I’ve already put some of the arguments in favour of raising the minimum wage. Here are a few more:
- A minimum wage of $15 an hour will mean extra earnings of $427 million a year for our lowest paid workers. Most of that money will be spent on essentials – food, clothing and health-care – and will go straight back into the economy.
- David Parker rightly points out that the minimum wage has to be one families can live on, that rewards hard-work, and that helps stem the flow of thousands of people to Australia where wages are much higher.
- Minimum wage increases have lagged behind productivity increases over last 20 years. For the health of our communities they need to increase in a sustainable fashion.
- If Government future ambitions for growth are to be realised, the fruits will need to be shared. My bill helps ensure that is the case.
- Inequalities are growing since National’s 2010 tax package which increased GST, and gave the biggest tax cuts to those already wealthy. These growing inequalities begin to be addressed by my bill. Women, Māori, Pacific people, youth and part-time workers are more likely to benefit from an increase in the minimum wage.
If you’re new to this debate, Ch9 News in Dunedin has a background piece on my bill. It’s worth a look.
64,000 on the minimum wage and 3/4 of employers dont have anyone on minimum wage !
Doesnt seem a big ask to me to increase it to $15 per hr, in steps
The “extra earnings of $427 million a year” will be an extra cost to businesses and Government.
Is this total estimated cost, including pay overheads?
Does it account for wages currently at or above $15 per hour that would be pushed higher?
What are the estimated effects on employment in a very economically stressed business environment?
Talk about the cost is a right wing distraction.
It is total bullshit to talk about costs without quantifying the benefits. Which far outweigh the costs.
They forget that one firms wage bill is another firms customer income.
The business environment is stressed because of lack of demand. Due to low incomes!
Higher wages also allows a higher tax take. Less Government deficit and less spending on welfare to top up wages.
Also. If the minimum wage had risen as much as the wealth/income at the top in the last 30 years, what would it be now. It would be over $16/hr if it had been increased last year by the same as the rise in the wealth of those at the top, 18%.
30 years of lowering wages has not resulted in the promised better future. Time to face the fact we will never catch Australia by following the Neo-liberal religion.
It is not the wealthy who create wealth, it is the community.
“- A minimum wage of $15 an hour will mean extra earnings of $427 million a year for our lowest paid workers. Most of that money will be spent on essentials – food, clothing and health-care – and will go straight back into the economy.”
Raising the minimum wage will not improve the economy. Even under the assumption that businesses will simply eat the cost (so there is no fall in employment or rise in prices – both of which seem unlikely) the economy will not do any better. You are correct that the people on these wages will be likely be spending more of this than if the money went to the business owners – however this will not be better for the economy. When the money goes to the owners they will spend a portion of it and save some. The part that they save will go to banks who then lend it out to people who are going to spend it.
No extra spending will occur from this. There may be an argument that it is better for the poor to spend it than the rich, but that is not the same as saying it will lead to a stronger economy.
David, how many minimum wage jobs will be lost because of this? Are you going to front up to workers in factories to tell them that because their employers have to lay them off because they can’t afford the $427 million bill in these economic times, they’re better off with no job at all?
The Minimum wage should be $25.00 per hour, and everyone in employment should have their wages/pensions increased by 60% as well, we used to have these general wage orders back in the old days!!
AB. Low income people spend all their pay within the economy, not on Hawaii holidays. A higher minimum wage will mean more spending within the economy.
Businesses who complain about poor sales, and cannot see the connection with the miserable wages, they pay, are delusional.
The tax breaks for millionaires have cost the NZ economy a lot more than 400mill. As have the wage and wealth rises for the top 1%.
“they can’t afford the ….. bill in these economic times,”
The poor excuse of “these economic times” has gone on and on and off since 1978.
‘On’ under a national/act government and ‘off’ under anyone else as they try to govern our country and economy with intelligence and common sense rather than the dual motives of profit and greed which underpin the lazy,socially irresponsible,amoral,uncreative,incompetent (except for themselves) one dimensional simple thinking of right wing governments
Personally, after 60 years on this planet, I now believe that right wing governments should come with a very large ‘government’ bad for the health and well being of the human race warning.
*Heard this telling phrase on The Nation last week – “we have economists to make astrologers look good!”
“Are you going to front up to workers in factories to tell them that because their employers have to lay them off because they can’t afford the $427 million bill in these economic times, they’re better off with no job at all?”
Maybe he should tell minimum wage earners that Labour will do nothing for them, that they should keep on going to food banks to feed themselves.
Maybe he should say they should accept their lot, that being treated with respect and given the right to expect a dignified minimum quality of life for 40 hours (or more) of hard graft is a little too much to beg for.
Maybe he should just appease the crowds on tv and slag off solo mums and beneficiaries and remind the workers to keep quiet incase they lose their jobs and end up a target on some dodgy ministers ‘get out of jail’ radar.
@Abbe Busoni,
I am not sure anyone above has claimed the increase in Minimum wage will make a ‘stronger’ economy. You accept the fact that the low paid workers will spend any increase on essentials, but seem to suggest that as employers would also ‘spend’ it, or perhaps bank it for others to have access to it as loans, and so ‘spend’ it, that THE ALL SUPREME ECONOMY does not benefit . You remind me of a primitive economics lecture I once suffered when we were informed at length about the theory of ‘baskets’ of ‘food’ and ‘non food’! Well, Do you know what basket the impoverished family will choose?
Where is the humanity in this, Abbe?… The social good
… the social equity?
@ whodunnit… First, remember that the vast majority of workers are paid above the minimum wage.
Of course there is little doubt that an increased minimum wage will result in some job losses, but this ‘mantra’ of employers – struggling, or not – is hardly valid. We should pay a fair living wage. Employers must determine that they are efficient, and that their workers are usefully employed! If we forever bow to the employers lament, we really might as well admit reality and prepare our youth for emmigration by teaching them “Advance Australia Fair” in pre-school.
Otago-Southland Employers Association chief executive John Scandrett:
Otago-Southland businesses would face additional wage costs of more than $38 million if the minimum wage was lifted.
“In these tight times, that is simply not sustainable, especially for the smaller businesses.”
Otago Chamber of Commerce chief executive John Christie:
The costs of a minimum pay rise would fall harder on the small to medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), a sector the region relied on to create jobs and reduce unemployment.
Some small businesses are doing particularly well but we know of others who are really struggling. The last thing we want is additional measures that makes them resistant to hiring extra staff.
David Clark:
He dismissed the arguments put forward by Mr Scandrett and Mr Christie, saying BusinessNZ was running the “same line” throughout New Zealand.
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/business/219393/views-split-minimum-wage
It shouldn’t be union ‘lines’ versus employer and business ‘lines’, an MP should be considering all constituent concerns.
“We should pay a fair living wage.”
Who is ‘we”?
What is “a fair living wage”?
Pete George
“We” is a word that refers to a collection of people including oneself
In response to your second question pp 61-2 of “A Wealth of Nations” provides some commentary on the matter:
“A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more, otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation. ”
Mr Cantillon seems, upon this account, to suppose that the lowest species of common labourers must everywhere earn at least double their own maintenance, in order that, one with another, they may be enabled to bring up two children; the labour of the wife, on account of her necessary attendance on the children, being supposed no more than sufficient to provide for herself….
….The labour of an able-bodied slave, the same author adds, is computed to be worth double his maintenance; and that of the meanest labourer, he thinks, cannot be worth less than that of an able-bodied slave. Thus far at least seems certain, that, in order to bring up a family, the labour of the husband and wife together must, even in the lowest species of common labour, be able to earn something more than what is precisely necessary for their own maintenance; but in what proportion, whether in that above- mentioned, or many other, I shall not take upon me to determine.”
KJT – “Talk about the cost is a right wing distraction.”. – the cost of something is a “distraction” – that sounds pretty standard, the left wing doesn’t care how much something costs when they are spending someone else’s money.
Paul B – And when people lose their jobs, and businesses close, because they can’t afford the increased costs (and they can only see it getting worse in 2014) – “Where is the humanity in this, Paul?… The social good… the social equity?”
Pete George – “we” is who it always is – “them” ie those evil employers
SJW – That is what “we” refers to however, you need to meaningful delimit the elements it subsumes. Otherwise you are using an ambiguous collective. For instance, I do not employ anyone so it is not for me to pay someone a living wage. So it is sensible to ask to whom does “we” refer to in this context.
I would be skeptical of using selective quotations from Adam Smith to argue in favour of the minimum wage. See: Adam Smith and Liberal Economics: Reading the Minimum Wage Debate of 1795-96.
Non-committal, hypothetical increase in the minimum wage met with stormy bravos from the working and prole classes.
Passion and vision of contemporary social-democratic elitists applauded as world burns.
@ Pete George & One Track
Well, SWJ cleared up the ‘we’ issue? OK? Good.
I think that we need to realise that the National government promised to ‘Catch up’ with Australia. I believe JK said we should be able to pass them. Well it seems 4 yrs later we are either falling behind or have advanced a truely negligible amount. Taking the optimistic stats we will take many many many decades to approach the Aussie Workers Wage. Surely to maintain credibility it is the National government who should be legislating for an increased minimum wage. But No!.. just another election promise that they knew they would never keep. Of course they lament that hard international times have intervened. Well if they were honest they would know that the economic horizon was very rapidly clouding over when the promise was made. It was the same time as the comprehensive tax cuts were promised and we all know that only the wealthy were properly treated- the lesser, rest of us, just got the smoke, mirrors, and GST trick. Strange Eh?
SO…really… Key and co, should at least help our most impoverished workers (on the minimum wage), with a boost? Perhaps it could help employers in difficulty as any wage rise would very often reduce ‘working for families’ credits.
If they will not do the proper thing David Clarke`s bill is an eminently proper action to sheet home to the govt the difficulties of low paid NZers, and attempt to remedy the situation. What does your man say Pete George? He must have paid his dues by now?
“What does your man say”
Going once, twice, sold to the highest bidder – Mr Bauble.
“He must have paid his dues by now?”
At collaborator rates, no doubt.
The simple fact is that this bill never had a chance of progressing, Labour are well aware of that. Apart from being contrary to Government policy and having a fiscal impact there are a number of reasons why it isn’t a good idea, especially at this stage of tepid employment growth..
“David Parker rightly points out that the minimum wage has to be one families can live on…”
That’s wrong. Families on sub-$15 wages also get Working For Families tax credits that target families.
“…that rewards hard-work…”
That’s a nonsense statement, a blanket policy has nothing to do with assessing and rewarding work performance.
The Department of Labour say:
4. This year the New Zealand economy has continued its slow recovery from the recession. Job growth remains slow, particularly in low-skilled occupations and industries. For example, the retail and hospitality sectors, which employ a large proportion of low paid and young workers, have been particularly affected by the recession and are recovering at an even slower pace. Many of those who are looking for work are low skilled and therefore may find it hard to find a job.
5 Minimum wage workers are disproportionately young people and those working part-time. They are often women, Māori and Pacific employees, disabled workers, or refugees and migrants. These workers are generally more likely to benefit from any increase in the minimum wage. However, they may also be the first to experience any negative impacts that could result from a change in the minimum wage.
6 A significant rise in the level of the minimum wage may have the effect of employment losses and subsequently increased hardship for lower skilled workers. Young workers (aged 16-24) will be most affected by any disemployment effects caused by increases in the minimum wage. Most young people do not remain in minimum wage jobs long term.
Minimum wage jobs are often stepping stone jobs for young people – most ‘hard working’ young people starting on low paid jobs move up to better paying jobs.
Bumping up the minimum wage will make it harder for young people to start their careers as businesses will be more likely to employ more experienced people that are worth $15 per hour.
@Pete George, in respect of relationship between minimum wage and employment, please read my previous post at:
http://blog.labour.org.nz/2012/07/26/why-the-minimum-wage-needs-to-rise/
In respect of running lines. Pot, Kettle, Black.
In my case, I make up my own mind about policies I’ll push based on my values, the needs of constituents, and international and local evidence about what works. I make no apology for that.
It’s nice for Pete George to acknowledge that WFF is now required to support families. Of course United Future do not support that going to those families whose parents are unemployed.
The reason why it is required is because wages are too low. A higher minimum wage does not just benefit the 250,000 earning under $15 an hour but another 250,000 whose wage would increase if the minimum wage was $15 an hour – employers pay above minimum wage to have the pick of staff or to pay for the premium to reward skills required to do the job.
There was a forecast job loss of 5500 a year or two back when the minimum wage was lower. The impact would be even less now. Compare that to the saving in lower WFF entielement to government (and the ability to create work with this money) and the stimulous to the economy that would result with more disposable income for 250-500 thousand people.
There is little particular impact on young people – a subset of the 5500 jobs that might be lost.
As for those who enjoy the low MW – fast food companies, supermarkets, cleaning contractors and care providers and some hospitals (kitchen and cleaning staff). Very few staff ever make a career in higher paying jobs in these businesses – they stay on the low wage till they find a better job. And each business passes on its costs onto others rather than laying off staff (the exception is self service lines in supermarkets).
A rise in the minimum wage nails the young and unskilled. My son who didn’t exactly shine academically was sitting at home at 18 and willing to work for pretty much anything to prove his worth couldn’t get a look in and to be honest what employer would take him on for your 600pw when he is unproven ? Thankfully we had an earthquake and any able bodied young grafter can get work and now 18months later he is on $19 an hour and doing 12 hour days.
Without an earthquake posh university educated politicians with NO experience of the working class want to price these sort of people out of the market so Jacinda can have a swipe at youth unemployment. Labour need to look after the workers but they also need to listen to the people who give these young ones an opportunity. Pricing them out of the market ain’t the answer.
@David ‘pricing them out of the market’ isn’t likely. More likely is that the young folk will leave for Australia where the minimum wage is the equivalent of $NZ20
And the minimum rent is twice what it is here and they have to pay a fortune to attract people to work in WA in the middle of nowhere. Why do Labour want to take away the opportunity for my untested son getting his foot on the employment ladder by pricing him out of the market, it’s bonkers with all due respect.
Go have a chat with a contracting firm and see if they will take on a school leaver with no experience for a labour ing job at 600pw, they won’t. What’s an 18 year old living at home going to do with 600pw ?
That is Labours problem, chasing a headline without thinking through the consequences, he started on the minimum wage worked hard and got his pay rises. Here is a thought, he works in a crew of 18 and 10 of them are from Ireland, East Europe and South America, have a look at why there are young people unemployed up north but can’t make it over the cook straight but blokes can make it from the other side of the globe. Have a crack at immigration and working holidayers taking jobs from kiwis who we pay the dole too.
@SPC There is little particular impact on young people – a subset of the 5500 jobs that might be lost.
You can’t have read what I posted above, nor the DoL report.
6 A significant rise in the level of the minimum wage may have the effect of employment losses and subsequently increased hardship for lower skilled workers. Young workers (aged 16-24) will be most affected by any disemployment effects caused by increases in the minimum wage.
Pete George, really? On what basis?
Given young people are only a subset of the forecast 5500 job loss not all (and this number is adjusted downward for every year the $15 an hour wage is delayed) – job loss is insignificant compared to the total number of young people employed who would receive pay increases, let alone others of the 250,000 under $15 an hour and the 250,000 above $15 an hour who would be more likely to have their pay increased also.
Given many on these low wages have children, the savings in WFF payment means there is no adverse fiscal impact.
The gain to workers is obvious – 500,000 people getting a 10% wage increase compared to 5000 jobs. If a policy gave business such gains with such a low cost United would have already endorsed it – and you know it. Centrist – yeah right, when the minimum wage increased from $9 to $12 an hour at the behest of NZ First and Greens on Labour – United were not placed to oppose it, so it occured. Now they are, they do. There is every indication that Dunne was one of the anti-unionists/workers on the Labour right and United shows this.
500,000 people getting a 10% wage increase
Is that a guess? Or what do you base that on?
The total cost to business on those numbers is about $1.5b, compared to the cost to business of $427m that David Clark has stated. That’s a major discrepancy.
Do you really think that wouldn’t impact on business and employment?
And:
“Over half of those earning the minimum wage
are between 16 and 24 years of age,
compared with one in six workers overall. An
increase in the minimum wage is likely to
affect a very large number of young people
already in work.”
The 5500 forecast of job loss includes less new jobs created. So it’s a forecast of 2750 total jobs less for those under 24 and less still for existing jobs. Every year that passes reduces the job loss impact of an increase to $15 an hour.
As to figures: there are 250,000 people earning under $15 an hour. Workers gain in after tax dollars. They will pay more tax. The minimum wage would go up 10% or more – a little less for those on $14.50 an hour.
The impact on relativities – an increase in wage to levels over $15 an hour (say $14.50 to $16 an hour) is not factored in when assessing the wage gain in increasing the MW alone.
There are also 250,000 on $15 and over traditionally paid above the MW – that would continue and require their pay increase as well (relativities).
Supermarkets, fast food outlets, cleaning contractors and carers are in cost plus domestic sector businesses (if anything all are growth in employment sectors) – they either pass on cost increases or they absorb them. The only job losses have been in the self service lines in supermarkets (subject to consumer resistance/ preference for tellers and need for some tellers to supervise) and this is technology led rather than a reaction to high wage levels.
There are 638,000 people of age 15-24. 384,000 are in the labour force – 318,400 are employed and 65,600 unemployed as at 31 March 2012.
The forecast of a loss of 2750 jobs amongst those 15-24 with a $15 an hour minimum wage is around 1% of the jobs currently held by those of this age group. Many of the other 99% would get a wage increase.
So don’t tell me that United Future oppose an increase in the MW because they are on the side of the young. UF allowed the end of a student allowance for those doing masters degrees and keeping the MW low makes it harder to stay in tertiary edcuation.
http://www.dol.govt.nz/publications/lmr/pdfs/lmr-fs/lmr-fs-youth-mar12.pdf
“The forecast of a loss of 2750 jobs amongst those 15-24″ is not insignificant for those people – and in fact it is likely to be higher than that if the MW is substantially increased, because employers are likely to switch to older more experienced people to justify the extra costs.
And they are also likely to give more hours to more experienced employees and less hours to inexperienced employees with raised wages. Is there any analysis of that?
You didn’t address the up to $1.5b increased costs for businesses and Government.
There is no easy answer. If we raise wages we will of course lose some jobs, and a proportion will be the young. We just do not know the numbers. If we do not compete a little better wagewise with Australia we continue to get “hollowed out” (David Parkers expression yesterday), as our youth depart – as of course those that lose their job might also do! Catch 22?
Of course Key, Joyce and all know that loss of many of our best and brightest is a medium and long term disaster, but ‘short term’ the reduction in unemployment numbers numbs them into a stupor. The election is short term!!!
It is a fantasy that we can become a ‘mine’ like Aus. Some of their mineral deposits seem almost as big as NZ and the visible ecologic consequence is in a faraway ‘desert’. Easy
The fact remains that 4 yrs ago Key and co mislead the electorate to believe that we would be well on the way to ‘catching’ Aus by now.
One interesting difference between the two countries is that Australia did not so ruthlessly ‘hollow out’ (again) its union movement.
The fact remains that 4 yrs ago Key and co mislead the electorate to believe that we would be well on the way to ‘catching’ Aus by now.
At least we are not well on the way to ‘catching’ Greece by now, despite a major disaster in Canterbury. Partly due to how well the books were balanced, and partly due to what’s been done since then.
That may well be, but when we are talking about the potential disemployment effects of a higher minimum wage you know well that a dollar for dollar comparison is not appropriate. Relative to their average wage the Australian national minimum wage of $15.96 an hour is lower than what a minimum wage of $15 in New Zealand is relative to average wages here. Australia also has lower minimum wages for younger employees whereas New Zealand does not.
A $15 minimum wage would be above 50% of average hourly earnings here and there is international evidence that a minimum wage above 50% of the average wage is harmful:
You concentrate on the potential disemployment effects, but disemployment is not the only effect of minimum wages. As the economist and Marxist Chris Dillow argues in Against the Minimum Wage:
QtR, the minimum wage labour market in first world economies is inelastic – market theory does not apply to necessary jobs that are charged on a cost plus basis – such as domestic service sector jobs not replaceable with new tech. The only exception appears to be self service checkout lanes (and also hours supermarkets/retail remain open).
“The forecast of a loss of 2750 jobs amongst those 15-24″ is not insignificant for those people – and in fact it is likely to be higher than that if the MW is substantially increased, because employers are likely to switch to older more experienced people to justify the extra costs.
And they are also likely to give more hours to more experienced employees and less hours to inexperienced employees with raised wages. Is there any analysis of that?
You didn’t address the up to $1.5b increased costs for businesses and Government.
“The forecast of a loss of 2750 jobs amongst those 15-24″ is not insignificant for those people – and in fact it is likely to be higher than that if the MW is substantially increased, because employers are likely to switch to older more experienced people to justify the extra costs.
And they are also likely to give more hours to more experienced employees and less hours to inexperienced employees with raised wages. Is there any analysis of that?
You didn’t address the up to $1.5b increased costs for businesses and Government.
“The forecast of a loss of 2750 jobs amongst those 15-24″ is not insignificant for those people – and in fact it is likely to be higher than that if the MW is substantially increased, because employers are likely to switch to older more experienced people to justify the extra costs.
And they are also likely to give more hours to more experienced employees and less hours to inexperienced employees with raised wages. Is there any analysis of that?
You didn’t address the up to $1.5b increased costs for businesses and Government.
We get it Pete George, for the sake of less than 3000 jobs (out of 318,000 employed at that age) – 500,000 people must be denied a wage increase.
The figure of 5500 lost jobs is dated, an increase to $15 an hour would have even less impact now than when the forecast was made.
As to increased wage bills, the government gains in tax paid and lower WFF payments. There would not be any adverse fiscal impact. As for business, the sectors are cost plus – the impact would be inflationary rather than reduce company profits and tax payments.
As the inflation is domestic sector it would not impact on exporters, some say a little inflation would be good to devalue in real terms the property asset bubble and related debt.
What happened to no duplicate comment? And what’s worse the 6.26pm posts are repeats of the one earlier by Pete George that I was responding to in my 6.34pm post – please delete.
QtR – back to your comment – about what economic theory tells us
A top economist at the Bank of England has admitted that his profession should share the blame for the financial crisis and recession.
The profession’s mistake was to allow “a rather restricted and blinkered view of the dynamics of social and economic systems [to be] carried across into how public policy was thought about and executed”.
He said the error was not driven by economists seeking financial gain but “the quest for certainty”. But their error was to think of the assumptions used to build economic models as cast-iron laws.
“A concept gets formalised and then gets socialised and then believed as an almost theological doctrine,” he said. “The notion of not knowing, of imperfect information, of uncertainty, got lost from economics and finance for the better part of 20 or 30 years.
“I think one of the great errors we as economists made was that we started believing the assumptions of economics, and saying things that made no intellectual sense. We started to believe that what were assumptions were actually a description of reality, and therefore that the models were a description of reality, and therefore were dependable for policy analysis.
“With hindsight, that was a pretty significant error.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9442430/Bank-official-admits-economists-were-to-blame-for-recession.html
You still didn’t address the up to $1.5b increased costs for businesses and Government.
As to increased wage bills, the government gains in tax paid and lower WFF payments.
The gain far less than the extra they have to spend.
As for business, the sectors are cost plus – the impact would be inflationary rather than reduce company profits and tax payments.
You don’t seem to understand business very well. Nor the effect of inflation on lower income or no income people.
What do you base this assertion on?
One would think the elasticity of demand for labour would vary from industry to industry employing minimum wage workers.
The vast majority of studies on the minimum wage find a disemployment effect from the minimum wage. Studies that don’t find an effect, though much touted, are few.
As to the causes of the financial crisis I agree with the political scientist Jeffrey Friedman that this was a crisis of politics not economics.
QtR, how about that an increase in MW from $9 to $12 an hour resulted in an increase in fast food and carer jobs? And did not ot decrease the demand for cleaners or supermarket staff?
Pete George.
I clearly did address the cost issue. I suppose your response is typical of the anti-worker bias in United Party policy.
It’s clear from the actual evidence it’s not a policy borne of concern for young workers or the poor. Given only about 3000 jobs would be lost by the 318,000 working under 24 and around 500,000 would receive a 10% wage increase. Given, many of the employers – fast food, supermarket, carers are foreign owned, opposition to a MW increase raises questions about ideologies and attitudes within political parties inimical to the interests of New Zealanders.
You have no reason for claiming that the cost to government of a MW increase would be greater than the increased tax revenue or WFF cost saving. My basis for saying that the government’s fiscal status would improve is that clearly few fast food staff, supermarket staff, cleaners or carers are employed by government.
As for the private sector cost – such employers operate on a cost plus basis (as all face the same wage costs). Thus GST take would increase with any increase in price.
Inflation is no burden on the fiscal position of government (GST/tax bracket creep) or on the low paid – a 10% wage increase for low income workers outweighs an increase in inflation of 1%.
There are no no income people – there are benefits – apart from partners of the waged. Why does United keep agitating for income tax splitting, yet deny non working partner access to an UB claim (with a work test). Because the former suits residents of Ohariu (who choose to be unemployed and whose partners income is too high to receive much in the way of WFF tax credits) and not Otara? Typical anit-worker, anti low income bias from United.