Discussion:
Raising the minimum wage
Add Reply
James Christophers
2020-03-03 23:32:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html

"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
JohnO
2020-03-04 00:05:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
We just don't know because the experiment lacks a control.

In other words, we don't know what the employment/economic/profitability/average wage situation would have been if the minimum wage increase had been less.
Rich80105
2020-03-04 02:57:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:32:32 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
We do know that the first major increase to the minimum wage by this
government was followed by higher profits (and hence higher taxation
receipts) which was attributed to most of the increases in pay being
passed on directly to increased spending.
JohnO
2020-03-04 03:05:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:32:32 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
We do know that the first major increase to the minimum wage by this
government was followed by higher profits (and hence higher taxation
receipts) which was attributed to most of the increases in pay being
passed on directly to increased spending.
cite from authoritative, unbiased source please.
Tony
2020-03-04 03:49:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:32:32 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
We do know that the first major increase to the minimum wage by this
government was followed by higher profits (and hence higher taxation
receipts) which was attributed to most of the increases in pay being
passed on directly to increased spending.
cite from authoritative, unbiased source please.
"We do know" again!
George
2020-03-04 19:07:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 03 Mar 2020 21:49:51 -0600
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:32:32 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower
profits."
We do know that the first major increase to the minimum wage by
this government was followed by higher profits (and hence higher
taxation receipts) which was attributed to most of the increases
in pay being passed on directly to increased spending.
cite from authoritative, unbiased source please.
"We do know" again!
Raise the minimum wage expect the unemployment figures to grow.
Its only the young and unqualified who will be affected..
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
James Christophers
2020-03-04 21:20:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George
On Tue, 03 Mar 2020 21:49:51 -0600
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:32:32 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower
profits."
We do know that the first major increase to the minimum wage by
this government was followed by higher profits (and hence higher
taxation receipts) which was attributed to most of the increases
in pay being passed on directly to increased spending.
cite from authoritative, unbiased source please.
"We do know" again!
Raise the minimum wage expect the unemployment figures to grow.
Could well be expected to happen in any country of 'fretful sleepers' that has grown rather too inured to its decades of perniciously low per-capita **real** productivity - e.g. New Zealand.

So what do **you**, George, propose be done to address this condition?
George
2020-03-05 00:48:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 13:20:35 -0800 (PST)
Post by James Christophers
Could well be expected to happen in any country of 'fretful sleepers'
that has grown rather too inured to its decades of perniciously low
per-capita **real** productivity - e.g. New Zealand.
So what do **you**, George, propose be done to address this condition?
Pay people what they're worth.
We have the population and the income of a
medium sized city to run everything.
Get real about 'this condition'
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Gordon
2020-03-05 05:25:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George
On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 13:20:35 -0800 (PST)
Post by James Christophers
Could well be expected to happen in any country of 'fretful sleepers'
that has grown rather too inured to its decades of perniciously low
per-capita **real** productivity - e.g. New Zealand.
So what do **you**, George, propose be done to address this condition?
Pay people what they're worth.
We have the population and the income of a
medium sized city to run everything.
Get real about 'this condition'
Well that does it eh? We are doomed, no point in trying to make anything
better.

Sure New Zealand is small, but so are many animals on this planet, and they
survive just fine.
George
2020-03-05 19:28:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 5 Mar 2020 05:25:30 GMT
Post by Gordon
Post by George
On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 13:20:35 -0800 (PST)
Post by James Christophers
Could well be expected to happen in any country of 'fretful
sleepers' that has grown rather too inured to its decades of
perniciously low per-capita **real** productivity - e.g. New
Zealand.
So what do **you**, George, propose be done to address this
condition?
Pay people what they're worth.
We have the population and the income of a
medium sized city to run everything.
Get real about 'this condition'
Well that does it eh? We are doomed, no point in trying to make
anything better.
Sure New Zealand is small, but so are many animals on this planet,
and they survive just fine.
I'm shaking my head at that.
WTF.
NZ's 'small' so are animals...

New Zealand (I'll repeat this with elaboration) has the population
(for tax and employment purposes) the population of a medium to large
European/Chinese/Japanese/American city.
And we are expected to run an entire country on those limiting factors.
So, pay people what they're worth.
CEO's get millions for fronting firms run by very skilled underlings
who deserve a share of those millions.
Hate to say it but the doofuses who 'run' Parliament have a tougher job
on less pay
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
John Bowes
2020-03-05 21:45:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George
On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 13:20:35 -0800 (PST)
Post by James Christophers
Could well be expected to happen in any country of 'fretful sleepers'
that has grown rather too inured to its decades of perniciously low
per-capita **real** productivity - e.g. New Zealand.
So what do **you**, George, propose be done to address this condition?
Pay people what they're worth.
We have the population and the income of a
medium sized city to run everything.
Get real about 'this condition'
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Keith is unable to do that because of his delusion george :)
BR
2020-03-06 05:23:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 13:20:35 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by George
On Tue, 03 Mar 2020 21:49:51 -0600
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:32:32 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower
profits."
We do know that the first major increase to the minimum wage by
this government was followed by higher profits (and hence higher
taxation receipts) which was attributed to most of the increases
in pay being passed on directly to increased spending.
cite from authoritative, unbiased source please.
"We do know" again!
Raise the minimum wage expect the unemployment figures to grow.
Could well be expected to happen in any country of 'fretful sleepers' that has grown rather too inured to its decades of perniciously low per-capita **real** productivity - e.g. New Zealand.
So what do **you**, George, propose be done to address this condition?
1 Get rid of the minimum wage.

2 Substantially reduce government spending. Eliminate all unnecessary
government departments, i.e. the Race Relations Commission, the
Waitangi Tribunal, the Women's Commission, the Children's Commission,
the Department of Conservation and many others.

3 Get rid of the RMA and anything and everything to do with so-called
"climate change".

4 Reduce tax rates.

5 Cut all unskilled and unnecessary immigration.

These measures would be a good start.

Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
George
2020-03-06 19:09:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 06 Mar 2020 18:23:28 +1300
Post by BR
On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 13:20:35 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by George
On Tue, 03 Mar 2020 21:49:51 -0600
Post by Tony
On Wednesday, 4 March 2020 15:57:41 UTC+13, Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:32:32 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
We do know that the first major increase to the minimum wage
by this government was followed by higher profits (and hence
higher taxation receipts) which was attributed to most of the
increases in pay being passed on directly to increased
spending.
cite from authoritative, unbiased source please.
"We do know" again!
Raise the minimum wage expect the unemployment figures to grow.
Could well be expected to happen in any country of 'fretful
sleepers' that has grown rather too inured to its decades of
perniciously low per-capita **real** productivity - e.g. New Zealand.
So what do **you**, George, propose be done to address this
condition?
1 Get rid of the minimum wage.
2 Substantially reduce government spending. Eliminate all unnecessary
government departments, i.e. the Race Relations Commission, the
Waitangi Tribunal, the Women's Commission, the Children's Commission,
the Department of Conservation and many others.
3 Get rid of the RMA and anything and everything to do with so-called
"climate change".
4 Reduce tax rates.
5 Cut all unskilled and unnecessary immigration.
These measures would be a good start.
Bill.
Yup.
And fine politicians every time they lie.
Use that money to build roads and railways
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
John Bowes
2020-03-06 20:46:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George
On Fri, 06 Mar 2020 18:23:28 +1300
Post by BR
On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 13:20:35 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by George
On Tue, 03 Mar 2020 21:49:51 -0600
Post by Tony
On Wednesday, 4 March 2020 15:57:41 UTC+13, Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:32:32 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
We do know that the first major increase to the minimum wage
by this government was followed by higher profits (and hence
higher taxation receipts) which was attributed to most of the
increases in pay being passed on directly to increased
spending.
cite from authoritative, unbiased source please.
"We do know" again!
Raise the minimum wage expect the unemployment figures to grow.
Could well be expected to happen in any country of 'fretful
sleepers' that has grown rather too inured to its decades of
perniciously low per-capita **real** productivity - e.g. New Zealand.
So what do **you**, George, propose be done to address this
condition?
1 Get rid of the minimum wage.
2 Substantially reduce government spending. Eliminate all unnecessary
government departments, i.e. the Race Relations Commission, the
Waitangi Tribunal, the Women's Commission, the Children's Commission,
the Department of Conservation and many others.
3 Get rid of the RMA and anything and everything to do with so-called
"climate change".
4 Reduce tax rates.
5 Cut all unskilled and unnecessary immigration.
These measures would be a good start.
Bill.
Yup.
And fine politicians every time they lie.
Use that money to build roads and railways
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
The politicians couldn't afford it George. Like Rich they live to lie :)
John Bowes
2020-03-06 20:45:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BR
On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 13:20:35 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by George
On Tue, 03 Mar 2020 21:49:51 -0600
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:32:32 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
We do know that the first major increase to the minimum wage by
this government was followed by higher profits (and hence higher
taxation receipts) which was attributed to most of the increases
in pay being passed on directly to increased spending.
cite from authoritative, unbiased source please.
"We do know" again!
Raise the minimum wage expect the unemployment figures to grow.
Could well be expected to happen in any country of 'fretful sleepers' that has grown rather too inured to its decades of perniciously low per-capita **real** productivity - e.g. New Zealand.
So what do **you**, George, propose be done to address this condition?
1 Get rid of the minimum wage.
2 Substantially reduce government spending. Eliminate all unnecessary
government departments, i.e. the Race Relations Commission, the
Waitangi Tribunal, the Women's Commission, the Children's Commission,
the Department of Conservation and many others.
3 Get rid of the RMA and anything and everything to do with so-called
"climate change".
4 Reduce tax rates.
5 Cut all unskilled and unnecessary immigration.
These measures would be a good start.
Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
And drop the number of useless mouths in parliament to 100 ? :)
John Bowes
2020-03-04 20:43:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Tony
Post by JohnO
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:32:32 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
We do know that the first major increase to the minimum wage by this
government was followed by higher profits (and hence higher taxation
receipts) which was attributed to most of the increases in pay being
passed on directly to increased spending.
cite from authoritative, unbiased source please.
"We do know" again!
That means Richies voices have told him so:)

Maybe he should change his nym to The Maid of Orleans'. It'd be more in keeping with his posting history:)
BR
2020-03-04 04:30:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:32:32 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
We do know that the first major increase to the minimum wage by this
government was followed by higher profits (and hence higher taxation
receipts) which was attributed to most of the increases in pay being
passed on directly to increased spending.
If that is the effect of raising the minimum wage, then why not raise
it to, say, $50 per hour? No, make that $200 per hour. That should see
profits and tax revenue massively increase if what you've just said is
anything to go by.

So what is holding your beloved government back?

Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Rich80105
2020-03-04 04:58:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:32:32 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
We do know that the first major increase to the minimum wage by this
government was followed by higher profits (and hence higher taxation
receipts) which was attributed to most of the increases in pay being
passed on directly to increased spending.
If that is the effect of raising the minimum wage, then why not raise
it to, say, $50 per hour? No, make that $200 per hour. That should see
profits and tax revenue massively increase if what you've just said is
anything to go by.
So what is holding your beloved government back?
Bill.
Because too rapid a rise causes a lot of other problems, Bill -
relating to adjustment to other pay rates, price commitments of
business, the need for adjustments to benefits which in turn impacts
again on government accounts.
BR
2020-03-04 16:31:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:32:32 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
We do know that the first major increase to the minimum wage by this
government was followed by higher profits (and hence higher taxation
receipts) which was attributed to most of the increases in pay being
passed on directly to increased spending.
If that is the effect of raising the minimum wage, then why not raise
it to, say, $50 per hour? No, make that $200 per hour. That should see
profits and tax revenue massively increase if what you've just said is
anything to go by.
So what is holding your beloved government back?
Bill.
Because too rapid a rise causes a lot of other problems, Bill -
relating to adjustment to other pay rates, price commitments of
business, the need for adjustments to benefits which in turn impacts
again on government accounts.
How slowly do you want your utopia to materialise?

You just said that the first MAJOR increase to the minimum wage was
followed by higher profits and higer taxation receipts which was
attributed to the extra money passed on to increased spending.

So why not adjust all the pay rates and price commitments at once? Why
the delay? What are the limiting parameters in all this?

Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
James Christophers
2020-03-04 21:13:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:32:32 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
We do know that the first major increase to the minimum wage by this
government was followed by higher profits (and hence higher taxation
receipts) which was attributed to most of the increases in pay being
passed on directly to increased spending.
If that is the effect of raising the minimum wage, then why not raise
it to, say, $50 per hour? No, make that $200 per hour. That should see
profits and tax revenue massively increase if what you've just said is
anything to go by.
So what is holding your beloved government back?
Bill.
Because too rapid a rise causes a lot of other problems, Bill -
relating to adjustment to other pay rates, price commitments of
business, the need for adjustments to benefits which in turn impacts
again on government accounts.
How slowly do you want your utopia to materialise?
You just said that the first MAJOR increase to the minimum wage was
followed by higher profits and higer taxation receipts which was
attributed to the extra money passed on to increased spending.
So why not adjust all the pay rates and price commitments at once? Why
the delay? What are the limiting parameters in all this?
In New Zealand? Numberless, but first and foremost, unremitting decades of pernicious low per-capita **real** productivity allied to unlimited cheap printed credit, represented by Australian credit cards that create imaginary "disposable wealth" out of Scotch mist; plus gimcrack Australian gew-gaw outlets like Harvey-Norman and JB Hi-Fi that infest every mall and high street and a supermarket duopoly that strips naked the domestic budget of every (polite cough) "hard-working Kiwi".

As if this were not bad enough, Orr is seriously considering reducing the OCR even further to prevent the economy stalling - i.e., to boost yer pliant Kiwi cash-cows' contributions to the coffers of the Okker banks and the Okker purveyors of gimcrack goods.

And new Zealanders - long sold out lock-stock-and-barrel - **still** wonder why they can't get ahead.

And ya know what, Bill? The Australian banks now make more profit per-capita from their dutiful captive New Zealander cash-cows than they do from Australians.

100% Pure La-La Land.
BR
2020-03-05 04:32:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 13:13:02 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:32:32 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
We do know that the first major increase to the minimum wage by this
government was followed by higher profits (and hence higher taxation
receipts) which was attributed to most of the increases in pay being
passed on directly to increased spending.
If that is the effect of raising the minimum wage, then why not raise
it to, say, $50 per hour? No, make that $200 per hour. That should see
profits and tax revenue massively increase if what you've just said is
anything to go by.
So what is holding your beloved government back?
Bill.
Because too rapid a rise causes a lot of other problems, Bill -
relating to adjustment to other pay rates, price commitments of
business, the need for adjustments to benefits which in turn impacts
again on government accounts.
How slowly do you want your utopia to materialise?
You just said that the first MAJOR increase to the minimum wage was
followed by higher profits and higer taxation receipts which was
attributed to the extra money passed on to increased spending.
So why not adjust all the pay rates and price commitments at once? Why
the delay? What are the limiting parameters in all this?
In New Zealand? Numberless, but first and foremost, unremitting decades of pernicious low per-capita **real** productivity allied to unlimited cheap printed credit, represented by Australian credit cards that create imaginary "disposable wealth" out of Scotch mist; plus gimcrack Australian gew-gaw outlets like Harvey-Norman and JB Hi-Fi that infest every mall and high street and a supermarket duopoly that strips naked the domestic budget of every (polite cough) "hard-working Kiwi".
As if this were not bad enough, Orr is seriously considering reducing the OCR even further to prevent the economy stalling - i.e., to boost yer pliant Kiwi cash-cows' contributions to the coffers of the Okker banks and the Okker purveyors of gimcrack goods.
And new Zealanders - long sold out lock-stock-and-barrel - **still** wonder why they can't get ahead.
And ya know what, Bill? The Australian banks now make more profit per-capita from their dutiful captive New Zealander cash-cows than they do from Australians.
100% Pure La-La Land.
So maybe you can explain. How can substantially increasing the legally
mandated minimum wage also increase profits and tax revenue?

Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
James Christophers
2020-03-05 05:13:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BR
On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 13:13:02 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:32:32 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
We do know that the first major increase to the minimum wage by this
government was followed by higher profits (and hence higher taxation
receipts) which was attributed to most of the increases in pay being
passed on directly to increased spending.
If that is the effect of raising the minimum wage, then why not raise
it to, say, $50 per hour? No, make that $200 per hour. That should see
profits and tax revenue massively increase if what you've just said is
anything to go by.
So what is holding your beloved government back?
Bill.
Because too rapid a rise causes a lot of other problems, Bill -
relating to adjustment to other pay rates, price commitments of
business, the need for adjustments to benefits which in turn impacts
again on government accounts.
How slowly do you want your utopia to materialise?
You just said that the first MAJOR increase to the minimum wage was
followed by higher profits and higer taxation receipts which was
attributed to the extra money passed on to increased spending.
So why not adjust all the pay rates and price commitments at once? Why
the delay? What are the limiting parameters in all this?
In New Zealand? Numberless, but first and foremost, unremitting decades of pernicious low per-capita **real** productivity allied to unlimited cheap printed credit, represented by Australian credit cards that create imaginary "disposable wealth" out of Scotch mist; plus gimcrack Australian gew-gaw outlets like Harvey-Norman and JB Hi-Fi that infest every mall and high street and a supermarket duopoly that strips naked the domestic budget of every (polite cough) "hard-working Kiwi".
As if this were not bad enough, Orr is seriously considering reducing the OCR even further to prevent the economy stalling - i.e., to boost yer pliant Kiwi cash-cows' contributions to the coffers of the Okker banks and the Okker purveyors of gimcrack goods.
And new Zealanders - long sold out lock-stock-and-barrel - **still** wonder why they can't get ahead.
And ya know what, Bill? The Australian banks now make more profit per-capita from their dutiful captive New Zealander cash-cows than they do from Australians.
100% Pure La-La Land.
So maybe you can explain. How can substantially increasing the legally
mandated minimum wage also increase profits and tax revenue?
Fair question Bill, but who I am to query those who have experienced it for themselves within economic structures and methodologies that are plainly superior to ours? Better that you should ask them directly, surely? You might even learn something worth having from it, too.

Again, new, additive **real** economic value is generated through **real**-value investment in **real**-value production. But in this country we are drowning in seductive investment incentives that attract easy printed fiat money to the unproductive rather than the productive. This fault-line runs right through our economy and is one of the biggest and most pernicious drag-anchors preventing any real-productivity growth - and hence overall growth in **real** wealth.

Cheap money supplied by foreign profit gougers only exacerbates it further.
Gordon
2020-03-05 05:13:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BR
On Wed, 4 Mar 2020 13:13:02 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:32:32 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
We do know that the first major increase to the minimum wage by this
government was followed by higher profits (and hence higher taxation
receipts) which was attributed to most of the increases in pay being
passed on directly to increased spending.
If that is the effect of raising the minimum wage, then why not raise
it to, say, $50 per hour? No, make that $200 per hour. That should see
profits and tax revenue massively increase if what you've just said is
anything to go by.
So what is holding your beloved government back?
Bill.
Because too rapid a rise causes a lot of other problems, Bill -
relating to adjustment to other pay rates, price commitments of
business, the need for adjustments to benefits which in turn impacts
again on government accounts.
How slowly do you want your utopia to materialise?
You just said that the first MAJOR increase to the minimum wage was
followed by higher profits and higer taxation receipts which was
attributed to the extra money passed on to increased spending.
So why not adjust all the pay rates and price commitments at once? Why
the delay? What are the limiting parameters in all this?
In New Zealand? Numberless, but first and foremost, unremitting decades of pernicious low per-capita **real** productivity allied to unlimited cheap printed credit, represented by Australian credit cards that create imaginary "disposable wealth" out of Scotch mist; plus gimcrack Australian gew-gaw outlets like Harvey-Norman and JB Hi-Fi that infest every mall and high street and a supermarket duopoly that strips naked the domestic budget of every (polite cough) "hard-working Kiwi".
As if this were not bad enough, Orr is seriously considering reducing the OCR even further to prevent the economy stalling - i.e., to boost yer pliant Kiwi cash-cows' contributions to the coffers of the Okker banks and the Okker purveyors of gimcrack goods.
And new Zealanders - long sold out lock-stock-and-barrel - **still** wonder why they can't get ahead.
And ya know what, Bill? The Australian banks now make more profit per-capita from their dutiful captive New Zealander cash-cows than they do from Australians.
100% Pure La-La Land.
So maybe you can explain. How can substantially increasing the legally
mandated minimum wage also increase profits and tax revenue?
Bill,

If you pay the low paid more they are taxed on this, as Rich pointed out.
Now where do they spend this money, buying goods and services which make
others happy and the Tax woman is also happy as GST applies as well as
increased tax on the increased profits.

You see Bill, unless money moves around, the economy, as we know it is dead
in the wallet.
Gordon
2020-03-05 05:06:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:32:32 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
We do know that the first major increase to the minimum wage by this
government was followed by higher profits (and hence higher taxation
receipts) which was attributed to most of the increases in pay being
passed on directly to increased spending.
If that is the effect of raising the minimum wage, then why not raise
it to, say, $50 per hour? No, make that $200 per hour. That should see
profits and tax revenue massively increase if what you've just said is
anything to go by.
So what is holding your beloved government back?
Bill.
Because too rapid a rise causes a lot of other problems, Bill -
relating to adjustment to other pay rates, price commitments of
business, the need for adjustments to benefits which in turn impacts
again on government accounts.
How slowly do you want your utopia to materialise?
You just said that the first MAJOR increase to the minimum wage was
followed by higher profits and higer taxation receipts which was
attributed to the extra money passed on to increased spending.
So why not adjust all the pay rates and price commitments at once? Why
the delay? What are the limiting parameters in all this?
Bill, you are sounding almost as silly as Rich.

Doing things too suddenly often restults in a bit of a disaster. Revolutions
are a good example. The Arab spring was followed by a long dark Arab winter.

Country which gained their independence slowly, remained peaceful and slowly
became capable of self rule. Tossing out the oppressors results in anchary
more often than not.

So in short progress is made one step at a time, not all in one day.
Rich80105
2020-03-05 08:28:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:32:32 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
We do know that the first major increase to the minimum wage by this
government was followed by higher profits (and hence higher taxation
receipts) which was attributed to most of the increases in pay being
passed on directly to increased spending.
If that is the effect of raising the minimum wage, then why not raise
it to, say, $50 per hour? No, make that $200 per hour. That should see
profits and tax revenue massively increase if what you've just said is
anything to go by.
So what is holding your beloved government back?
Bill.
Because too rapid a rise causes a lot of other problems, Bill -
relating to adjustment to other pay rates, price commitments of
business, the need for adjustments to benefits which in turn impacts
again on government accounts.
How slowly do you want your utopia to materialise?
You just said that the first MAJOR increase to the minimum wage was
followed by higher profits and higer taxation receipts which was
attributed to the extra money passed on to increased spending.
So why not adjust all the pay rates and price commitments at once? Why
the delay? What are the limiting parameters in all this?
Bill, you are sounding almost as silly as Rich.
Doing things too suddenly often restults in a bit of a disaster. Revolutions
are a good example. The Arab spring was followed by a long dark Arab winter.
Country which gained their independence slowly, remained peaceful and slowly
became capable of self rule. Tossing out the oppressors results in anchary
more often than not.
So in short progress is made one step at a time, not all in one day.
Good response, Gordon, and it doesn't confict in any way with my
statements
Rich80105
2020-03-05 19:44:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:32:32 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
We do know that the first major increase to the minimum wage by this
government was followed by higher profits (and hence higher taxation
receipts) which was attributed to most of the increases in pay being
passed on directly to increased spending.
If that is the effect of raising the minimum wage, then why not raise
it to, say, $50 per hour? No, make that $200 per hour. That should see
profits and tax revenue massively increase if what you've just said is
anything to go by.
So what is holding your beloved government back?
Bill.
Because too rapid a rise causes a lot of other problems, Bill -
relating to adjustment to other pay rates, price commitments of
business, the need for adjustments to benefits which in turn impacts
again on government accounts.
How slowly do you want your utopia to materialise?
You just said that the first MAJOR increase to the minimum wage was
followed by higher profits and higer taxation receipts which was
attributed to the extra money passed on to increased spending.
So why not adjust all the pay rates and price commitments at once? Why
the delay? What are the limiting parameters in all this?
Bill, you are sounding almost as silly as Rich.
Doing things too suddenly often restults in a bit of a disaster. Revolutions
are a good example. The Arab spring was followed by a long dark Arab winter.
Country which gained their independence slowly, remained peaceful and slowly
became capable of self rule. Tossing out the oppressors results in anchary
more often than not.
So in short progress is made one step at a time, not all in one day.
It is the reductio ad absurdum argument - a current favourite of the
Opposition. see for example
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/119963195/politician-puts-his-foot-down-to-prove-a-point
where National MP stewart Smith is quoted as saying "If lowering the
speed limit is the way to make the road safer, then why not drop it
down to 10kmh?"

Now we know that to National, the answer to nearly everything,
including the economic answer to problems arising from Corvid19, so
are they prepared to answer "If lowering tax rates is the way to make
our companies stronger, then why not drop them down down to 10%?"

Perhaps they would then admit that lowering tax for a company making
losses is not much help . . .
BR
2020-03-07 07:48:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:32:32 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
We do know that the first major increase to the minimum wage by this
government was followed by higher profits (and hence higher taxation
receipts) which was attributed to most of the increases in pay being
passed on directly to increased spending.
If that is the effect of raising the minimum wage, then why not raise
it to, say, $50 per hour? No, make that $200 per hour. That should see
profits and tax revenue massively increase if what you've just said is
anything to go by.
So what is holding your beloved government back?
Bill.
Because too rapid a rise causes a lot of other problems, Bill -
relating to adjustment to other pay rates, price commitments of
business, the need for adjustments to benefits which in turn impacts
again on government accounts.
How slowly do you want your utopia to materialise?
You just said that the first MAJOR increase to the minimum wage was
followed by higher profits and higer taxation receipts which was
attributed to the extra money passed on to increased spending.
So why not adjust all the pay rates and price commitments at once? Why
the delay? What are the limiting parameters in all this?
Bill, you are sounding almost as silly as Rich.
The point I'm making is that a legally mandated minimum wage is not
necessary.

Wage increases result in price increases.

The idea that a government can increase universal productivity and
prosperity by compelling one party to pay a minimum amount another in
a business transaction, irrespective of the prudential wisdom of such
a decision, is beyond absurd.

Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Rich80105
2020-03-07 08:14:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BR
Post by Gordon
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:32:32 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
We do know that the first major increase to the minimum wage by this
government was followed by higher profits (and hence higher taxation
receipts) which was attributed to most of the increases in pay being
passed on directly to increased spending.
If that is the effect of raising the minimum wage, then why not raise
it to, say, $50 per hour? No, make that $200 per hour. That should see
profits and tax revenue massively increase if what you've just said is
anything to go by.
So what is holding your beloved government back?
Bill.
Because too rapid a rise causes a lot of other problems, Bill -
relating to adjustment to other pay rates, price commitments of
business, the need for adjustments to benefits which in turn impacts
again on government accounts.
How slowly do you want your utopia to materialise?
You just said that the first MAJOR increase to the minimum wage was
followed by higher profits and higer taxation receipts which was
attributed to the extra money passed on to increased spending.
So why not adjust all the pay rates and price commitments at once? Why
the delay? What are the limiting parameters in all this?
Bill, you are sounding almost as silly as Rich.
The point I'm making is that a legally mandated minimum wage is not
necessary.
Wage increases result in price increases.
The idea that a government can increase universal productivity and
prosperity by compelling one party to pay a minimum amount another in
a business transaction, irrespective of the prudential wisdom of such
a decision, is beyond absurd.
Bill.
That argument was lost a lot of years ago, Bill. Besides, too many
politicians own rental properties - they want all tenants to be able
to provide a good return on investment through rent.
BR
2020-03-07 17:54:19 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Gordon
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:32:32 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
We do know that the first major increase to the minimum wage by this
government was followed by higher profits (and hence higher taxation
receipts) which was attributed to most of the increases in pay being
passed on directly to increased spending.
If that is the effect of raising the minimum wage, then why not raise
it to, say, $50 per hour? No, make that $200 per hour. That should see
profits and tax revenue massively increase if what you've just said is
anything to go by.
So what is holding your beloved government back?
Bill.
Because too rapid a rise causes a lot of other problems, Bill -
relating to adjustment to other pay rates, price commitments of
business, the need for adjustments to benefits which in turn impacts
again on government accounts.
How slowly do you want your utopia to materialise?
You just said that the first MAJOR increase to the minimum wage was
followed by higher profits and higer taxation receipts which was
attributed to the extra money passed on to increased spending.
So why not adjust all the pay rates and price commitments at once? Why
the delay? What are the limiting parameters in all this?
Bill, you are sounding almost as silly as Rich.
The point I'm making is that a legally mandated minimum wage is not
necessary.
Wage increases result in price increases.
The idea that a government can increase universal productivity and
prosperity by compelling one party to pay a minimum amount another in
a business transaction, irrespective of the prudential wisdom of such
a decision, is beyond absurd.
Bill.
That argument was lost a lot of years ago, Bill.
What argument? Who lost it, and who was it lost to?
Post by Rich80105
Besides, too many
politicians own rental properties - they want all tenants to be able
to provide a good return on investment through rent.
So you're arguing that politicians want wages to be artificially high
so that they can charge more rent to the tenants occupying their
investment properties. Have I got that about right?

You have essentially confirmed what I just said, and that is that
minimum wage increases result in price increases.

That's not the only disadvantage either. Manufacturers will move out
of the country if they can get a better deal elsewhere. When that
happens, everyone previously employed by the manufacturer will be
unemployed, and will go from being a producer of wealth to a recipient
of welfare.

Bill.
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com
Rich80105
2020-03-07 23:02:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Gordon
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:32:32 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
We do know that the first major increase to the minimum wage by this
government was followed by higher profits (and hence higher taxation
receipts) which was attributed to most of the increases in pay being
passed on directly to increased spending.
If that is the effect of raising the minimum wage, then why not raise
it to, say, $50 per hour? No, make that $200 per hour. That should see
profits and tax revenue massively increase if what you've just said is
anything to go by.
So what is holding your beloved government back?
Bill.
Because too rapid a rise causes a lot of other problems, Bill -
relating to adjustment to other pay rates, price commitments of
business, the need for adjustments to benefits which in turn impacts
again on government accounts.
How slowly do you want your utopia to materialise?
You just said that the first MAJOR increase to the minimum wage was
followed by higher profits and higer taxation receipts which was
attributed to the extra money passed on to increased spending.
So why not adjust all the pay rates and price commitments at once? Why
the delay? What are the limiting parameters in all this?
Bill, you are sounding almost as silly as Rich.
The point I'm making is that a legally mandated minimum wage is not
necessary.
Wage increases result in price increases.
The idea that a government can increase universal productivity and
prosperity by compelling one party to pay a minimum amount another in
a business transaction, irrespective of the prudential wisdom of such
a decision, is beyond absurd.
Bill.
That argument was lost a lot of years ago, Bill.
What argument? Who lost it, and who was it lost to?
The argument about whether there should be a minimum wage. Successive
governments have supported it for a long time. Apart from anything
else, it is cheaper than providing health and welfare services to the
chrinically poor.
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
Besides, too many
politicians own rental properties - they want all tenants to be able
to provide a good return on investment through rent.
So you're arguing that politicians want wages to be artificially high
so that they can charge more rent to the tenants occupying their
investment properties. Have I got that about right?
No, I am arguing that politicians have a lot of reasons to support
maintaining a minimum wage. Stopping the minimum wage would, over
time, reduce the capacity of many people who rent to pay higher rents.
Similarly, higher benefits may give a capacity to pay higher rents.
Anecdotally, I have been told that roughly half the increase in
students ability to borrow for accomodation went straight into
increased rents for the current year. Or are you saying you don't
want to have market forces operate in respect of the rental housing
market?
Post by BR
You have essentially confirmed what I just said, and that is that
minimum wage increases result in price increases.
It can do, but that depends on the housing market. The previous
government brought in around half a million immigrants, many of them
for low paid jobs, and finished their term with fewer state owned
houses and apartments than they had started with. Scarcity has been
the major reason for rent increases.John Key got out when it was
obvious that it was all turning to custard, leaving Bill English to be
hit by the storm over people living in cars . . .
Post by BR
That's not the only disadvantage either. Manufacturers will move out
of the country if they can get a better deal elsewhere. When that
happens, everyone previously employed by the manufacturer will be
unemployed, and will go from being a producer of wealth to a recipient
of welfare.
Bill.
National showed that lowering the minimum wage (in real terms) did not
make the poor better off - that is why we see logs stockpiled on
wharves demonstrating that we have destroyed the industries that
previously made significant profits from processing our raw products.
But don't worry, the Aussie banks ae still doing well . . .
John Bowes
2020-03-08 00:52:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Gordon
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:32:32 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
We do know that the first major increase to the minimum wage by this
government was followed by higher profits (and hence higher taxation
receipts) which was attributed to most of the increases in pay being
passed on directly to increased spending.
If that is the effect of raising the minimum wage, then why not raise
it to, say, $50 per hour? No, make that $200 per hour. That should see
profits and tax revenue massively increase if what you've just said is
anything to go by.
So what is holding your beloved government back?
Bill.
Because too rapid a rise causes a lot of other problems, Bill -
relating to adjustment to other pay rates, price commitments of
business, the need for adjustments to benefits which in turn impacts
again on government accounts.
How slowly do you want your utopia to materialise?
You just said that the first MAJOR increase to the minimum wage was
followed by higher profits and higer taxation receipts which was
attributed to the extra money passed on to increased spending.
So why not adjust all the pay rates and price commitments at once? Why
the delay? What are the limiting parameters in all this?
Bill, you are sounding almost as silly as Rich.
The point I'm making is that a legally mandated minimum wage is not
necessary.
Wage increases result in price increases.
The idea that a government can increase universal productivity and
prosperity by compelling one party to pay a minimum amount another in
a business transaction, irrespective of the prudential wisdom of such
a decision, is beyond absurd.
Bill.
That argument was lost a lot of years ago, Bill.
What argument? Who lost it, and who was it lost to?
The argument about whether there should be a minimum wage. Successive
governments have supported it for a long time. Apart from anything
else, it is cheaper than providing health and welfare services to the
chrinically poor.
How do your voices explain that Rich? Because even with a minimum wage the chrinically [sic] poor get health and welfare services which btw don't seem to be helping them in the slightest!
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
Besides, too many
politicians own rental properties - they want all tenants to be able
to provide a good return on investment through rent.
So you're arguing that politicians want wages to be artificially high
so that they can charge more rent to the tenants occupying their
investment properties. Have I got that about right?
No, I am arguing that politicians have a lot of reasons to support
maintaining a minimum wage. Stopping the minimum wage would, over
time, reduce the capacity of many people who rent to pay higher rents.
Similarly, higher benefits may give a capacity to pay higher rents.
Anecdotally, I have been told that roughly half the increase in
students ability to borrow for accomodation went straight into
increased rents for the current year. Or are you saying you don't
want to have market forces operate in respect of the rental housing
market?
The only way to cut higher rents is for the government to provide even more public housing than they do now! In the past the government had a department that not only provided cheap hosing but also provided a steady stream of tradesmen for the building industry while giving tenants a chance to buy the houses at a later date. So far all your corrupt CoL has done is talk about it and make claims they refuse to back up with facts. Very reminiscent of you Rich!
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
You have essentially confirmed what I just said, and that is that
minimum wage increases result in price increases.
It can do, but that depends on the housing market. The previous
government brought in around half a million immigrants, many of them
for low paid jobs, and finished their term with fewer state owned
houses and apartments than they had started with. Scarcity has been
the major reason for rent increases.John Key got out when it was
obvious that it was all turning to custard, leaving Bill English to be
hit by the storm over people living in cars . . .
funny but those people are STILL living in cars Rich while all the government does is imitate you and whine about National doing nothing. Much like Clark did for nine bloody years! How did this go from higher costs of living to the housing market that this government is even now failing to achieve anything about?
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
That's not the only disadvantage either. Manufacturers will move out
of the country if they can get a better deal elsewhere. When that
happens, everyone previously employed by the manufacturer will be
unemployed, and will go from being a producer of wealth to a recipient
of welfare.
Bill.
National showed that lowering the minimum wage (in real terms) did not
make the poor better off - that is why we see logs stockpiled on
wharves demonstrating that we have destroyed the industries that
previously made significant profits from processing our raw products.
But don't worry, the Aussie banks ae still doing well . . .
What a load of ignorant crap! Do you understand anything about the minimum wage and it's relationship to the cost of living and the cost of staples. Or that fact anything apart from the crap you read here daily https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf
John Bowes
2020-03-07 20:13:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Gordon
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
Post by BR
Post by Rich80105
On Tue, 3 Mar 2020 15:32:32 -0800 (PST), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
We do know that the first major increase to the minimum wage by this
government was followed by higher profits (and hence higher taxation
receipts) which was attributed to most of the increases in pay being
passed on directly to increased spending.
If that is the effect of raising the minimum wage, then why not raise
it to, say, $50 per hour? No, make that $200 per hour. That should see
profits and tax revenue massively increase if what you've just said is
anything to go by.
So what is holding your beloved government back?
Bill.
Because too rapid a rise causes a lot of other problems, Bill -
relating to adjustment to other pay rates, price commitments of
business, the need for adjustments to benefits which in turn impacts
again on government accounts.
How slowly do you want your utopia to materialise?
You just said that the first MAJOR increase to the minimum wage was
followed by higher profits and higer taxation receipts which was
attributed to the extra money passed on to increased spending.
So why not adjust all the pay rates and price commitments at once? Why
the delay? What are the limiting parameters in all this?
Bill, you are sounding almost as silly as Rich.
The point I'm making is that a legally mandated minimum wage is not
necessary.
Wage increases result in price increases.
The idea that a government can increase universal productivity and
prosperity by compelling one party to pay a minimum amount another in
a business transaction, irrespective of the prudential wisdom of such
a decision, is beyond absurd.
Bill.
That argument was lost a lot of years ago, Bill. Besides, too many
politicians own rental properties - they want all tenants to be able
to provide a good return on investment through rent.
So why is the CoL hammering landlords so hard? Or is it because at heart the CoL are just like you and are STUPID!?
George
2020-03-07 19:08:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 07 Mar 2020 20:48:26 +1300
Post by BR
The point I'm making is that a legally mandated minimum wage is not
necessary.
Wage increases result in price increases.
The idea that a government can increase universal productivity and
prosperity by compelling one party to pay a minimum amount another in
a business transaction, irrespective of the prudential wisdom of such
a decision, is beyond absurd.
In my working life I never had to apply for a raise and generally got
one a year where ever I was...
My mantra was work hard, work accurate measure twice cut once
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Rich80105
2020-03-07 23:04:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George
On Sat, 07 Mar 2020 20:48:26 +1300
Post by BR
The point I'm making is that a legally mandated minimum wage is not
necessary.
Wage increases result in price increases.
The idea that a government can increase universal productivity and
prosperity by compelling one party to pay a minimum amount another in
a business transaction, irrespective of the prudential wisdom of such
a decision, is beyond absurd.
In my working life I never had to apply for a raise and generally got
one a year where ever I was...
My mantra was work hard, work accurate measure twice cut once
Yes most governments have raised the minimum wage by at least near
inflation; most workers have recieved regular pay increases.
John Bowes
2020-03-04 20:42:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
So why do all costs go up every time the minimum wages goes up Keith? You seem to be dumb enough to think companies don't chase profits!
James Christophers
2020-03-04 23:01:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
So why do all costs go up every time the minimum wages goes up Keith?
Plucked at random from way too many to number, try these:

Housing shortage – Landords can sweetly up the rent with impunity every time their victim-earner gets a rise.

Food? Our caring, sharing Australian-owned food supply duopoly also grabs its slice of the sucker’s wage increase, even including those locally produced staples you’ve been whingeing about.

Higher minimum-wage earnings? Our caring, sharing Australian banks match it with an increase in the sucker’s credit allowance to ensure he keeps spending more than he’s earning – often in desperation just to “keep up”. This is the kind of thing that lies behind our sky-high domestic debt to income ratio.

(This, by the way is the 'money roundabout' that must never stop...)

Result? “I can never seem to get ahead,” - that timeworn, plaintiff whinge coming from all corners of captive vassall New Zealand.

If ever there were classic red-in-tooth-and-claw capitalism, this is it - so what else would you expect?


You seem to be dumb enough to think companies don't chase profits!


You are unquestionably, demonstrably dumb enough to believe the dimwit crap you post.
Gordon
2020-03-05 05:19:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
So why do all costs go up every time the minimum wages goes up Keith?
Housing shortage – Landords can sweetly up the rent with impunity every time their victim-earner gets a rise.
Not if there are enough houses to stop this happening.
Rich80105
2020-03-05 10:07:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
So why do all costs go up every time the minimum wages goes up Keith?
Housing shortage – Landords can sweetly up the rent with impunity every time their victim-earner gets a rise.
Not if there are enough houses to stop this happening.
So bring in a heap of migrants - thus keeping wages low; stop building
state houses, sell off some existing state houses - that saves money
for tax cuts; then boost the value of land by creating special
planning designations for subdivisions; leave them for a few years to
appreciate then sell them off; bring in students to make profits for
private education providers through easy courses; and reduce oversight
to be more efficient at delivering those profits. If you saw it coming
you would buy a few properties, wouldn't you? Nice little earners
all around really; just make sure you get out before it is realised by
the masses - don't want to be there when it all turns to custard -
leave that for the next government to deal with.
Crash
2020-03-05 20:39:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
So why do all costs go up every time the minimum wages goes up Keith?
Housing shortage – Landords can sweetly up the rent with impunity every time their victim-earner gets a rise.
Not if there are enough houses to stop this happening.
So bring in a heap of migrants - thus keeping wages low; stop building
state houses, sell off some existing state houses - that saves money
for tax cuts; then boost the value of land by creating special
planning designations for subdivisions; leave them for a few years to
appreciate then sell them off; bring in students to make profits for
private education providers through easy courses; and reduce oversight
to be more efficient at delivering those profits. If you saw it coming
you would buy a few properties, wouldn't you? Nice little earners
all around really; just make sure you get out before it is realised by
the masses - don't want to be there when it all turns to custard -
leave that for the next government to deal with.
You seem to forget Rich:
Those 'nice little earners', should they actually exist, generate
income tax when sold.
We have tried another government who promised to build 100,000
Kiwibuild houses in 10 years, then found it too hard because they
never actually bothered to research how this could be done.


--
Crash McBash
James Christophers
2020-03-05 21:00:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by James Christophers
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
So why do all costs go up every time the minimum wages goes up Keith?
Housing shortage – Landords can sweetly up the rent with impunity every time their victim-earner gets a rise.
Not if there are enough houses to stop this happening.
So bring in a heap of migrants - thus keeping wages low; stop building
state houses, sell off some existing state houses - that saves money
for tax cuts; then boost the value of land by creating special
planning designations for subdivisions; leave them for a few years to
appreciate then sell them off; bring in students to make profits for
private education providers through easy courses; and reduce oversight
to be more efficient at delivering those profits. If you saw it coming
you would buy a few properties, wouldn't you? Nice little earners
all around really; just make sure you get out before it is realised by
the masses - don't want to be there when it all turns to custard -
leave that for the next government to deal with.
Those 'nice little earners', should they actually exist, generate
income tax when sold.
We have tried another government who promised to build 100,000
Kiwibuild houses in 10 years, then found it too hard because they
never actually bothered to research how this could be done.
A few months back, some cheerful soul on Nat Rad spent time elaborating on the national infrastructure ambitions of successive governments that promise big but are inevitably and invariably forced to deliver small.

Why? The skills and finance needed to make their vote-catching dreams come true are already stretched to and beyond the limit doing their best to maintain, replace and patch up a crumbling national infrastructure that's so elderly it's now nearing the point of total collapse - water and sewerage services being prime examples.

And none of it helped, either, by resources squandered on "academic" profit centres churning out endless surpluses of parasitic lawyers, "behavioural psychologists" and "Women's Studies" Doctorates.
Rich80105
2020-03-05 23:05:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
So why do all costs go up every time the minimum wages goes up Keith?
Housing shortage – Landords can sweetly up the rent with impunity every time their victim-earner gets a rise.
Not if there are enough houses to stop this happening.
So bring in a heap of migrants - thus keeping wages low; stop building
state houses, sell off some existing state houses - that saves money
for tax cuts; then boost the value of land by creating special
planning designations for subdivisions; leave them for a few years to
appreciate then sell them off; bring in students to make profits for
private education providers through easy courses; and reduce oversight
to be more efficient at delivering those profits. If you saw it coming
you would buy a few properties, wouldn't you? Nice little earners
all around really; just make sure you get out before it is realised by
the masses - don't want to be there when it all turns to custard -
leave that for the next government to deal with.
Those 'nice little earners', should they actually exist, generate
income tax when sold.
One of the biggest components of total yield on property is of course
capital gains, where it is not hard to totally avoid tax - and taxable
income from rents can often be substantially offset by maintenance
costs.
Post by Crash
We have tried another government who promised to build 100,000
Kiwibuild houses in 10 years, then found it too hard because they
never actually bothered to research how this could be done.
So what would research have told them to do?
Crash
2020-03-06 00:09:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
So why do all costs go up every time the minimum wages goes up Keith?
Housing shortage – Landords can sweetly up the rent with impunity every time their victim-earner gets a rise.
Not if there are enough houses to stop this happening.
So bring in a heap of migrants - thus keeping wages low; stop building
state houses, sell off some existing state houses - that saves money
for tax cuts; then boost the value of land by creating special
planning designations for subdivisions; leave them for a few years to
appreciate then sell them off; bring in students to make profits for
private education providers through easy courses; and reduce oversight
to be more efficient at delivering those profits. If you saw it coming
you would buy a few properties, wouldn't you? Nice little earners
all around really; just make sure you get out before it is realised by
the masses - don't want to be there when it all turns to custard -
leave that for the next government to deal with.
Those 'nice little earners', should they actually exist, generate
income tax when sold.
One of the biggest components of total yield on property is of course
capital gains, where it is not hard to totally avoid tax - and taxable
income from rents can often be substantially offset by maintenance
costs.
Your completely out of your depth and clearly illustrating your
ignorance. Capital gains on property cannot be disguised and are
taxed as income. The sale of every property and the price paid is
registered with every title change. There is no expense claim against
this.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
We have tried another government who promised to build 100,000
Kiwibuild houses in 10 years, then found it too hard because they
never actually bothered to research how this could be done.
So what would research have told them to do?
I don't care. The government made the promise - not me - ask them.


--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-03-06 01:00:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
So why do all costs go up every time the minimum wages goes up Keith?
Housing shortage – Landords can sweetly up the rent with impunity every time their victim-earner gets a rise.
Not if there are enough houses to stop this happening.
So bring in a heap of migrants - thus keeping wages low; stop building
state houses, sell off some existing state houses - that saves money
for tax cuts; then boost the value of land by creating special
planning designations for subdivisions; leave them for a few years to
appreciate then sell them off; bring in students to make profits for
private education providers through easy courses; and reduce oversight
to be more efficient at delivering those profits. If you saw it coming
you would buy a few properties, wouldn't you? Nice little earners
all around really; just make sure you get out before it is realised by
the masses - don't want to be there when it all turns to custard -
leave that for the next government to deal with.
Those 'nice little earners', should they actually exist, generate
income tax when sold.
One of the biggest components of total yield on property is of course
capital gains, where it is not hard to totally avoid tax - and taxable
income from rents can often be substantially offset by maintenance
costs.
Your completely out of your depth and clearly illustrating your
ignorance. Capital gains on property cannot be disguised and are
taxed as income. The sale of every property and the price paid is
registered with every title change. There is no expense claim against
this.
Can you point to any evidence to support your surprising assertion?
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
We have tried another government who promised to build 100,000
Kiwibuild houses in 10 years, then found it too hard because they
never actually bothered to research how this could be done.
So what would research have told them to do?
I don't care. The government made the promise - not me - ask them.
If you don't care, why mention it?
Crash
2020-03-06 22:11:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
So why do all costs go up every time the minimum wages goes up Keith?
Housing shortage – Landords can sweetly up the rent with impunity every time their victim-earner gets a rise.
Not if there are enough houses to stop this happening.
So bring in a heap of migrants - thus keeping wages low; stop building
state houses, sell off some existing state houses - that saves money
for tax cuts; then boost the value of land by creating special
planning designations for subdivisions; leave them for a few years to
appreciate then sell them off; bring in students to make profits for
private education providers through easy courses; and reduce oversight
to be more efficient at delivering those profits. If you saw it coming
you would buy a few properties, wouldn't you? Nice little earners
all around really; just make sure you get out before it is realised by
the masses - don't want to be there when it all turns to custard -
leave that for the next government to deal with.
Those 'nice little earners', should they actually exist, generate
income tax when sold.
One of the biggest components of total yield on property is of course
capital gains, where it is not hard to totally avoid tax - and taxable
income from rents can often be substantially offset by maintenance
costs.
Your completely out of your depth and clearly illustrating your
ignorance. Capital gains on property cannot be disguised and are
taxed as income. The sale of every property and the price paid is
registered with every title change. There is no expense claim against
this.
Can you point to any evidence to support your surprising assertion?
Can you point to any evidence to support an assertion I am incorrect?
I am not going to post my property trading records or my tax returns.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
We have tried another government who promised to build 100,000
Kiwibuild houses in 10 years, then found it too hard because they
never actually bothered to research how this could be done.
So what would research have told them to do?
I don't care. The government made the promise - not me - ask them.
If you don't care, why mention it?
How else should I respond to your post? I clearly said I don't care
what research Labour should have done. If you don't understand that
you do have comprehension issues about language used in context.


--
Crash McBash
James Christophers
2020-03-07 00:16:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Gordon
Post by James Christophers
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
So why do all costs go up every time the minimum wages goes up Keith?
Housing shortage – Landords can sweetly up the rent with impunity every time their victim-earner gets a rise.
Not if there are enough houses to stop this happening.
So bring in a heap of migrants - thus keeping wages low; stop building
state houses, sell off some existing state houses - that saves money
for tax cuts; then boost the value of land by creating special
planning designations for subdivisions; leave them for a few years to
appreciate then sell them off; bring in students to make profits for
private education providers through easy courses; and reduce oversight
to be more efficient at delivering those profits. If you saw it coming
you would buy a few properties, wouldn't you? Nice little earners
all around really; just make sure you get out before it is realised by
the masses - don't want to be there when it all turns to custard -
leave that for the next government to deal with.
Those 'nice little earners', should they actually exist, generate
income tax when sold.
One of the biggest components of total yield on property is of course
capital gains, where it is not hard to totally avoid tax - and taxable
income from rents can often be substantially offset by maintenance
costs.
Your completely out of your depth and clearly illustrating your
ignorance. Capital gains on property cannot be disguised and are
taxed as income. The sale of every property and the price paid is
registered with every title change. There is no expense claim against
this.
Can you point to any evidence to support your surprising assertion?
Can you point to any evidence to support an assertion I am incorrect?
I am not going to post my property trading records or my tax returns.
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
We have tried another government who promised to build 100,000
Kiwibuild houses in 10 years, then found it too hard because they
never actually bothered to research how this could be done.
So what would research have told them to do?
I don't care. The government made the promise - not me - ask them.
If you don't care, why mention it?
How else should I respond to your post? I clearly said I don't care
what research Labour should have done. If you don't understand that
you do have comprehension issues about language used in context.
With the (possible) exception of absolute rulers and absolutist governments with unlimited cheap labour to exploit, talk is big, but delivery is small. As I have pointed out more than once, fatuous promises by administrations to get a quart out of a pint pot are inevitably doomed from the outset. This is why I immediately dismiss any government's promises to do as I describe as wilful lying through blatant dissimulation.

Yet people will still vote for these false prophets of the patently unachievable, and if there are sufficient numbers of these same goofs doing the voting then those fumbling, stumbling feet of clay will surely get to govern, MMP or no.

Why then on this group, all the endless stoush and blarney over what must inevitably transpire, other than simply to vent frustrations over an overarching pathological malaise that must afflict any nation that - as I repeatedly point out to those deprived of ears to hear and eyes to see - staunchly **refuses earn its keep**?

So perhaps you will understand my more often than not sardonic approach on this group to intractable issues such as housing supply failures, where any possible useful discourse is lost in the unremitting sandpit inanities of imputation and recrimination, parliamentarians or group members.

In my view, exactly the same applies at parliamentary level where, again, the language and quality of debate on such critical issues is so woefully, shamefully impoverished; this simply because any suggestion of mature introspection has people who should know better reaching for the smelling salts and nervously checking their Warehouse pace-makers.
James Christophers
2020-03-05 20:42:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Gordon
Post by James Christophers
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
So why do all costs go up every time the minimum wages goes up Keith?
Housing shortage – Landords can sweetly up the rent with impunity every time their victim-earner gets a rise.
Not if there are enough houses to stop this happening.
Insert 'affordable' between 'enough' and 'houses'.

Even then, "if" is an assumption based on a conditional that patently doesn't apply to New Zealand and its gouge-priced staples.

Neither you nor I will live to see the day when every New Zealander is housed in a decent, warm and dry **affordable** home.
John Bowes
2020-03-05 21:44:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
So why do all costs go up every time the minimum wages goes up Keith?
Housing shortage – Landords can sweetly up the rent with impunity every time their victim-earner gets a rise.
Food? Our caring, sharing Australian-owned food supply duopoly also grabs its slice of the sucker’s wage increase, even including those locally produced staples you’ve been whingeing about.
Higher minimum-wage earnings? Our caring, sharing Australian banks match it with an increase in the sucker’s credit allowance to ensure he keeps spending more than he’s earning – often in desperation just to “keep up”. This is the kind of thing that lies behind our sky-high domestic debt to income ratio.
(This, by the way is the 'money roundabout' that must never stop...)
Result? “I can never seem to get ahead,” - that timeworn, plaintiff whinge coming from all corners of captive vassall New Zealand.
If ever there were classic red-in-tooth-and-claw capitalism, this is it - so what else would you expect?
You seem to be dumb enough to think companies don't chase profits!
You are unquestionably, demonstrably dumb enough to believe the dimwit crap you post.
Funny how your replies tend to be overblown garbage Keith. typical of those suffering the delusion they have a superior education :)
Gordon
2020-03-05 05:18:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Bowes
Post by James Christophers
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/minimum-wage-uk-job-cut-price-low-pay-study-government-a9371746.html
"Extra costs mostly absorbed by companies through lower profits."
So why do all costs go up every time the minimum wages goes up Keith? You seem to be dumb enough to think companies don't chase profits!
Of course they chase profits, but paying a pittance to the lowest paid is
not a great idea in the long run. Society will fall into chaos and the
profits will follow. Do not kill the golden goose.
Loading...