Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Carl the Llama]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Well all costs have to be paid for. An extra £1 per hour for a 40 hour week is is an extra £40, if you employ 100 people that's an extra £4000 per week, £208,000 a year. This isn't small beer.

 

That's ignoring the extra pension contributions and NI.

Definitely not small beer but how many businesses do you know of that employ 100 people on minimum wage but don't rake in the kind of dough to absorb that cost?  There were 14 of us on min. at the last place I was at and I'd say that company could definitely have afforded the extra 29-odd grand it would incur.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

I understand that. I realise the money has to come from somewhere. Now we've gotten beyond just trying to call out labour and can admit that their policy isn't fundamentally going to damage the economy more than the tory version, I'm happy to get into the detail of how it could work. Dont forget, paying workers more gives them more spending power and potentially increases sales for those same companies. If tesco pay their staff more they would sell more tesco taste the difference goods.

 

But Tesco would have to put their prices up to cover the cost. Might lead to job losses, that;s happening in supermarkets already.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

10 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

It's a balancing act, we don't give up on the lowest rungs of the ladder because it's too hard to work out without mildly upsetting those a bit further up.  The point is something needs doing for the millions who barely get by despite our country's very good employment figures papering over the cracks.  If minimum wage really is going up to £9 soon then that's great, the sooner the better.  Let's see how much employment tumbles once it comes into effect before boo-hooing the idea of helping the most disadvantaged, yeah?

if you are a skilled worked you will be pretty annoyed if a box packer is getting only £1 less than you, you have a right to then demand a pay increase as do everyone up the chain. This wil ldrive more inflation and higher costs it wont actually solve anything.

 

It will though eventually lead to less jobs

 

Now I can agree that some executives and senior managers get paid too much, what can we do about that I don't know? But chances are you start to go down the route of pay caps etc you will drive business and success out  of the country.

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Definitely not small beer but how many businesses do you know of that employ 100 people on minimum wage but don't rake in the kind of dough to absorb that cost?  There were 14 of us on min. at the last place I was at and I'd say that company could definitely have afforded the extra 29-odd grand it would incur.

It isn't your money Carl. You're in no position to judge whether they could afford it or whether it'd be worthwhile for them to do so.

[Carl the Llama]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It isn't your money Carl. You're in no position to judge whether they could afford it or whether it'd be worthwhile for them to do so.

I'm glad you accept that I have a point then for you to resort to that non-sequitur.

[Carl the Llama]

5 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

if you are a skilled worked you will be pretty annoyed if a box packer is getting only £1 less than you, you have a right to then demand a pay increase as do everyone up the chain. This wil ldrive more inflation and higher costs it wont actually solve anything.

 

It will though eventually lead to less jobs

 

Now I can agree that some executives and senior managers get paid too much, what can we do about that I don't know? But chances are you start to go down the route of pay caps etc you will drive business and success out  of the country.

So do nothing and accept that businesses will leave their employees destitute if they can get away with it.  Got it.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Webbo said:

But Tesco would have to put their prices up to cover the cost. Might lead to job losses, that;s happening in supermarkets already.

Not neccessarily. If the whole minimum wage workforce of britain suddenly got a 20% pay rise it would be boom time for british retail. Yes they'd have higher salary costs but they have much higher sales figures too. This would feed into them buying more from their suppliers etc. Until it happens there's no way to know exactly how much a company would be hit but a combination of higher sales, slightly higher prices and even possibly lower exec pay if labour brought in the 20x exec limit would lessen any negative impact. Dont forget, lidl pay not far off that now and still undercut the bigger supermarkets. 

[Webbo]

Just now, Carl the Llama said:

I'm glad you accept that I have a point then for you to resort to that non-sequitur.

Quote

 I'd say that company could definitely have afforded the extra 29-odd grand it would incur.

What you'd say is irrelevant, just the same as someone on here saying the club should pay £50 million for Siggurdsson or find the money for stadium expansion.We can all say what other people should do when it's not costing us anything.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

if you are a skilled worked you will be pretty annoyed if a box packer is getting only £1 less than you, you have a right to then demand a pay increase as do everyone up the chain. This wil ldrive more inflation and higher costs it wont actually solve anything.

 

It will though eventually lead to less jobs

 

Now I can agree that some executives and senior managers get paid too much, what can we do about that I don't know? But chances are you start to go down the route of pay caps etc you will drive business and success out  of the country.

So some people get paid too much but we can't  do anything about it and some people don't get paid enough and we can't do anything about it. Have i got that about right? You'd certainly be a lot of use in politics wouldn't you?

Edited 25 August 2017 by Guest

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, Webbo said:

What you'd say is irrelevant, just the same as someone on here saying the club should pay £50 million for Siggurdsson or find the money for stadium expansion.We can all say what other people should do when it's not costing us anything.

The point being it's what the company should do when it's costing their workers the ability to live without draining benefits from the state.

[Webbo]

Just now, toddybad said:

Not neccessarily. If the whole minimum wage workforce of britain suddenly got a 20% pay rise it would be boom time for british retail. Yes they'd have higher salary costs but they have much higher sales figures too. This would feed into them buying more from their suppliers etc. Until it happens there's no way to know exactly how much a company would be hit but a combination of higher sales, slightly higher prices and even possibly lower exec pay if labour brought in the 20x exec limit would lessen any negative impact. Dont forget, lidl pay not far off that now and still undercut the bigger supermarkets. 

I'm sure you posted something the other week about Asda laying off staff. I know that's true because my wife works for Asda.

 

Lidl pay higher wages but they have lower staff ratios, a smaller range of goods and they don't open 24/7. that's why they're cheaper.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

Just now, toddybad said:

So some people get paid too much but we van do anything about it and some people don't het paid enough and we can't do anything about it. Have i got that about right? You'd certainly be a lot of use in politics wouldn't you?

Its not for the government to interfere in that IMO.

 

I have made suggestions about removing unnecessary tax, which people have ignored. Surely this would help.

[Guest]

Just now, Webbo said:

I'm sure you posted something the other week about Asda laying off staff. I know that's true because my wife works for Asda.

 

Lidl pay higher wages but they have lower staff ratios, a smaller range of goods and they don't open 24/7. that's why they're cheaper.

I did yeah.

I have read that the smaller range of goods is a huge aspect of lidl/aldi saving cash. Surely the bigger supermarkets could do that to save cash? I suspect moves towards automation are equally to blame at asda, tesco et al.

As i said, wage costs would go up as would sales figures. Exactly what the net effect would be would depend company to company. 

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

I did yeah.

I have read that the smaller range of goods is a huge aspect of lidl/aldi saving cash. Surely the bigger supermarkets could do that to save cash? I suspect moves towards automation are equally to blame at asda, tesco et al.

As i said, wage costs would go up as would sales figures. Exactly what the net effect would be would depend company to company. 

You pays your money you takes your choice. Some people want cheap some people prefer a bigger choice. There's room for both in the market.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

I did yeah.

I have read that the smaller range of goods is a huge aspect of lidl/aldi saving cash. Surely the bigger supermarkets could do that to save cash? I suspect moves towards automation are equally to blame at asda, tesco et al.

As i said, wage costs would go up as would sales figures. Exactly what the net effect would be would depend company to company. 

Wages go up, prices go up, wages go up prices go up, when do we stop?

 

Not to mention the department head is going to be annoyed when his 15 call centre staff are earning the same as him!

[Guest MattP]

6 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Not neccessarily. If the whole minimum wage workforce of britain suddenly got a 20% pay rise it would be boom time for british retail. Yes they'd have higher salary costs but they have much higher sales figures too. This would feed into them buying more from their suppliers etc. Until it happens there's no way to know exactly how much a company would be hit but a combination of higher sales, slightly higher prices and even possibly lower exec pay if labour brought in the 20x exec limit would lessen any negative impact. Dont forget, lidl pay not far off that now and still undercut the bigger supermarkets. 

This sort of interference into business would never work, even if Labour tried to do that you would get an overall salary wage reduction that would be terrible for the total tax.

 

Alan Sugar paid 52million in tax last year, if he can only earn 250k a year that's an immediate 51.9 million you've just lost to spend on schools, hospitals etc

 

It's madness, they wouldn't even try and implement that sort of thing in Zimbabwe. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Foxin_mad said:

Its not for the government to interfere in that IMO.

 

I have made suggestions about removing unnecessary tax, which people have ignored. Surely this would help.

Why isn't it for the government? I realise that is a big question but realistically government spending keeps thousands of businesses afloat. They want no government interference but most certainly want its money! Multiple industries get government help. Other industries expect government to reduce tariffs with the outside world. Other companies lobby government to privatise public services. Why shouldn't the government be able to tell companies they have to employ fairly and set out exactly what that means in terms of psy and conditions?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

You pays your money you takes your choice. Some people want cheap some people prefer a bigger choice. There's room for both in the market.

Yes, but at the moment for millions of people wages are not giving them a choice. I'm alright jack isn't good enough. 

Edited 25 August 2017 by Guest

[Captain...]

28 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

When do we stop increasing it?

When the cost of living stops going up or when we stop this obsession with growth and we follow a policy of stability, but until we change our philosophy there will always be inflation and so we will always need to increase the national wage. Instead of putting arbitrary figure on it that are only relevant to the hear and now why don't we set it in line with inflation, or growth, or a living wage index, so we don't have to have the same pointless debate every time they want to increase it so people can afford to live.

 

To add to this debate, nobody is looking at the bigger picture, you increase the minimum wage, yes costs increase for businesses but also the amount of disposable income increases, the lower earners have more money to spend on stuff, money gets recycled round the economy more and the country benefits, people spend more, businesses sell more, the economy grows more tax is collected and everyone is happy.

 

Of course some poorly run businesses might not be able to cope with the increase costs, they might not be able to adapt and they might lose out to competitors and go under, guess what that means, a gap in the market for better run businesses to come in. It really doesn't make a bit of difference on a national scale. What benefits the economy more is the movement of money.

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, Foxin_mad said:

Wages go up, prices go up, wages go up prices go up, when do we stop?

 

Not to mention the department head is going to be annoyed when his 15 call centre staff are earning the same as him!

Wages go up, prices go up at a less than proportionate rate.

 

And it sounds like the department head's being hugely underpaid too!

[Webbo]

Just now, toddybad said:

Yes, but at the moment for millions of people wages are not giving them a choice. I'm alright jack isn't good enough. 

There's still millions of people shopping at Tesco and Asda.

[Captain...]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

This sort of interference into business would never work, even if Labour tried to do that you would get an overall salary wage reduction that would be terrible for the total tax.

 

Alan Sugar paid 52million in tax last year, if he can only earn 250k a year that's an immediate 51.9 million you've just lost to spend on schools, hospitals etc

 

It's madness, they wouldn't even try and implement that sort of thing in Zimbabwe. 

Alan Sugar didn't pay £52million in income tax.

[Guest MattP]

14 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Alan Sugar didn't pay £52million in income tax.

His cheque was 58 million.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/News/business/news/election-2017-alan-sugar-tax-payment-58-million-jeremy-corbyn-supporters-labour-peer-lord-hmrc-a7778831.html

[Captain...]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

His cheque was 58 million.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/News/business/news/election-2017-alan-sugar-tax-payment-58-million-jeremy-corbyn-supporters-labour-peer-lord-hmrc-a7778831.html

Yes, but that won't be income tax paid on a single salary, it will include all the tax paid on his dividends as a shareholder in various companies and capital gains tax on the sale of any assets. Limiting the salary of a CEO or director will not make any difference to the amount of tax someone like Alan Sugar pays, he doesn't have a job with a salary of £100 million +

[Guest]

46 minutes ago, MattP said:

This sort of interference into business would never work, even if Labour tried to do that you would get an overall salary wage reduction that would be terrible for the total tax.

 

Alan Sugar paid 52million in tax last year, if he can only earn 250k a year that's an immediate 51.9 million you've just lost to spend on schools, hospitals etc

 

It's madness, they wouldn't even try and implement that sort of thing in Zimbabwe. 

Far more people at the bottom with be paying more in tax. 

 

Why do you always link everything to some far off country with nothing to do with britain?

Edited 25 August 2017 by Guest