Time for a national maximum wage.

ei.sdraob

Taxipete29 wrote: »

It does become harder to survive on. Some people here are obsessed with sticking it to the lower paid worker. Its a joke.

The wages in this country are falling. The market is reducing them. This is without a reduction in the minimum wage. So whats the problem??

urm aint it obvious? they cant fall below the current minimum wage..

obl is right tho this thread is about maximum wage :pac: minimum wage deserves its own thread

seamus

Taxipete29 wrote: »

The wages in this country are falling. The market is reducing them. This is without a reduction in the minimum wage. So whats the problem??

Because if a company does an exercise and determines that it needs to reduce its wages by 10% in order to survive, it can't reduce the pay of the minimum wage workers. So it will lay them off. It won't just pile the wage cuts on everyone else, because minimum wage workers are ten-a-penny, easily replaceable and can have their workload increased all you like.
If minimum wage was dropped, it would provide an avenue for employers to keep workers instead of laying them off. Ask a minimum wage worker if they'd prefer €7 an hour or no job at all.

This would of course require a drop in social welfare payments too, but we know that's coming.

Taxipete29

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Of course it becomes harder to get by if your overall wage goes down but just as a matter of interest I wonder how many people on the minimum wage are students trying to earn a few pounds to pay for drink or even young-uns looking for a bit of pocket money during the summer.

When I was on min wage it didn't really bother me what I earned, I just saved it anyway. I wasn't going to be on the breadline if it was reduced. I don't know if we can really say there are many families trying to survive on a single minimum wage packet.

And it's not about targeting the poorest, in fact in the long run it may help some. It might mean that for a small reduction, an employer may be able to hire some lad on the dole and have two workers as opposed to just one. The lad on the dole earns a bit more and gets some self-esteem back and productivity will go up. What about helping your fellow man?

About 3% of the full-time workforce earn minimum wage.

Dont give me all that rubbish about helping your fellow man. Lowering the minimum wage will not magically create more employment. Many people have not yet taken a pay cut and consumption is down. Do you honestly think its going to go up when their pay is cut and they are hit by more tax hikes??
Without more consumption, what companies are going to be employing more people???

Taxipete29

seamus wrote: »

Because if a company does an exercise and determines that it needs to reduce its wages by 10% in order to survive, it can't reduce the pay of the minimum wage workers. So it will lay them off. It won't just pile the wage cuts on everyone else, because minimum wage workers are ten-a-penny, easily replaceable and can have their workload increased all you like.
If minimum wage was dropped, it would provide an avenue for employers to keep workers instead of laying them off. Ask a minimum wage worker if they'd prefer €7 an hour or no job at all.

This would of course require a drop in social welfare payments too, but we know that's coming.

There is already a provision for this contained within the minimum wage legislation. The employer can go to the labour court with the support of the majority of the staff and plead inabiltity to pay. The court can allow a reduction if it is shown they will lose jobs if its not lowered.

seamus

Taxipete29 wrote: »

There is already a provision for this contained within the minimum wage legislation. The employer can go to the labour court with the support of the majority of the staff and plead inabiltity to pay. The court can allow a reduction if it is shown they will lose jobs if its not lowered.

How much does that cost and how long does it take? Most employers considering pay cuts don't exactly have months available to them in order to poll their staff and apply to the labour court.

Taxipete29

seamus wrote: »

How much does that cost and how long does it take? Most employers considering pay cuts don't exactly have months available to them in order to poll their staff and apply to the labour court.

Most employers cant just reduce staff wages without their consent anyway. There would be sufficent time to take this to the Labour court.

Spudmonkey

Taxipete29 wrote: »

About 3% of the full-time workforce earn minimum wage.

And in what jobs? Like in a shop or behind a bar? Are their skills so invaluable they can't be replaced? Or that they should see people with multiple years experience behind them coming back to them? I wouldn't mind but Tescos etc have reduced prices and that. The purchasing power of those on the minimum wages has probably improved over the past few months.

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Dont give me all that rubbish about helping your fellow man.

Blame Cowen et al for that.

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Without more consumption, what companies are going to be employing more people???

What about ones exporting and who depend on a global upturn? And maybe not ones that are already here, but ones we want to entice. Lets face it, thats going to happen much sooner than one here.

Taxipete29

Spudmonkey wrote: »

And in what jobs? Like in a shop or behind a bar? Are their skills so invaluable they can't be replaced? Or that they should see people with multiple years experience behind them coming back to them? I wouldn't mind but Tescos etc have reduced prices and that. The purchasing power of those on the minimum wages has probably improved over the past few months.



Blame Cowen et al for that.



What about ones exporting and who depend on a global upturn? And maybe not ones that are already here, but ones we want to entice. Lets face it, thats going to happen much sooner than one here.

Deflation is running at 5%, you would need to drop the minimum wage by at least 10% to hope to make any difference. Now your are reducing their spending power by 5%. This makes loads of sense.

The jobs we want to entice are not minimum wage jobs or anything close to it. We will never compete in low-cost manufacturing again. That ship sailed a long time ago.

Take the industrial diamond company in shannon last week. The workers here earned €13ph approx. The workers in South Africa earn about €4.50. Do you really expect us to compete with that??

ei.sdraob

seamus wrote: »

How much does that cost and how long does it take? Most employers considering pay cuts don't exactly have months available to them in order to poll their staff and apply to the labour court.

its easier to just move shop than to be dragged thru courts

as has happened before

would Dell have moved if the wages here were the same as they are in Poland?

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Deflation is running at 5%, you would need to drop the minimum wage by at least 10% to hope to make any difference. Now your are reducing their spending power by 5%. This makes loads of sense.

The jobs we want to entice are not minimum wage jobs or anything close to it. We will never compete in low-cost manufacturing again. That ship sailed a long time ago.

Take the industrial diamond company in shannon last week. The workers here earned €13ph approx. The workers in South Africa earn about €4.50. Do you really expect us to compete with that??

how about competing with Poland or even something closer home like UK

sovtek

ei.sdraob wrote: »

its easier to just move shop than to be dragged thru courts

as has happened before

would Dell have moved if the wages here were the same as they are in Poland?



how about competing with Poland or even something closer home like UK

Actually a Polish guy I worked with said they never even landed in Poland...they are going to India instead and they are one of many doing the same thing. Race to the bottom folks.

RedPlanet

It's crazy to compare wages with Poland.
We will never be able to devalue to match them.
Why?
We don't have access to cheap fossil fuels.
The cost of electricity and petrol will always be higher here.

Taxipete29

ei.sdraob wrote: »

its easier to just move shop than to be dragged thru courts

as has happened before

would Dell have moved if the wages here were the same as they are in Poland?



how about competing with Poland or even something closer home like UK

Ok if this thread is about a maximum wage, wouldnt we have a fairer more equitable society if everyone accepted that you dont have to earn a large amount over the minimum wage??

If the people at the top reduced there wages considerably wouldnt that have more of an effect than reducing the minimum wage by a token amount??

anonymous_joe

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Ok if this thread is about a maximum wage, wouldnt we have a fairer more equitable society if everyone accepted that you dont have to earn a large amount over the minimum wage??

If the people at the top reduced there wages considerably wouldnt that have more of an effect than reducing the minimum wage by a token amount??

If the people 'at the top' had no incentive to work, business wouldn't exist, because no-one would be arsed setting one up.

The entire point of a wage system is that it's a loose meritocracy, heavily influenced by supply and demand - basically, we need doctors, they're comparitively rare, thus we pay them a lot of money. Similar things can be said about lawyers, dentists and so on.

Another example is actually a footballer - the reason a footballer is paid so much money is because no-one else can do his job - he's the best candidate out of millions. Because there's high demand for his services, he's paid a fortune.

With a maximum wage, large numbers of hardworking people who earn large salaries and whose work generates even more money would have no incentive to do that work. Thus the country would go down the shítter.

Taxipete29

anonymous_joe wrote: »

If the people 'at the top' had no incentive to work, business wouldn't exist, because no-one would be arsed setting one up.

The entire point of a wage system is that it's a loose meritocracy, heavily influenced by supply and demand - basically, we need doctors, they're comparitively rare, thus we pay them a lot of money. Similar things can be said about lawyers, dentists and so on.

Another example is actually a footballer - the reason a footballer is paid so much money is because no-one else can do his job - he's the best candidate out of millions. Because there's high demand for his services, he's paid a fortune.

With a maximum wage, large numbers of hardworking people who earn large salaries and whose work generates even more money would have no incentive to do that work. Thus the country would go down the shítter.

Your confusing wages and profits. People who set up a business and create jobs make their money mostly from profit. They may also take a salary, but if that is capped its just more of an incentive for them to work harder for higher profits.

If you reduce wages at the top, prices will fall in line with what can be paid. Therefore all the luxuries that those on higher wages can afford now will still be affordable as they will of come down in price??

Added to that, a more equitable society would be better for all. Equitable societys are more productive and more efficent.

RedPlanet

anonymous_joe wrote: »

If the people 'at the top' had no incentive to work, business wouldn't exist, because no-one would be arsed setting one up.

The entire point of a wage system is that it's a loose meritocracy, heavily influenced by supply and demand - basically, we need doctors, they're comparitively rare, thus we pay them a lot of money. Similar things can be said about lawyers, dentists and so on.

Another example is actually a footballer - the reason a footballer is paid so much money is because no-one else can do his job - he's the best candidate out of millions. Because there's high demand for his services, he's paid a fortune.

With a maximum wage, large numbers of hardworking people who earn large salaries and whose work generates even more money would have no incentive to do that work. Thus the country would go down the shítter.

So what do you think that person will do, curl up and die?
I don't see how earning only say, 150,000€/yr is some major disincentive to do anything.

astrofool

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Your confusing wages and profits. People who set up a business and create jobs make their money mostly from profit. They may also take a salary, but if that is capped its just more of an incentive for them to work harder for higher profits.

I'm sorry, but you have just lost all credibility you have here.

So, what you propose is that we have a maximum "salary" for everyone.

Fine, suddenly a lot of the country is at that maximum, companies will set that as the top limit.

Most will earn to that maximum and then stop working. November/December everything will close up.

So, already we have tax revenue go down massively (80% of taxes come from the top 20% of earners). So at a minimum, the middle and lower class will have to make up that deficit.

You then go on to say that the profit that a company makes won't be included in this maximum.

And you don't see a problem with this? You don't see everyone setting up "my name incorporated", paying themselves the max salary, and then putting the rest of the earnings into "profits"?

You don't see how that exact system (CEO's/directors etc. earning lots off share prices via dividends), caused most of the financial crisis in the first place.

I take my hat off to you, your understanding of economics, taxes and salaries is stupendously amazingly awful.

Taxipete29

astrofool wrote: »

I'm sorry, but you have just lost all credibility you have here.

So, what you propose is that we have a maximum "salary" for everyone.

Fine, suddenly a lot of the country is at that maximum, companies will set that as the top limit.

Most will earn to that maximum and then stop working. November/December everything will close up.

So, already we have tax revenue go down massively (80% of taxes come from the top 20% of earners). So at a minimum, the middle and lower class will have to make up that deficit.

You then go on to say that the profit that a company makes won't be included in this maximum.

And you don't see a problem with this? You don't see everyone setting up "my name incorporated", paying themselves the max salary, and then putting the rest of the earnings into "profits"?

You don't see how that exact system (CEO's/directors etc. earning lots off share prices via dividends), caused most of the financial crisis in the first place.

I take my hat off to you, your understanding of economics, taxes and salaries is stupendously amazingly awful.

This model would begin with the Public service where it could be achieved and such concerns wont come up.

Your knee jerk response to a radical change is expected. Obviously I didnt come up with this idea off the top of my head. Its not my idea. Its about creating a more equitable society for the better of us all.

The nuts and bolts elements of such a plan would have to be worked out by people with the requsite knowledge to do so.Its not impossible, tough but not impossible.

Think of me what you will, but it would be sheer arogance on your part to think that the system of inequality we currently live in is the only way forward for society. Change can difficult, it requires changing mindsets and ways of life. We all live in this society. The 20% at the top would never get there if it wasnt for the other 80%. We all need each other in this world.

Riskymove

Taxipete29 wrote: »

This model would begin with the Public service where it could be achieved and such concerns wont come up.

the number of people in the public service earning over, say €150,000 is relatively small so i dont see how much it would achieve

it could, however, severly affect some areas - consultants, lawyers etc

ei.sdraob

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Your confusing wages and profits. People who set up a business and create jobs make their money mostly from profit. They may also take a salary, but if that is capped its just more of an incentive for them to work harder for higher profits.

hahahaha

as a director i rolling here laughing since you got it wrong big time

you can either pay yourself a salary (which means paying normal income taxes and employer taxes) as i do

or you can pay shareholders the dividends, Irish ltd companies need 2 shareholders min, now here is the fun bit, share dividents are counted against your tax credits and same thing as paying a salary

or you can leave money in company, pay corpo tax on profits, and then have company pay for expenses BUT comes the audit these expenses have to be related to doing business, these count as benefits in kind and also go against your tax credits, hell you cant even pay VHI anymore by the company as its same as if you pay out of you pocket and cant be counted as an expense anymore

or you can break the law like anglo irish directors did (whatever did happen to them for their shameful schemes)

you can not avoid paying income taxes against your tax credits (also as a director you loose paye/prsi tax credit even if you pay it!) and alot more if you want to take money from your business :mad:


ill put it you this way, if the taxes go up anymore i am closing up shop in Ireland and leaving, so far only thing keeping me here is family and friends, and all these ever increasing taxes on people who actually contribute to economy by exporting things and working is rather annoying

actually you know what theres no point arguing, ill just get back to work, to pay for some lazy doleheads to spend their afternoon sipping cider and posting on boards


sigh :going_mad:

Boggle

it could, however, severly affect some areas - consultants, lawyers etc

Is that a good or a bad thing?

Imagine having twice as many consultants for the exact same money? 125k per anum is still a great wage.
Imagine if solicitors earned less and as a result normal people could actually afford to use them?

Riskymove

Boggle wrote: »

Is that a good or a bad thing?

Imagine having twice as many consultants for the exact same money? 125k per anum is still a great wage.
Imagine if solicitors earned less and as a result normal people could actually afford to use them?

I am wondering what calibre of laywer or consultant you will attract if there's a public salary cap ?

125k may look good to you or I but if they can earn much more elsewhere?

RedPlanet

Riskymove wrote: »

I am wondering what calibre of laywer or consultant you will attract if there's a public salary cap ?

125k may look good to you or I but if they can earn much more elsewhere?

Not very easy for a solicitor to simply move elsewhere, his/her credentials account for feck-all anywhere else.
I'd say a good number of consulants would be in the same boat.

Taxipete29

ei.sdraob wrote: »

hahahaha

as a director i rolling here laughing since you got it wrong big time

you can either pay yourself a salary (which means paying normal income taxes and employer taxes) as i do

or you can pay shareholders the dividends, Irish ltd companies need 2 shareholders min, now here is the fun bit, share dividents are counted against your tax credits and same thing as paying a salary

or you can leave money in company, pay corpo tax on profits, and then have company pay for expenses BUT comes the audit these expenses have to be related to doing business, these count as benefits in kind and also go against your tax credits, hell you cant even pay VHI anymore by the company as its same as if you pay out of you pocket and cant be counted as an expense anymore

or you can break the law like anglo irish directors did (whatever did happen to them for their shameful schemes)

you can not avoid paying income taxes against your tax credits (also as a director you loose paye/prsi tax credit even if you pay it!) and alot more if you want to take money from your business :mad:


ill put it you this way, if the taxes go up anymore i am closing up shop in Ireland and leaving, so far only thing keeping me here is family and friends, and all these ever increasing taxes on people who actually contribute to economy by exporting things and working is rather annoying

actually you know what theres no point arguing, ill just get back to work, to pay for some lazy doleheads to spend their afternoon sipping cider and posting on boards


sigh :going_mad:

I did say above that I wasnt sure about the nuts and bolts of how it would work. Its an idea,a concept.

If I got it wrong, I got it wrong. I am big enough to admit if I make a mistake or get something wrong.

Now to deal with the sheer arrogance to accuse me of being on the dole and sitting around drinking all day. This is what you implied and dont try to deny it. Your sir lack class. You gladly throw around such accusations with the anonymity afforded to you by the internet. You look down on people and make judgements based on nothing more than a preconcieved notion. I doubt you make such accusations as readily when face to face with a person. Your sort never do.

Boggle

I am wondering what calibre of laywer or consultant you will attract if there's a public salary cap ?

125k may look good to you or I but if they can earn much more elsewhere?

Where will a guy trained in Irish law go?? As for consultants (medical) - screw them. Make it part of their contract that they owe 15 years to Irish healthcare before moving on. They'll know the story coming in and it they dont like it let them feck off to England for their training - at which stage they will be faced with the option of never coming home or accepting the Irish wage.
Some might go eventually but so what??? Plenty fish in the sea.

ei.sdraob

Taxipete29 wrote: »

I did say above that I wasnt sure about the nuts and bolts of how it would work. Its an idea,a concept.

If I got it wrong, I got it wrong. I am big enough to admit if I make a mistake or get something wrong.

Now to deal with the sheer arrogance to accuse me of being on the dole and sitting around drinking all day. This is what you implied and dont try to deny it. Your sir lack class. You gladly throw around such accusations with the anonymity afforded to you by the internet. You look down on people and make judgements based on nothing more than a preconcieved notion. I doubt you make such accusations as readily when face to face with a person. Your sort never do.

you are right there is anonymity on the internet hence why boards is so colorful, tho i wasn't referring to you (notice the plural in my words) as there are plenty of dole heads here who would defend their cushy payments, country be damned.


anyways lets say you start a business selling widgets tomorrow

* you have to spend alot of work doing market research
* you have to plunge yourself into near endless paperwork that comes with starting a ltd co
* you loose taxcredits
* assume all goes well despite a recession and you make a 40K profit after a miriad of costs such as high energy, high communications, high labour and supply costs etc etc
* so naturally enough you want to reward yourself for working hard evening and weekends too to keep your baby afloat
* since almost all your tax credits are gone you pay more tax than average joe
* then you also have to pay employer taxes like paye/prsi since you are an employer employing yourself (lets not even get into it when theirs more employees involved)
* in the end you look around and you ask why did you bother with all that stress when you could have made same amount ~30K after taxes working in an average industrial wage
* or open the paper and see public sector wages at insane levels
* or open another paper and read that you might have been better off on the dole with all sorts of payments and benefits such as free medical care and no expensive vhi
* or read boards.ie and see one of these dolers propose that people earning above certain amount part with their hard earned money


seriously im not being arrogant even tho i may come off as that, but read the above and put yourself in the shoes of many small businesses around the country who are seriously being stretched to the limits


i am very very pissed off now with this system where you get rewarded for sponging and punished for trying to make your own business



the current system, the proposal of the OP and your proposals are insulting, demeaning and just downright unfair, and if this situation gets worse those that can leave will do so. those that cant leave will just work less, eitherway the economy looses and everyone else looses...

.

turgon

Why would you bother setting up a small shop and providing employment if you could only make so much? Or if you had one shop, whats the motivation to set up another one when you wouldn't make any more money?

RedPlanet

turgon wrote: »

Why would you bother setting up a small shop and providing employment if you could only make so much? Or if you had one shop, whats the motivation to set up another one when you wouldn't make any more money?

It sounds like you need to change your business model.
Franchise your shop.
Why do we have McDonald's in every flippin town.

Why not sit back, sell franchises of your shop, allow the franchisee to take on those employees wages.
You just relax behind a desk and do less and less every year while your successful shop continues to grow at no expense of your own.

turgon

ei.sdraob wrote: »

there are plenty of dole heads here who would defend their cushy payments, country be damned.

While I stand at your side of the argument ei.sdraob, I think you should refrain stereotyping people with the "dole head" rhetoric. Some people who are unfortunate enough not to be able find a job and who are receiving job seekers allowance are against such weighty welfare packets. Namely yours truly.

turgon

RedPlanet wrote: »

Why not sit back, sell franchises of your shop, allow the franchisee to take on those employees wages.

If the maximum wage is there whats the point?

ei.sdraob

turgon wrote: »

While I stand at your side of the argument ei.sdraob, I think you should refrain stereotyping people with the "dole head" rhetoric. Some people who are unfortunate enough not to be able find a job and who are receiving job seekers allowance are against such weighty welfare packets. Namely yours truly.

im referring to the people who didnt bother getting a job when the going was good

i understand the need for welfare, especially if you just lost your job

you are right i better tone it down its not doing me favours