The ITV Leaders' Debate

[*_ash_* 88]

I can't understand anyone that has sympathy with these multi-million large corporations.

 

This is why you can't see the picture clearly. Saying this is sympathising with multi-nationals is nonsense.

 

But many large companies, including supermarkets make millions of profit every year. They rip off farmers and would pay even less if they could. Why shouldn't they eat into their millions of profits, they can afford to. It's Pure Greed.

I can't understand anyone that has sympathy with these multi-million large corporations.

 

Here and here in bold.

 

You make out that the NMW is just there for MNs. MOST companies AREN'T multi-nationals!

 

If anything, you could argue that large companies should have a different NMW, but that's probably impractical.

 

If everyone had a new 'living-wage' that was higher than the current level, then smaller companies would have to increase their charges, (or make cutbacks to staff, most likely a balance of the two).

 

If prices increase then the welfare budget has to either increase, or people at the bottom will get poorer. Can't you see that?

[I1L2T3 10]

If companies pay higher wages they will make less profit so pay less tax, so the tax that is saved is lost lost.

 

If companies can't achieve sufficient profit without the taxpayer propping up the wages of the employees then you'd have to question the viability of the companies, and could argue the companies are just as dependent on the state as their workers.

 

That is more than a little bit broken. The truth is we have to break the dependence of workers on top-ups from the government and the dependence of the companies on those government-subsidised workers.

 

Which comes back to an issue that all of the left-leaning leaders in the TV debate tried to tackle: the cost of living. Lower living costs mean a lower level for the minimum wage. In reality demands for a higher minimum wage are simply a response to living costs. OK, some prices are starting to come down but that will take time to feed back into peoples' perceptions around living costs, especially as so many already have a very high debt load.

[loraward 10]

If companies can't achieve sufficient profit without the taxpayer propping up the wages of the employees then you'd have to question the viability of the companies, and could argue the companies are just as dependent on the state as their workers.

 

That is more than a little bit broken. The truth is we have to break the dependence of workers on top-ups from the government and the dependence of the companies on those government-subsidised workers.

 

Which comes back to an issue that all of the left-leaning leaders in the TV debate tried to tackle: the cost of living. Lower living costs mean a lower level for the minimum wage. In reality demands for a higher minimum wage are simply a response to living costs. OK, some prices are starting to come down but that will take time to feed back into peoples' perceptions around living costs, especially as so many already have a very high debt load.

 

Wages don't need topping up, it is possible to live on the NMW and plenty of people do without any form of top up.

 

A couple both working 40 hours a week and earning NMW will have an income after tax of £24560 that is enough to live on and they wouldn't qualify for any state benefits.

[Bigthumb 10]

If companies can't achieve sufficient profit without the taxpayer propping up the wages of the employees then you'd have to question the viability of the companies, and could argue the companies are just as dependent on the state as their workers.

 

That is more than a little bit broken. The truth is we have to break the dependence of workers on top-ups from the government and the dependence of the companies on those government-subsidised workers.

 

Which comes back to an issue that all of the left-leaning leaders in the TV debate tried to tackle: the cost of living. Lower living costs mean a lower level for the minimum wage. In reality demands for a higher minimum wage are simply a response to living costs. OK, some prices are starting to come down but that will take time to feed back into peoples' perceptions around living costs, especially as so many already have a very high debt load.

 

I once worked for a company that manufactured footpumps. Around 60 people were involved in the production, but as production costs increased we faced competition from imported goods. So we decided to buy finished goods from Taiwan and sell them instead. It didn't involve employing many folk, but did have the advantage that you never had anyone phone in sick, the factory didn't need heating or lighting and you never had to worry about recruiting extra staff when there was a busy time such as Christmas.

 

Did any of the left leaning leaders mention anything like that?

[poppet2 13]

This is why you can't see the picture clearly. Saying this is sympathising with multi-nationals is nonsense.

 

Multi national companies make millions in profit every year, yet pay their workers the minimum by law they can get away with, it's sick.

 

Your average small company I can sympathise with, but why should the tax payer have to subsidise the wages of rich multi-nationals?

[loraward 10]

Multi national companies make millions in profit every year, yet pay their workers the minimum by law they can get away with, it's sick.

 

Your average small company I can sympathise with, but why should the tax payer have to subsidise the wages of rich multi-nationals?

 

The tax payer doesn't subsidise the wages of rich multi-nationals

[Mister M 1,608]

If the minimum wage goes up , prices to the consumers go up . So any gain from an increase in the minimum wage is swallowed up in increased cost of living. You cannot expect business`s to absorb an increase in the minimum wage , that would eat in to their profits, so it gets past onto the consumer ,rightly so .

 

---------- Post added 03-04-2015 at 14:38 ----------

 

 

Your having a laugh right . Galloway ?

 

The man is a joke , he just stands in areas with large minority populations ,says what they want to hear just to get elected ,then is booted out at the following election. He did this in Bethnal Green , now he`s at it in Bradford.

 

Your obvious and petty prejudices are getting the better of you Penny. Galloway is a fantastic public speaker, and was awarded the debater of the year by the right wing Spectator Magazine.

I've been at a public meeting to hear him speak, and he is incredibly powerful and eloquent.

[ricgem2002 11]

The tax payer doesn't subsidise the wages of rich multi-nationals

it does of its employers thou

[ghost rider 10]

Why?

 

If people were paid more by their employer, they would need less state support in the form of in work benefits. That means that you and I wouldn't need to subsidise directors pay quite so much from our taxes.

 

It is a policy worth voting for.

 

---------- Post added 02-04-2015 at 22:26 ----------

 

 

I think you are incorrect. It is a difference in pressure, combined with weakness. No weakness, no explosion.

The problem with putting the minimum wage up to say £10.00 is that everybody earning more than that and who are higher in the company and who have a more difficult and more responsible job will also want their wages increasing as well.I would certainly not be happy and would be knocking on my bosses door asking for a 30% wage rise as well.You could have a situation where the bloke that sweeps the warehouse is getting paid the same as the supervisor.It could cause a lot of unrest.I would be asking for the easy job if I was going to be paid the same wage.

[I1L2T3 10]

Wages don't need topping up, it is possible to live on the NMW and plenty of people do without any form of top up.

 

A couple both working 40 hours a week and earning NMW will have an income after tax of £24560 that is enough to live on and they wouldn't qualify for any state benefits.

 

All the evidence directly contradicts what you say

 

1. If top-ups aren't needed why the massive tax credits and housing benefits costs

2. If there are enough full-time NMW jobs then why the explosion in zero hours contracts jobs

3. If two people worked full-time and they had children then they wouldn't be able to afford childcare.

[*_ash_* 88]

Multi national companies make millions in profit every year, yet pay their workers the minimum by law they can get away with, it's sick.

 

Your average small company I can sympathise with, but why should the tax payer have to subsidise the wages of rich multi-nationals?

 

Again, just selecting the big ones. What about this... I'll make it bigger...

 

 

MOST companies ARE NOT multi-nationals!

 

If everyone had a new 'living-wage' that was higher than the current level, then smaller companies would have to increase their charges, (or make cutbacks to staff, most likely a balance of the two).

 

If prices increase then the welfare budget has to either increase, or people at the bottom will get poorer. Can't you see that?

 

Like the left yesterday, and like the left on here, they just focus on the top 1% richest, and bottom 1% poorest, use these to make all the comparisons, and sod the other 98%.

 

edit: you would also have what ghost rider wrote above too.

Edited April 3, 2015 by *_ash_*

[loraward 10]

All the evidence directly contradicts what you say

 

1. If top-ups aren't needed why the massive tax credits and housing benefits costs

2. If there are enough full-time NMW jobs then why the explosion in zero hours contracts jobs

3. If two people worked full-time and they had children then they wouldn't be able to afford childcare.

 

1: The couple on NMW wouldn't get tax credits.

2: I didn't say their was enough full time jobs but you can't expect employer to give part time staff a living wage.

3: The state helps them to support their children, their decision to have them is not the responsibility of their employer.

 

 

A couple with four kids and one working 40 hours a week, earning £13500 and paying rent would receive £26,010.62 in benefits.

 

That means their living wage would need to be £19 an hour for a 40 hour week, and £39 an hour for a 20 hour week, do you seriously think an employers should pay that amount of money for a cleaner.

Edited April 3, 2015 by loraward