|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 7, 2023 13:02:15 GMT
That was the allegation prior to the introduction of the miminum wage, but it didn't happen. All my point is is that the minimum wage for full time workers should provide enough for basic living needs, without need for the government to have to top up. Did you ever think the minimum wage was brought in knowing that it would morph into the maximum wage? I do remember there was a need for minimum. If employers have morphed that into a maximum wage in the lower areas of pay, then that is where the Unions should have stepped in, instead of focusing on the attempt by some to change the country into a socialist state. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 7, 2023 13:05:58 GMT
Tax cuts don't need to be 'funded'. Spending needs to be funded. Tax cuts are (more or less) free I can't help thinking that some of the confusion around this topic springs from this bizarre, and often repeated, semantic hiccup It's a deliberate confusion to claim that tax cuts need to be funded In terms of government balance sheets tax cuts need to be covered by funds from elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Feb 7, 2023 13:19:30 GMT
It's a deliberate confusion to claim that tax cuts need to be funded In terms of government balance sheets tax cuts need to be covered by funds from elsewhere. No , you are deliberately trying to confuse It's government sending that needs to be funded , not tax cuts Government spending can only be covered by the revenue they receive from taxpayers Cut government spending , less tax revenue needed |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 7, 2023 13:26:25 GMT
It's a deliberate confusion to claim that tax cuts need to be funded In terms of government balance sheets tax cuts need to be covered by funds from elsewhere. Nope - spending needs to be covered by funds. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 7, 2023 13:36:31 GMT
In terms of government balance sheets tax cuts need to be covered by funds from elsewhere. No , you are deliberately trying to confuse It's government sending that needs to be funded , not tax cuts Government spending can only be covered by the revenue they receive from taxpayers Cut government spending , less tax revenue needed The second part of your post is partly correct, but a cut in government income needs to be met one way or another. The method used to cover the loss of income is the cost of covering that loss of income. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 7, 2023 13:38:02 GMT
In terms of government balance sheets tax cuts need to be covered by funds from elsewhere. Nope - spending needs to be covered by funds. So we are in agreement then. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 7, 2023 13:42:20 GMT
The second part of your post is partly correct, but a cut in government income needs to be met one way or another. No - spending needs to be met one way or another. A loss of income is just a loss in income If you only have £100 and wish to spend £200, you don't visualise the missing £100 as some kind of added cost |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Feb 7, 2023 13:44:43 GMT
Nope - spending needs to be covered by funds. So we are in agreement then. Not at all , you are deliberately (?)trying to impose Spending can only happen if there are funds available to fund said spending (basic economic literacy for normal people) |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 7, 2023 14:21:13 GMT
The second part of your post is partly correct, but a cut in government income needs to be met one way or another. No - spending needs to be met one way or another. A loss of income is just a loss in income If you only have £100 and wish to spend £200, you don't visualise the missing £100 as some kind of added cost You are ignoring the bottom line. If the income to the government is reduced by choice, through tax cuts in this case, then that reduction has to be covered either by further borrowing by the government or by cuts in other areas in order to balance the budget. In short someone or something somewhere has to cover the cost to the government of those cuts. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 7, 2023 14:25:37 GMT
So we are in agreement then. Not at all , you are deliberately (?)trying to impose Spending can only happen if there are funds available to fund said spending (basic economic literacy for normal people) Certain funds that were available before tax cuts, would no longer be available. So what does a government do about that reality ? |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 7, 2023 14:35:07 GMT
You are ignoring the bottom line. I'm not ignoring anything, i'm simply not using deliberately deceptive language If the income to the government is reduced by choice, through tax cuts in this case, then that reduction has to be covered either by further borrowing by the government or by cuts in other areas in order to balance the budget. However, it is the spending that is unfunded, not the income. Talking about funding your income by varying your spending is an absurd mis-use of language (and deliberately so). |
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Feb 7, 2023 16:57:50 GMT
Did you ever think the minimum wage was brought in knowing that it would morph into the maximum wage? I do remember there was a need for minimum. If employers have morphed that into a maximum wage in the lower areas of pay, then that is where the Unions should have stepped in, instead of focusing on the attempt by some to change the country into a socialist state. Many employees aren't union members and in my opinion your favourite PM and his henchmen knew that the minimum wage would become the maximum wage.....and it has. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 7, 2023 17:11:21 GMT
I do remember there was a need for minimum. If employers have morphed that into a maximum wage in the lower areas of pay, then that is where the Unions should have stepped in, instead of focusing on the attempt by some to change the country into a socialist state. Many employees aren't union members and in my opinion your favourite PM and his henchmen knew that the minimum wage would become the maximum wage.....and it has. And many were previously union members. Tradesmen reduced to shelf fillers by Mrs. T. Perhaps joining USDAW. The Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers (USDAW) is a trade union in the United Kingdom, consisting of around 450,000 members nationwide. USDAW members work in a variety of occupations and industries including: shopworkers, factory and warehouse workers, drivers, call centres, clerical workers, milkround and dairy process, butchers and meat packers, catering, laundries, chemical processing, home shopping and pharmaceutical. Founded: 1 January 1947.The reality is that NL knew what was necessary at the time, they had no way of knowing it would be anything more than a minimum wage. A Crystal Ball was unavailable in 1998  |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Feb 7, 2023 17:15:37 GMT
You are ignoring the bottom line. I'm not ignoring anything, i'm simply not using deliberately deceptive language If the income to the government is reduced by choice, through tax cuts in this case, then that reduction has to be covered either by further borrowing by the government or by cuts in other areas in order to balance the budget. However, it is the spending that is unfunded, not the income. Talking about funding your income by varying your spending is an absurd mis-use of language (and deliberately so). Presumably leading to cuts somewhere or a rise in some other tax. Those who suffered would be the people who funded the Tax cuts. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Feb 7, 2023 17:43:14 GMT
I'm not ignoring anything, i'm simply not using deliberately deceptive language However, it is the spending that is unfunded, not the income. Talking about funding your income by varying your spending is an absurd mis-use of language (and deliberately so). Presumably leading to cuts somewhere or a rise in some other tax. Those who suffered would be the people who funded the Tax cuts. another misleading variant of the same linguistic twist. They are not funding the tax cut. The former group isn't funding anything and the latter would be funding spending. |
|
