Nice to see how word gets around

By coincidence, the existing pre-tax minimum wage for those in full-time employment is almost exactly the same as what the living wage would pay after tax and National Insurance.

That’s Jeremy Warner.

But it’s nice to see how word gets around. I was the first person (in a blog for the ASI) to actually make that point. Way back when the Living Wage campaign first started in fact, back when it was still being done by the Joseph Rowntree peeps. It got right up their noses that I did the calculation too: and I’ve been gleefully updating it each year as the minimum wage and the Living Wage change.

Madsen once pointed out that the purpose of the ASI was to be the lonely voices howling madness in the wilderness. After a few years our points would gradually move into the mainstream and be just accepted facts upon which all would agree. Don’t worry too much about being able to claim credit for these things, went the advice, just rejoice when a point you’ve made does become that mainstream.

That’s another one that’s on the move then……

6 comments on “Nice to see how word gets around

  1. I made essentially the same point, following your lead, in my local paper in response to a letter from the TUC and Howard Reed.

    Thank you Tim.

  2. I have too on the Guardian CIF, following your lead Tim.

    Needless to say , it didn’t go down very well. 🙂

  3. But if the poor pay *nothing*, not even a token amount, we will get a society where welfare in particular is abused because many of it’s recipients have never made identifiable contributions. Keep NI on the lowest paid IMHO, so we all know where the welfare money comes from….

  4. Has it not been proven that increased tax thresholds benefit middle-higher earners more low-paid?… thus increasing inequality… therefore, would it not be a better idea to increase tax credits instead?.. (Of course, neither the minimum/living wage nor tax credits address things as elegantly as a guaranteed income 😉 )

  5. @KJ – all changes that reduce tax take, whether it is reducing marginal rates or increasing thresholds, “benefit the rich” more than anyone else. Those who can take full advantage of the reduced burden due to a raised threshold will of course benefit more than those who can only benefit partly from a raised threshold (Because their earnings are below the new threshold).

    This is simple arithmetic certainty. It’s mathematically unavoidable. It’s as predictable as the leftists deploying it as an argument against any and every proposed reduction in taxes because its “tax cuts for the rich”, innit.

    Which is why we end up with the ludicrosity of the poor being taxed and that tax being given back to them in various benefits.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.