Latest post of the previous page:
It is a proven fact that the best way to get an economy moving is to give the low paid more money because it all gets spent on essentials, so local shops do well, which boosts the area.So, as I thought, no explanation, no evidence, and selective condemnation.Alan H wrote:nick wrote:It would certainly be an embarrassment, if there has been any tax lost through avoidance, but as I explained, I want to know how tax has been lost.
And can we see your condemnation of Hodge the Dodge? Whose trust fund we definitely know took advantage of a tax amnesty for off-shore companies.
<sigh>Nick wrote:So, as I thought, no explanation, no evidence, and selective condemnation.Alan H wrote:nick wrote:It would certainly be an embarrassment, if there has been any tax lost through avoidance, but as I explained, I want to know how tax has been lost.
And can we see your condemnation of Hodge the Dodge? Whose trust fund we definitely know took advantage of a tax amnesty for off-shore companies.
LIVING WAGE FOUNDATION RESPONSE TO BUDGET 2015thundril wrote:I fear the Minimum Living Wage will pretty quickly be handed over to the landlords and the Energy companies. The prices demanded by the vendors of life's essentials are limited only by the amount of money in the pockets of the low-paid. So it goes, so it goes. . .
8th July 2015, 15:18
Rhys Moore, director, Living Wage Foundation said:
“We are delighted that the announcement made in the Budget this lunchtime will see over 2.5 million workers receive a much needed pay rise. This is a massive victory for Citizens UK and those communities, workers and business leaders who have campaigned for a Living Wage since 2001. We agree with the Chancellor that work should be the surest way out of poverty. However, this announcement raises several important questions.
“Is this really a Living Wage? The Living Wage is calculated according to the cost of living whereas the Low Pay Commission calculates a rate according to what the market can bear. Without a change of remit for the Low Pay Commission this is effectively a higher National Minimum Wage and not a Living Wage.
“Secondly, what about London? We have been working with the Mayor of London for seven years and there’s a London Living Wage rate that recognises the higher costs in the capital, currently £9.15 per hour. These changes will not help the 586,000 people for whom even the 2020 rate announced today would not be enough to live on now.
“Thirdly, what about the 2 million under-25s who are not covered by this announcement? To make sure workers in London and those under 25 do not lose out, we call on employers to join the group of 1,600 organisations that have already chosen to become voluntary Living Wage employers.
“And, lastly, do the tax credit changes announced today mean that the Living Wage needs to be higher to make sure people have enough?
“The Living Wage Foundation, members of Citizens UK and the 1,600 accredited Living Wage employers look forward to an early meeting with the Chancellor to address these questions and help the millions of workers who deserve a pay rise.”
Oh dear. You can urge new economic policies, if you can think of them, but economics is the study of the allocation of resources with have alternative uses. And will remain economics whatever policy is followed.thundril wrote:In a hi-tech society, the demand for human labour is low. The demand for basic necessities, however, continues to be, per head of population, more or less the same . The price of basic necessities will always be as much as the market can bear. The effective demand for basic necessities increases with the amount of money in the pockets of the low-paid majority. (IOW, the prices of these necessities will increase to suck up all the money the poor have available to them.) However many hours the poor are willing to work per week, at whatever wage rate they will accept, the sellers of the basic necessities (housing, food, heating) will price their commodities at such levels that the poor will never be able to do much more than just about survive.
So-called 'free-market' economics has no solutions to the problem of poverty. No matter what we try to do to alleviate that poverty by giving more money to the poor, those with the power to hoover up all the surplus will continue to do so.
The free-market model is morally bankrupt. We need a new economics.
I thought the budget was interesting today. Neat politics, taking some of the wind out of the lefts sails by slowingAlan H wrote:LIVING WAGE FOUNDATION RESPONSE TO BUDGET 2015thundril wrote:I fear the Minimum Living Wage will pretty quickly be handed over to the landlords and the Energy companies. The prices demanded by the vendors of life's essentials are limited only by the amount of money in the pockets of the low-paid. So it goes, so it goes. . .8th July 2015, 15:18
Rhys Moore, director, Living Wage Foundation said:
“We are delighted that the announcement made in the Budget this lunchtime will see over 2.5 million workers receive a much needed pay rise. This is a massive victory for Citizens UK and those communities, workers and business leaders who have campaigned for a Living Wage since 2001. We agree with the Chancellor that work should be the surest way out of poverty. However, this announcement raises several important questions.
“Is this really a Living Wage? The Living Wage is calculated according to the cost of living whereas the Low Pay Commission calculates a rate according to what the market can bear. Without a change of remit for the Low Pay Commission this is effectively a higher National Minimum Wage and not a Living Wage.
“Secondly, what about London? We have been working with the Mayor of London for seven years and there’s a London Living Wage rate that recognises the higher costs in the capital, currently £9.15 per hour. These changes will not help the 586,000 people for whom even the 2020 rate announced today would not be enough to live on now.
“Thirdly, what about the 2 million under-25s who are not covered by this announcement? To make sure workers in London and those under 25 do not lose out, we call on employers to join the group of 1,600 organisations that have already chosen to become voluntary Living Wage employers.
“And, lastly, do the tax credit changes announced today mean that the Living Wage needs to be higher to make sure people have enough?
“The Living Wage Foundation, members of Citizens UK and the 1,600 accredited Living Wage employers look forward to an early meeting with the Chancellor to address these questions and help the millions of workers who deserve a pay rise.”
I writeNick wrote:thundril wrote:In a hi-tech society, the demand for human labour is low. The demand for basic necessities, however, continues to be, per head of population, more or less the same . The price of basic necessities will always be as much as the market can bear. The effective demand for basic necessities increases with the amount of money in the pockets of the low-paid majority. (IOW, the prices of these necessities will increase to suck up all the money the poor have available to them.) However many hours the poor are willing to work per week, at whatever wage rate they will accept, the sellers of the basic necessities (housing, food, heating) will price their commodities at such levels that the poor will never be able to do much more than just about survive.
So-called 'free-market' economics has no solutions to the problem of poverty. No matter what we try to do to alleviate that poverty by giving more money to the poor, those with the power to hoover up all the surplus will continue to do so.
The free-market model is morally bankrupt. We need a new economics.
And I'm sorry, but your analysis is wrong too. Price is a consequence of supply and demand, so all sorts of outcomes are possible. Take, for example, milk. There is currently such an oversupply, that most farmers can't make an adequate profit from their cows. The poor are doing rather well on the milk front. The whole point about "basic necessities" is that the demand does not increase as incomes rise. People progress to other things. The Chinese have moved from rice to beef, for example. And talking of China, it is only the introduction of the free market which has lifted the population out of starvation.
You are on stronger ground with housing, at least in the UK, because supply is severely restricted by planning rules. But in Detroit, say? You can buy a 5 bedroom house for a dollar in some parts.
Such a Malthusian analysis as yours has been proved wrong over and over again. Is the current system perfect? Of course not. But the alternative from the Left has been disatrous for the poor the world over.
*Is this wrong? How?In a hi-tech society, the demand for human labour is low.
Is this bit wrong? How?The demand for basic necessities, however, continues to be, per head of population, more or less the same .
Price is a consequence of supply and demand, so all sorts of outcomes are possible. Take, for example, milk. There is currently such an oversupply, that most farmers can't make an adequate profit from their cows. The poor are doing rather well on the milk front.
Is this bit wrong? Can you show how it is wrong?The price of basic necessities will always be as much as the market can bear.
Is this bit wrong? Can you show how it is wrong?The effective demand for basic necessities increases with the amount of money in the pockets of the low-paid majority.
Is this bit wrong? Can you show how it is wrong?(. . the prices of these necessities will increase to suck up all the money the poor have available to them.
However many hours the poor are willing to work per week, at whatever wage rate they will accept, the sellers of the basic necessities (housing, food, heating) will price their commodities at such levels that the poor will never be able to do much more than just about survive.
But the alternative from the Left has been disatrous for the poor the world over.
My apologies if I mistook your criticism from support for State Socialism. It was not my intention to ascribe to you opinions you do not apparently hold. In order for me to address the issue, can you give me some idea of what your solution to the problem might be?Can I ask why you think I am proposing that we repeat the tragic mistakes of 20th century 'State Socialism' ? Where have I suggested any such thing? Which bit of 'We need a new economics' looks to you like a suggestion that we should reapply an old and discredited one?
Oh? Don't understand this point....anaconda wrote:And there's the problem, right there. If the market can't bear it, the jobs disappear. The OBR believe that on current figures 60,000 jobs will disappear, so those workers will go from the (new) Living Wage down to unemployment benefit. Whether this matters depends on whether other jobs are being created (for other economic reasons) so that those 60,000 people can find another job.Alan H wrote:LIVING WAGE FOUNDATION RESPONSE TO BUDGET 20158th July 2015, 15:18
Rhys Moore, director, Living Wage Foundation said:
“We are delighted that the announcement made in the Budget this lunchtime will see over 2.5 million workers receive a much needed pay rise. This is a massive victory for Citizens UK and those communities, workers and business leaders who have campaigned for a Living Wage since 2001. We agree with the Chancellor that work should be the surest way out of poverty. However, this announcement raises several important questions.
“Is this really a Living Wage? The Living Wage is calculated according to the cost of living whereas the Low Pay Commission calculates a rate according to what the market can bear.
Doesn't this demonstrate the futility of their ultimate objective?Without a change of remit for the Low Pay Commission this is effectively a higher National Minimum Wage and not a Living Wage.
Increase the pay in London, and you make it more attractive to move to London, so the cost of living will rise accordingly, until it reaches a point where the new level of pay is as inadequate as it is now.“Secondly, what about London? We have been working with the Mayor of London for seven years and there’s a London Living Wage rate that recognises the higher costs in the capital, currently £9.15 per hour. These changes will not help the 586,000 people for whom even the 2020 rate announced today would not be enough to live on now.
All that will do is to deprive the under 25's of jobs, depriving them of experience and blighting their lives for good.“Thirdly, what about the 2 million under-25s who are not covered by this announcement? To make sure workers in London and those under 25 do not lose out, we call on employers to join the group of 1,600 organisations that have already chosen to become voluntary Living Wage employers.
See above.“And, lastly, do the tax credit changes announced today mean that the Living Wage needs to be higher to make sure people have enough?
“The Living Wage Foundation, members of Citizens UK and the 1,600 accredited Living Wage employers look forward to an early meeting with the Chancellor to address these questions and help the millions of workers who deserve a pay rise.”
He's claiming £5 billion will be caught from avoidance, but I don't have any details of how.I thought the budget was interesting today. Neat politics, taking some of the wind out of the lefts sails by slowing
down the attacks on benefits. Also the living wage item was straight out of a labour wish list and I'll be interested to see if there really will be a one third lift in the wages of the lowest earners. I was also happy to see a cbi representative moaning about this. Corporate tax avoidance wasn't addressed (or did I miss something?)
If the headline cases (Starbucks, Amazon, etc) are anything to go by, I think you are wildly over-estimating the amount of money that can be retrieved.That's where the biggest sums can be recouped, and legalised theft is still theft.
Well, corporation tax is being reduced, to encourage companies to move to the UK.They seem to be creating clear water between the low paid and those on benefits. Welfare as a lifestyle choice exists but the message needs to be repeated that the sums are insignificant compared to what should be recouped via reasonable corporate taxation.
That sort of thing applies right across politics, and as there will always be winners and losers from any change of policy, it will always be ever thus.However benefit sloths makes good headlines I guess. It does concern me that welfare as a means to prop people and families up in hard times doesn't seem to register with the Torys, and they'd rather play to a pitchforked mob. They use a broad brush to deal with complex social and personal circumstances. Lots may suffer.
More misery for students too. When loans started it was possible to avoid paying anything back. Students would just dissapear off the grid for around two years post grad. No hiding place now though!
Liar.The Chancellor has denied “targeting” young people with cuts a day after wielding the axe against housing and education assistance for young people on low incomes.
George Osborne’s budget, delivered on Wednesday, excluded under-25s from a flagship living wage policy, banned them from claiming housing benefit, and scrapped grants for low-income students.
But Mr Osborne said his changes would be “good for them”, referring to young people.
As someone on Twitter said:Altfish wrote:I cannot see how targeting 'hard working people' on low wages is good policy?
If they did not have a job and more importantly were avoiding work there is some logic in the policy (I don't necessarily agree but..)
They claim they want to make people work, but surely this policy will make people think, "I've lost my tax credit, this job isn't worth doing anymore, I'll go on the dole"
It's at about this point that some clueless and chinless Tory MP tells us that work will set us free.
In a hi-tech society, technology can be used to free up human labour. But that just means we can be more efficient. And labour can do other things. There are currently more people in work in the UK than ever before, and yet we have never been so technologically advanced. The demand for labour changes, but doesn't disappear.thundril wrote:I write*Is this wrong? How?In a hi-tech society, the demand for human labour is low.
I think what we regard as basic necessities has changed dramatically over the decades, don't you? Some up, some down.I writeIs this bit wrong? How?The demand for basic necessities, however, continues to be, per head of population, more or less the same .
As I understood it, you claimed that prices of "necessities" would necessarily rise, as a consequence of any rise in the incomes of the poor. Where supply is constrained, eg in housing, then yes, this will apply. But that does not apply to all necessities, does it? The prices of water or T-shirts or vegetables have not risen because of the rise in the incomes of the poor.You writePrice is a consequence of supply and demand, so all sorts of outcomes are possible. Take, for example, milk. There is currently such an oversupply, that most farmers can't make an adequate profit from their cows. The poor are doing rather well on the milk front.
So you agree, in general, that increased supply tends to bring down prices, and increased effective demand (relative to supply) tends to encourage higher prices. In light of this, can you clarify your claim that my analysis is wrong?
The implication I drew from this was that the market would push prices up, whereas we have seen prices fall in many areas instead. For example, cars, mobile phones, TV's etc have all fallen in cost as they can be manufactured much more efficiently in large quantities than in small ones.I writeIs this bit wrong? Can you show how it is wrong?The price of basic necessities will always be as much as the market can bear.
That depends on the response of the supply-side. It could go up or down. And the demand for "necessities" can decline as incomes rise. Potatoes, say.I writeIs this bit wrong? Can you show how it is wrong?The effective demand for basic necessities increases with the amount of money in the pockets of the low-paid majority.
That depends on individual necessities and their relative importance. Housing is very dominant because of the large proportion of income it takes, and because of shortage of supply, so overall, the poor may not see much of a change in their lives as the earnings increase, but that is the fault of housing regulations, not the inevitability of continued poverty is nominal earnings grow.I writeIs this bit wrong? Can you show how it is wrong?(. . the prices of these necessities will increase to suck up all the money the poor have available to them.
The above premises are wrong, so the conclusion doesn't hold.If the above premises are not wrong, can you show how the conclusion is wrong?However many hours the poor are willing to work per week, at whatever wage rate they will accept, the sellers of the basic necessities (housing, food, heating) will price their commodities at such levels that the poor will never be able to do much more than just about survive.
Oh! I thought milk was a specific, and was intended to illuminate, not mislead! I've done what I can, but do respond if you want to.Specifics, addressing the points themselves, would be appreciated. Introducing oddities like the price of milk can be misleading.
No. The general trend is for people to increase their consumption, or to change their consumption patterns to more expensive things. Only if supply is constrained (as it is in housing) will that not apply as strongly.Do you not agree that the general trend is for the prices of individually-consumed necessities to rise as incomes rise?
Hmmm.... demand changes according to the cost. If land was £5 an acre, then I'd buy quite a lot. If it is £10,000 an acre, then I'd rather spend my money on other things. So land prices will rise, until the amount demanded at that price is the same as the amount supplied at that price. But of course, that can also work in reverse, hence my Detroit example.Certainly you appear to agree with me that accommodation prices will continue to rise as long as supply is far lower than demand.
OK(Exactly why the supply of housing is lower than demand is another matter.)
If supply is low and relatively fixed, the price will equalise at the point where it meets the effective demand. And yes, housing benefit will be an important factor in determining the level of effective demand, by increasing it, the more generous it is. However, if there is a high level of supply, then the price would fall. It would be of no consequence to the landlord that s/he did not receive the maximum allowed, if there was no-one renting the property.The fact is, as long as supply remains substantially lower than the effective demand, rents will rise to whatever the market will bear; at the lower end of the uk market, these prices stay at, or slightly above, the maximum housing benefit in any given area.
You are only taking account of one determinant. Yes, a vendor will seek to maximise the price, but the purchaser (who may be a public institution) will seek to minimise it. So no, it will not be a million dollars. It will be the cheapest at which a property can be purchased.Detroit would be a very different case in some peculiar aspects, for sure, but the principle still applies. If there were homeless people around Detroit who wanted those houses and could afford to offer a million dollars for one, what do you think the price would be, Nick? How about a million dollars? Can you think of any way it might be less than the best price the market will yield?
I hope I've explained it...Which bit of this is factually wrong?
I think it is analogous, not directly Malthusian. What Malthus applied to population, to come to the conclusion that population would always be a crisis levels, you seemed to be applying to the poor, so that, whatever we do, the poverty would always be the same. (If that were true, then cuts in benefit would have no effect either.....)Finally, which bit of what I wrote looks to you like Malthusianism?
Some good points Nick. Thanks for taking the time. Meanwhile I'm busy on answering your ealier question (about my proposal for dealing with 'poverty').Nick wrote: . . .
. . .I hope I've explained it...Which bit of this is factually wrong?
Commons leader Chris Grayling says the government is clarifying its plans to give England's MPs a veto over English laws, with a vote delayed to September.
A redrafted version of the plan will be published on Monday and debated for two days next week, Mr Grayling said.
He would then "publish and table a final set of standing orders" which MPs would debate after the summer recess.
Labour said the "reckless and shoddy" plans had descended into "chaos" while the SNP said it was a "shambles"
The government believes bills applying exclusively to England should not become law without the explicit consent of MPs from English constituencies and it wants to change Commons rules known as standing orders to give them a "decisive say" during their passage.
I thought the Tories were against independence for Scotland; this badly thought out law is just going to speed the break-up up.Alan H wrote:English votes for English laws plan to be delayedCommons leader Chris Grayling says the government is clarifying its plans to give England's MPs a veto over English laws, with a vote delayed to September.
A redrafted version of the plan will be published on Monday and debated for two days next week, Mr Grayling said.
He would then "publish and table a final set of standing orders" which MPs would debate after the summer recess.
Labour said the "reckless and shoddy" plans had descended into "chaos" while the SNP said it was a "shambles"
The government believes bills applying exclusively to England should not become law without the explicit consent of MPs from English constituencies and it wants to change Commons rules known as standing orders to give them a "decisive say" during their passage.
