The Miliboy really is an ignorant tosser

Ed Miliband will on Tuesday declare the cost of living crisis has become the preeminent issue facing Britain, as he sets out plans for employers to receive a tax rebate if they choose to pay a worker the living wage, which is now worth £7.65 an hour, £1.34 higher than the minimum wage.

The rebate is designed to incentivise a high wage and high skill economy and would last for a year at a minimum. In a speech, Miliband will claim the policy symbolises the choice facing the country at the next election between Labour committed to tackling low living standards and the Conservatives committed to broken markets.

Sigh.

That living wage comes out to a shade under 15 grand a year. Out of which the government takes a couple of thousand pounds to pay for things like the salary of the Leader of the Opposition.

Yes, indeed, Ed Miliboy gets paid from the crusts stolen from the mouths of poor babes in arms.

And if you think that the working poor don’t have enough money at the end of the day then there’s really a very simple solution. Stop fucking nicking it off them in tax.

However, research has shown employers paying the living wage secure a more productive workforce with lower absenteeism and turn-over. Dominic Johnson, employee relations director at Barclays, said on Monday that paying the rate had improved retention rates for its cleaners. “Early research on the impact of the living wage for cleaners on Barclays’ contracts shows our suppliers have a 92% retention rate versus an industry average of 35%,” he said.

Dear God Barclay’s employs some ignorant cunts. Yes, of course you have a greater retention rate. You’re paying more than everyone else. When everyone is paying the same as you then you’ll have the same retention rate as everyone else. Doesn’t anyone at all recall the story of Henry Ford and his $5 a day?

11 comments on “The Miliboy really is an ignorant tosser

  1. Left Foot Forward, the Straw boy’s leftie wanktank, was actually bragging last night that more tax would be harvested if the minimum wage was raised. Truly these people have no shame.

    A report out today finds that £3billion extra would be generated for the Treasury if a living wage were introduced: http://t.co/FqrWW9KBlA— Left Foot Forward (@leftfootfwd) November 4, 2013

  2. You see the problem is, Tim, that raising the tax allowance doesn’t employ any bureaucrats.

    Rebating businesses (and the necessary compliance monitoring) and tax the low paid does.

    What is it about government, and Labour in particular, which has to have the most complicated and expensive approach possible to what is an easily solved problem?

    Just stop levying tax and NI on the minimum wage. Job done.

  3. If the assert a scenario where the wage rises soley due to government intervention you can’t then go on to claim that the government is reducing the money in the person’s pocket with income tax – as without the intervention they would not have it anyway

  4. Good news for the unions too: they will demand that differentials be maintained. Inflation all round!

    1970s here we come!

  5. May I take it that Militwerp is therefore proposing to raise the State Retirement Pension to £15k p.a. too? Or does he really, really want us OAPs to hurry up and die?

  6. Costs rise for a business its common to adjust prices or change costs at some point to cover. Whether thats reducing staffing to maintain wages bill while requiring same total work done by workforce, or putting prices up for everyone – not just those with the increased wage, something will be done.

    Anyone know if people on benefits will really complain with a few pence extra on each item being sold to them by the shops?

  7. Soarer, it’s worse than that. Having employers pay people more, due to a tax rebate, makes them dependent on regulation and on interfering politicians. Lifting them out of ‘tax poverty’ by taxing them less risks giving them a fierce sense of independence and individualism, and where would that leave Ed and the unions?

  8. “The rebate is designed to incentivise a high wage and high skill economy”

    I’m sorry.. what? Is someone really linking a plan to bribe companies to pay slightly more to the very lowest rung of unskilled labour to the pursuit of a ‘high wage and high skill economy’.

    Let me get some popcorn, then someone can talk me through the logic there.

  9. .. Also, there’s a lot of talk about how companies should realise that it’s better for them to pay the living wage. They will totally be better off because of happiness and retention and reasons.

    Just how dumb to the people saying this think that businesses are? Do they think the people who set wages are so blinded by their desire to pay the lowest wages possible that they do so even when it makes them worse off?

  10. I’d note that the guy from Barclays is merely saying what his audience (which in this case are the “living wage” fanbase and, to a lesser extent, the affected Barclays suppliers, because I suspect there is some cost-sharing going on) want to hear him saying.

    There is no requirement for him to believe it or, even for him to be unaware of the trivial truth.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>