.

I know you have that lefty obsession that all money belongs to the state and anyone not handing it over on demand is evil, but I happen to believe in the right to own and enjoy property.

 

[Biohazard]

It matters a lot, unless you are deliberately trying for a loaded question fallacy.

The low pay commission has worked to a specific remit that included cost and price factors in its decision making process.

The living wage discards all those safeguards in its calculation, and as such the comparison is irrelevant and the statistics useless.

Provide counter-evidence, and if you like we can debate any bias between the two then at the same time.

You also said a living wage would become a defacto NMW; so the same economics would apply as well.

 

[Biohazard]

Being a location offering a lower tax rate than other countries is not wrong, nor is a company taking advantage of that low rate.

I know you have that lefty obsession that all money belongs to the state and anyone not handing it over on demand is evil, but I happen to believe in the right to own and enjoy property.

Where did I say it was wrong?

I just asked how is a tax haven is not a tax haven?

That's what you said, that they don't exist. They clearly do.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) identifies three key factors in considering whether a jurisdiction is a tax haven:[12]

Nil or only nominal taxes. Tax havens impose nil or only nominal taxes (generally or in special circumstances) and offer themselves, or are perceived to offer themselves, as a place to be used by non-residents to escape high taxes in their country of residence.
Protection of personal financial information. Tax havens typically have laws or administrative practices under which businesses and individuals can benefit from strict rules and other protections against scrutiny by foreign tax authorities. This prevents the transmittance of information about taxpayers who are benefiting from the low tax jurisdiction.
Lack of transparency. A lack of transparency in the operation of the legislative, legal or administrative provisions is another factor used to identify tax havens. The OECD is concerned that laws should be applied openly and consistently, and that information needed by foreign tax authorities to determine a taxpayer’s situation is available. Lack of transparency in one country can make it difficult, if not impossible, for other tax authorities to apply their laws effectively. ‘Secret rulings’, negotiated tax rates, or other practices that fail to apply the law openly and consistently are examples of a lack of transparency. Limited regulatory supervision or a government’s lack of legal access to financial records are contributing factors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven

 

[Tokenbrit]

It wouldn't continue forever, but unemployment would remain higher as you have increased the benefits of outsourcing and automation by closing the cost benefit ratio.

We would end up like France, with large scale unemployment and few new opportunities as companies minimised the requirements for troublemaking staff.

How much more unemployment? Lets have a number.

I suspect you haven't the vaguest clue.

Your reference to France should embarrass you. There are myriad differences between the tax and legal systems and you can't possibly account for the difference in unemployment rates with reference only to the rate of the minimum wage.

 

[Dolph]

How much more unemployment? Lets have a number.

I suspect you haven't the vaguest clue.

Your reference to France should embarrass you. There are myriad differences between the tax and legal systems and you can't possibly account for the difference in unemployment rates with reference only to the rate of the minimum wage.

Apologies, mixing up your points with rofflay's

As for numbers, I am not sure, and I don't intend to spend the evening making a projection, but given you have provided any relevant numbers either...