Why should taxpayers subsidise the employment of staff?
This week the government announced that in October the minimum wage for adults will increase to £6.31 an hour and that compliance to this law will be enforced more strongly.
While this is to be welcomed, I even more strongly back the Living Wage campaign which calls for a minimum hourly wage of £7.45 (£8.55 in London). As the Living Wage Foundation says: work should be the surest way out of poverty.
Sadly, the current minimum wage is too low to live on without being topped up with State benefits. It seems like madness to me that, at a time of austerity, the government (using taxpayers’ money) has to subsidise the employment of people.
Instead of using time to pass legislation such as the employee ownership scheme that few think will work, it would be better if governments, of whichever hue, got down to basics and fixed minimum pay rates.
And yes, I do know that the vast bulk of State benefits are in fact State pensions, so any savings on other State benefits would only make a relatively small dent. I also know that paying more will be hard for many employers.
But clearly I, and many employers – including many well-known employee benefits suppliers in our market – do believe it is right to pay a Living Wage, and have publicly signed up to do so.
Debi O’Donovan
@DebiODonovan
It is daft that big business be allowed to make huge profit at the expense of the taxpayer.
Such profits are possible because we subsidise the income of the lower paid.
Rather than fixating on benefit dodgers, we should look to industry to pay it’s way and that would undoubtedly (in time) have a positive impact upon the cost of benefit provision.
Even if that does not reduce the overall bill, having people either in or out would simplify the current cock-eyed system.
Debi’s point about most benefits being state pensions is right, but many pensioners rely on other benefits to survive.
With auto enrolment, more pay will mean more pensions savings, so potentially another boost away from the breadline.
Naysayers will argue this will cost jobs, but those are jobs we as taxpayers are already paying for.
Transparency, anyone?