I might disagree with the
I was specifically impressed with one thing, namely their concept of topping up the pay of low income employees. The basic concept is that in order to help the poor in the country the
You see, I’m actually against minimum wage. Yes, that’s shocking (and will make most if you question my leftist credentials). The reason I’m against minimum wage is that it inflates the prices of low end products. In the high end industries – such as IT, fashion and accessories – minimum wage doesn’t really play a role. The extra cost is insignificant compared to the full price of the product.
In the case of lower end products, however, the cost is quite significant. In order to get food products to your table, for example, huge numbers of low paid employees are involved. You’ve got the farmer’s helper in the field, you’ve got the lorry driver, you’ve got the unloaders and the loaders, you’ve got the supermarket checkout staff, the stackers, etc. All these people have to be paid minimum wage, with the result that all these extra dollars have to be tagged onto the low cost products that are being sold.
The result? The prices of food stuff rises. This isn’t just the case in food stuff, though, it also holds true for most household products and it is here that poor people spend the largest chunk of their budget. So, though poor people get helped out by minimum wage, they also get hurt by it. That doesn’t sound very useful!
Enter the top up concept. Instead of installing a minimum wage, the government says that salaries below a certain level get an extra cash infusion (normally this is fifty percent of the difference between the limit and their actual salary). This basically works the same way as minimum wage, but puts the cost burden on the government instead of the minimum wage paying employer (and by extension the poor consumer). The costs of basic household items should drop considerably.
If the government can’t finance this out of out of its own pocket, they can always decide to do something like raise the GST, which isn’t very nice, but leads to a far more equal distribution of the cost than minimum wage, since GST rises as price rises. What is more, with the poor having more disposable income available, they could choose to purchase more luxury products, for example, offsetting the possible loss to retailers due to an increased GST.
If this is what
Posts
I agree, minimum wages are bad.
ReplyDeleteHow is taxing the rich people or successful companies (dont know what a GST is) a "more equal distribution" ?
I have never been comfortable with a percentile tax, much less a graduated one.
I am working with the understanding that equal implies equality, which is not what this (or any welfare state) does. This is a redistribution of wealth, which in principle is always bad and in practice always worse. I understand your points but to call it more equatible I find a bit of a stretch. If as you say the poor would have more disposable income...Why should wealth people or businesses foot the luxury bill of the poor?
GST mean Goods and Services Tax. It is a tax that is impossed on all purchases, so you only pay it when you purchase something. It's a percentile tax added onto all goods (so if GST is 5% and an item normally costs $100 then it will cost $105 with GST).
ReplyDeleteAs for the better off not needing to take care of the poor, it seems I, as an Atheist, am a better Christian than you are.
It is unconstructive to make comments like that.
ReplyDeleteHandouts do not help the poor. Handouts create dependency on the government. Dependency on the government empowers the government beyond its designed mandate. An empowered government in this fashion devolves into a welfare state, which creates more dependency which further empowers the government, ad infinitum.
If you want to discuss justice when it comes to taxation you must accept that at present it doesn't exist in many places (if any). The very idea that it is fair and equitable to tax one party more than another in a society where every citizen has an equal say is ridiculous. Such an act of taxation undermines the very principle of equality. And yet it is done everywhere in the West (and apparently in the East).
If you want to have a discussion on how to help the poor the last place you want to start is with wealth redistribution or with forcing artificiality on the market (which determines wages). Wealth redistribution merely serves to unfairly punish the wealthy and successful, which stifles incentive to do better, work harder and achieve more - which stifles the market - which leads to less risk - which leads to less jobs - which leads to lower wages, scarcity in supply, etc ad infinitum. At the same time it undercuts the incentive of the poor to do better, work harder and achieve more (which leads to more dependency, etc) … why should try to rectify their situation if they can simply get free money from all the rich people. If you truly care about the plight of the poor you don’t give them alms you teach them a more marketable skill … give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, feed him for life.
Next I am sure you would reference social responsibility. I also disagree with this concept as it is phrased and enforced. Responsibility implies correlation- correlation between me and a poor person. In other words it implies that on some level I contributed to their situation and am thus responsible for my actions and thus responsible to aid them. Since we know this is not the case the entire concept is debunk. I do not make people poor and therefore should not be held responsible for making them less poor/more wealthy. And let’s be clean on what I mean. I do not mean we, as people, should not feed the homeless and helpless, of course we should. But the idea that we should feel a responsibility to redistribute wealth we have earned through our own labour to the poor who are working, capable, etc is wrong. I would love to write more but I have to earn my living…and the living of 4+ poor people who my government has made dependant on my handouts.