A great day for Britain

[gingerjedi]

Why not trust the employee to make their own decision? and who are you to judge that a business should/should not be viable based on an arbitrary figure conjured up by a bunch of self serving socialists?

I can judge as a tax payer, I don't see why my taxes (by way of benefits) should subsidise unscrupulous employers who choose to pay derisory wages in order to fill their own boots.

[doodab]

Or at least in order to incentivise people to engage in economic activities that will lead to growth they need to be able to keep a large portion of it for themselves.

Exactly. So you can understand why the 9 people who benefit to the tune of 10p in my example aren't terribly "incentivised" can't you.

[sasguru]

dupe

[sasguru]

No, I'm saying that as the global economy expands the additional wealth created accrues disproportionately to the already wealthy thus reinforcing the disparity.

Lets say there are 10 people and £100, and it's divided such that 1 person has £91 and the rest have £1 each. If they all work hard to double their collective wealth to £200 you might expect them to gain £10 each so that one would have £101 and the rest would have £11. What usually happens in practice is that the person who started with £91 doesn't do any of the work but ends up with £190.10 and the rest of them end up with £1.10.

But I have personal experience of a few of your hypothetical original £1 people working hard and each getting, say, £50, £90 or even £200. So I know you're wrong.
The original £91 person may well have got £190.10, but they don't care.
Just because you're one of those who only got £1.10 doesn't mean that everyone did.
No one is stopping you baking your own cake.

[Old Greg]

Your question implicitly suggests a fixed cake.

No it doesn't.

[DodgyAgent]

Who are you to decide that companies ought to be able to enjoy the benefit of other people's labour without paying them a living wage? Or to decide that my taxes ought to be used to subsidise companies who won't pay their employees enough to live on?

I am not saying anything. I simply believe that what an employer pays an employee is a matter between them. Likewise taxes should not subsidise business.

[Old Greg]

I am not saying anything.

The first piece of sense all day.

[doodab]

But I have personal experience of a few of your hypothetical original £1 people working hard and each getting, say, £50, £90 or even £200. So I know you're wrong.
The original £91 person may well have got £190.10, but they don't care.
Just because you're one of those who only got £1.10 doesn't mean that everyone did.

You really are a prat. You are forever going on about people not understanding numbers and not looking at data then when it suits you you personalise everything and reach for the anecdotal evidence. The true picture is that in general the additional wealth accrues to the already wealthy.

[DodgyAgent]

Agentspeak Sentence of the Day!

Git

[doodab]

I am not saying anything. I simply believe that what an employer pays an employee is a matter between them. Likewise taxes should not subsidise business.

Ok so that is actually two things you are saying, and one of them is that taxes should not subsidise business, which is exactly what happens when you allow employers freedom to set wages as low as they like and the benefits system has to make up the shortfall. The minimum wage is a mechanism for ensuring that doesn't happen. Abolishing it amounts to nothing more than subsidising the cost of labour for businesses.