Time for a national maximum wage.

ei.sdraob

RedPlanet wrote: »

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.

ok to continue with the widget shop example

lets say you setup 10 franchises and now your widget shops made 300,000k after all costs etc

and time comes to paying yourself

but here is the catch

bang you cant avoid income taxes (unless you go evading taxman, and that will only end in tears)

more than half of that 300k will go out in taxes

.

ei.sdraob

forgot to mention my widget shop example was being optimistic

alot of business' don't make profits for quite some time

Boggle

But you forget to mention that your widget shop would find it easier to get a premises, that services would be cheaper, that your suppliers would have less incentive to rip you off and that you would be able to reach break even quicker.

Of course, its more challenging when suppliers here charge twice as much as the uk and premises in the middle of nowhere are multiples that of other EU countries and that service costs are also multiples of other countries.

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

forgot to mention my widget shop example was being optimistic

alot of business' don't make profits for quite some time

Two years, usually. And even then, you're only making an "operating profit", which you'll usually have to plough back into repaying loans. If you cream off that operating profit, you'll have no reserve if there's a downturn in profitability, and you won't build up a warchest for expansion if there's an increase in opportunity. You can spend the best part of a decade building up a company, and have it go down the tubes inside a year, particularly if you've expanded just before a downturn. And never mind the effort that a business owner has to put in to get the business that far along.

There's a reason most people don't run their own companies.

cordially,
Scofflaw

DHYNZY

Maximum wage is an angry response, justifiably so, from the proletariat of a nation in crisis. It is however a terrible idea, we could say goodbye to most qualified and capable upper management. I realise how unjust it may seem that the less affluent in society are being targeted by the government, but considering the impact a reduction in minimum wage would have in retail and food sectors, pushing all products and produce prices down, it is definitely an option that must be considered and acted on.

Maximum wage is far too regulatory and to me is anti-competitive and verging on anti-capitalist.

turgon

Yep. As I said, its just a knee jerk reaction that doesn't take into consideration the wider economic consequences.

Boggle

DHYNZY wrote: »

Maximum wage is an angry response, justifiably so, from the proletariat of a nation in crisis. It is however a terrible idea, we could say goodbye to most qualified and capable upper management. I realise how unjust it may seem that the less affluent in society are being targeted by the government, but considering the impact a reduction in minimum wage would have in retail and food sectors, pushing all products and produce prices down, it is definitely an option that must be considered and acted on.

Maximum wage is far too regulatory and to me is anti-competitive and verging on anti-capitalist.

I agree. The problem we have is we dont pay our politicians and bank managers enough!!:rolleyes:

ei.sdraob

Boggle wrote: »

But you forget to mention that your widget shop would find it easier to get a premises, that services would be cheaper, that your suppliers would have less incentive to rip you off and that you would be able to reach break even quicker.

Of course, its more challenging when suppliers here charge twice as much as the uk and premises in the middle of nowhere are multiples that of other EU countries and that service costs are also multiples of other countries.

of course you achieve economies of scale as your widget empire grows which helps with some costs, but not with labour costs tho... infact if the company is bigger employees start to expect more benefits like pensions, medical insurance etc

now to get back onto topic

* you are director of Widgets Ltd (Ireland) with 99.9% share
* you want to make use of your profits of lets say 300,000 made from your 10 widget outlets


since theres a national maximum wage where you get taxed @ 100% above
150,000 as the op proposed you are no better off when it comes to getting you hands on that money than

if you had 5 widget outlets and made a profit of 150,000


now yee see why a national maximum wage is a daft idea? in this case why would you bother with opening another 5 widget stores when it be all taxed anyways

btw the same reasoning applies to 40-50% higher tax as 100% tax, basically there comes a point where theres no point working any harder

Taxipete29

Its also demeaning, insulting and downright unfair to reduce the wages of the lowest paid members of our society.

You talk about fair, is it fair that normal taxpayers have to shoulder the burden of a crisis they had little hand in creating??
Is it fair that people who find themselves newly unemployed have to jump through hoops to claim money from a system they may have been paying into for years.??
Is it fair that the pension levy on PS wages is propotionatly higher for lower paid workers than it is for higher paid ones??

If you want to talk about fair, then deal with the fact that we live in an unequal society and unless that is addressed things are always going to be like that. Pardon me for wanting to maybe change that just a little bit.

DHYNZY

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Its also demeaning, insulting and downright unfair to reduce the wages of the lowest paid members of our society.

You talk about fair, is it fair that normal taxpayers have to shoulder the burden of a crisis they had little hand in creating??
Is it fair that people who find themselves newly unemployed have to jump through hoops to claim money from a system they may have been paying into for years.??
Is it fair that the pension levy on PS wages is propotionatly higher for lower paid workers than it is for higher paid ones??

If you want to talk about fair, then deal with the fact that we live in an unequal society and unless that is addressed things are always going to be like that. Pardon me for wanting to maybe change that just a little bit.

Politics and Fairness.......

now hang on... since when did the two have to equate?

Because in the world I'm living in.....

Boggle

ei.sdraob wrote: »

of course you achieve economies of scale as your widget empire grows which helps with some costs, but not with labour costs tho... infact if the company is bigger employees start to expect more benefits like pensions, medical insurance etc

now to get back onto topic

* you are director of Widgets Ltd (Ireland) with 99.9% share
* you want to make use of your profits of lets say 300,000 made from your 10 widget outlets


since theres a national maximum wage where you get taxed @ 100% above
150,000 as the op proposed you are no better off when it comes to getting you hands on that money than

if you had 5 widget outlets and made a profit of 150,000


now yee see why a national maximum wage is a daft idea? in this case why would you bother with opening another 5 widget stores when it be all taxed anyways

btw the same reasoning applies to 40-50% higher tax as 100% tax, basically there comes a point where theres no point working any harder

You neglect to mention that because you are less inclined to take huge dividends that your company would have more money to survive turbulent economic times and so it provides better protection for your customers. It also encourages better competition as there is less benefit to achieve a monopoly.

Hey, you could always use the excess cash to look after you staff!!

Edit: and my proposal allowed for the eventual sale of your company so you could retire earlier.

ei.sdraob

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Its also demeaning, insulting and downright unfair to reduce the wages of the lowest paid members of our society.

You talk about fair, is it fair that normal taxpayers have to shoulder the burden of a crisis they had little hand in creating??
Is it fair that people who find themselves newly unemployed have to jump through hoops to claim money from a system they may have been paying into for years.??
Is it fair that the pension levy on PS wages is propotionatly higher for lower paid workers than it is for higher paid ones??

If you want to talk about fair, then deal with the fact that we live in an unequal society and unless that is addressed things are always going to be like that. Pardon me for wanting to maybe change that just a little bit.

i know well we dont live in a perfect society (tho it is much better than alot other countries!) but maximum wage is just daft as explained earlier, piling higher taxes on higher earners (who most often earn alot due to experience and expertise, with exceptions of course) would do nothing but damage the economy in long term and wont raise the billions needed to plug the deficits



whats more "fair" on everyone employee and employer when a time comes (like is happening alot lately)


* employees agreeing to a reduction in wages and business staying open and them staying employed
* employees not agreeing to a wage reduction, business closing down or moving to poland and employees being pushed onto the state to care for via welfare


high wages are leading to business closing or moving daily here in ireland, just open the newspapers or talk to people in business


btw i agree with you that public sector have it to nice, but thats another discussion altogether

/

ei.sdraob

Boggle wrote: »

You neglect to mention that because you are less inclined to take huge dividends that your company would have more money to survive turbulent economic times and so it provides better protection for your customers. It also encourages better competition as there is less benefit to achieve a monopoly.

Hey, you could always use the excess cash to look after you staff!!

Edit: and my proposal allowed for the eventual sale of your company so you could retire earlier.

your neglected to notice that leaving the profits in Widgets Ltd would mean these would be taxed via corporation tax and since theres a national maximum wage you as the owner have no incentive to expand business, while your competitors in other countries go ahead and grow and grow

yet another illustration of how crazy a maximum wage would be

turgon

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Is it fair that people who find themselves newly unemployed have to jump through hoops to claim money from a system they may have been paying into for years.??

"Jumping through hoops"? Can you explain this to me?

Boggle wrote: »

You neglect to mention that because you are less inclined to take huge dividends that your company would have more money to survive turbulent economic times and so it provides better protection for your customers.

Did you ever hear of a single person business? A partnership?

What about Microsoft? Why would Bill Gate want to make Windows 7 if he actually made nothing out of it?? So bam: no new versions of Microsoft!

What about Aldi? Why would they set up another store they wont make anything else. Aldi gone from most of our lives.

But at least there will be competition. Because we all know the small retailers are as competitive as Aldi.... or wait....

Spudmonkey

Taxipete29 wrote: »

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??

Even if we don't entice manufacturing jobs for the minimum wage, it is still a disincentive to those we would like to set up. Especially as the see the amount that we pay un/semi-skilled workers in this country.

Taxipete29

turgon wrote: »

"Jumping through hoops"? Can you explain this to me?



Did you ever hear of a single person business? A partnership?

What about Microsoft? Why would Bill Gate want to make Windows 7 if he actually made nothing out of it?? So bam: no new versions of Microsoft!

What about Aldi? Why would they set up another store they wont make anything else. Aldi gone from most of our lives.

But at least there will be competition. Because we all know the small retailers are as competitive as Aldi.... or wait....

It can take up to 3 months to get your benefit initially. The lines for the offices are around corners. Its undignified to make people who have just lost their job to line up like cattle. Not to mention the fact that many are looked on with disdain by some behind those counters once you get in there.

Have you seen some of the offers in you local spar or centra lately. They are certainly making an effort.

astrofool

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Have you seen some of the offers in you local spar or centra lately. They are certainly making an effort.

But I thought prices hadn't dropped?

Taxipete29

astrofool wrote: »

But I thought prices hadn't dropped?

Show me where I said that??

turgon

Taxipete29 wrote: »

It can take up to 3 months to get your benefit initially.

And then you get a huge lump sum of backpayments. I thought fiscally sensible people had savings, that they could dip into when times get tough. Loaning money off themselves as it were.

Taxipete29 wrote: »

The lines for the offices are around corners. Its undignified to make people who have just lost their job to line up like cattle.

Whats the alternative?

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Not to mention the fact that many are looked on with disdain by some behind those counters once you get in there.

Have you personally been though this, may I ask? Because from my experience that is an out and out lie.

Taxipete29

turgon wrote: »

And then you get a huge lump sum of backpayments. I thought fiscally sensible people had savings, that they could dip into when times get tough. Loaning money off themselves as it were.



Whats the alternative?



Have you personally been though this, may I ask? Because from my experience that is an out and out lie.

Why should you have to wait 3 months for an entitlement?? What about those who dont have savings as they cant afford to save??

There is none, but it doesnt mean its not undignified.

Well, I thankfully have not been through this for quite some time. I was subjected to this at the time.This was also when there wasnt queues around the corner. I also have several friends who have recently had to go through it and all pretty much reported the same thing. Dont call me a liar. If you have to resort to insults, you have already lost your argument.

Taxipete29

DHYNZY wrote: »

Politics and Fairness.......

now hang on... since when did the two have to equate?

Because in the world I'm living in.....

Just to clarify, I didnt bring up fairness. I was responding to a comment made by a business man who felt his tax was unfair.

turgon

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Why should you have to wait 3 months for an entitlement?? What about those who dont have savings as they cant afford to save??

There is obviously a huge backlog. Additionally, it seems welfare is processed on a most need basis. I know 2 people who went in at the same time; one supports a family, the other doesnt; the former got his in 2 weeks, the latter 3 months.

Secondly, how could one not afford to save? Are we still living in the 1800's where your salary just gets you a bed and crumbs? No we are not. People just have to cut down on the excesses they feel entitled to.

Taxipete29 wrote: »

There is none, but it doesnt mean its not undignified.

So whats your point?

Taxipete29 wrote: »

Dont call me a liar. If you have to resort to insults, you have already lost your argument.

I didnt call you a liar. I said that from my experience what you said was a lie. I was treated with great respect in my dealings with the Welfare office. I was apologized to for my claim taking 4 and a half months, and upon me replying that there were obviously more important claims than mine, the welfare officer relied "thats not true."

Taxipete29

turgon wrote: »

There is obviously a huge backlog. Additionally, it seems welfare is processed on a most need basis. I know 2 people who went in at the same time; one supports a family, the other doesnt; the former got his in 2 weeks, the latter 3 months.

Secondly, how could one not afford to save? Are we still living in the 1800's where your salary just gets you a bed and crumbs? No we are not. People just have to cut down on the excesses they feel entitled to.



So whats your point?



I didnt call you a liar. I said that from my experience what you said was a lie. I was treated with great respect in my dealings with the Welfare office. I was apologized to for my claim taking 4 and a half months, and upon me replying that there were obviously more important claims than mine, the welfare officer relied "thats not true."

They need to redeploy more staff to deal with this backlog. This is the kind of lack of efficency that has the public screaming for PS reform.

Im not even going to get into your second point :rolleyes:

My point is its undignified, simple. whats difficult about that. I dont like tax, but it has to be paid. It doesnt mean I cant say I dont like.

Great, you were treated how you should be. Doesnt mean what I said is untrue.

Fighting Irish

so stupid

:rolleyes:

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm getting very tired of IBEC and ISME and the right wing politicians and economists blaming minimum wages for Ireland's loss of competitiveness.

Instead of scrapping the minimum wage, we should be looking at imposing a national maximum wage on professionals, 'developers' bankers politicians etc capped at about 10 times the minimum wage (170k roughly, including all peripheral benefits, income from investments and pension contribtions) with a 100% tax on all income above this threshold.

Then we can
1. reduce rents
2. reduce health expenditure
3. reduce legal expenses (tribunals, enquiries etc)
4. reduce the costs of the oireachtas
5. reduce the costs at all the quangos and semi state companies
6. increase the income tax take
7. Most importantly, all the owners of profitable small/medium business who think they can increase their profits by reducing the wages of the lowest paid would be prevented from doing so.

anonymous_joe

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.

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.

No, I'm not. I'm just not arsed differentiating them. If you're in a position to earn lots of money, if it's capped, you won't do the work.

Reducing wages at the top won't make everything magically better, because while people go loco over a barrister who works for a decade making a few million, 100,000 people being overpaid a euro an hour is far worse for our economy.

Equitable societies like... hmm... the Soviet Union? Yeah, they weren;t famous for a crippled economy that worked only because of the black market. There is nothing less efficient than an equitable society, because a hard worker gains no benefit from his hard work, so he doesn't bother. The real world's a bitter, nasty, cynical place.

RedPlanet wrote: »

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.

Oh ffs. 'Only €150,000.' Bitter much? If someone promises you 100 quid a week, and only gives you 50 quid, you'd be pissed off. If someone offers you 150k a year, and you're worth double that, you're going to pretty fcuking annoyed.

You end up with what's known as a U shaped demand curve.

Assume I work for exactly €1.5 million a year. Now let's assume you'll only pay me a maximum of €150,000. What I'll do is this - work 10% of the time I used to. That's terrible for the economy.

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?

Solicitors earn what they earn because it's not easy to be a solicitor. Normal can afford to use them, however, in these litigious times, there's a lot of work for solicitors that once didn't exist, leading to higher demand for them and increased wages.

You cannot just say that €125,000 is a great wage. Context is key. Cristiano Ronaldo makes more than that in a week, primarily because he's the best (or second best) in the world at what he does. (Well ok, for arguments sake, we'll just count South America and Europe, he's the best out of about 1 billion people.

Someone whose been earning €500,000 per annum is not going to be that happy with €125,000 p.a. Therein lies the problem.

Scofflaw

ei.sdraob wrote: »

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

You may not be insulting anybody specific, but you're still insulting other posters. Please desist.

moderately,
Scofflaw

ei.sdraob

Scofflaw wrote: »

You may not be insulting anybody specific, but you're still insulting other posters. Please desist.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Me Apologies