The Chancellor promised a Budget for working people, but frozen tax thresholds and a higher minimum wage will leave young workers poorer and make jobs harder to find.
I am with you on reducing employment taxes on the young, but part company on the issue of tax thresholds. Probably everyone should pay some income tax, even, young people and welfare recipients (OK, I know, taking with one hand....) to remind them where public expenditure ultimately comes from, and to give an incentive not to shake the money tree at every opportunity. As I mentioned a couple of weeks back, about one-third of adults pay no income tax, so for them why not welcome more state spending, that might end up on their doorstep. If you want a smaller state, tax structure has a role to play.
I have seen an on-line post, which stated the the national minimum wage has increased by something in the order of 65% from when it was first introduced. However the tax taken from this grouping has increased by circa 170 % over the same period. My first part time job as a 13 year old back in the 60's was was 3 shillings and sixpence per hour.
It is worse than you say. If the 17% of young people unemployed don’t get a job, they don’t get work experience and they don’t learn skills so they don’t achieve the ability to have better more higher paid jobs in the future. We need to view the minimum wage for young people as an entry point to work for young people, enabling them to get the experience to get better more highly paid jobs later on. You’ve written an excellent report but you’ve missed the consequences and the knock on FX around this most important point.
Daniel Hannan, the clearest communicator and the best mind in politics today by far, hit THE nail on the head by describing Britain's morph into Peronist Argentina. Everything detailed in this article confirms that the country is in a death spiral. The NEETS languishing on benefits are clients of the state. The recipients of the £100 hand-out are clients of the state. And on and on it goes. Burnham can't be far from dressing in drag, and with a lovely, tight bun, getting himself on a balcony - doubtless our sympathetic King will gladly provide Buckingham Palace for the purpose - and singing, tears flowing once more from those luscious, mascarad eyes, 'Don't Cry For Me United Kingdom'. How about it Crewekern Gazette? Please, please do it!
I am with you on reducing employment taxes on the young, but part company on the issue of tax thresholds. Probably everyone should pay some income tax, even, young people and welfare recipients (OK, I know, taking with one hand....) to remind them where public expenditure ultimately comes from, and to give an incentive not to shake the money tree at every opportunity. As I mentioned a couple of weeks back, about one-third of adults pay no income tax, so for them why not welcome more state spending, that might end up on their doorstep. If you want a smaller state, tax structure has a role to play.
I have seen an on-line post, which stated the the national minimum wage has increased by something in the order of 65% from when it was first introduced. However the tax taken from this grouping has increased by circa 170 % over the same period. My first part time job as a 13 year old back in the 60's was was 3 shillings and sixpence per hour.
It is worse than you say. If the 17% of young people unemployed don’t get a job, they don’t get work experience and they don’t learn skills so they don’t achieve the ability to have better more higher paid jobs in the future. We need to view the minimum wage for young people as an entry point to work for young people, enabling them to get the experience to get better more highly paid jobs later on. You’ve written an excellent report but you’ve missed the consequences and the knock on FX around this most important point.
Good short and pithy article - thank you.
“Welfare's purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.” - Ronald Reagan
Daniel Hannan, the clearest communicator and the best mind in politics today by far, hit THE nail on the head by describing Britain's morph into Peronist Argentina. Everything detailed in this article confirms that the country is in a death spiral. The NEETS languishing on benefits are clients of the state. The recipients of the £100 hand-out are clients of the state. And on and on it goes. Burnham can't be far from dressing in drag, and with a lovely, tight bun, getting himself on a balcony - doubtless our sympathetic King will gladly provide Buckingham Palace for the purpose - and singing, tears flowing once more from those luscious, mascarad eyes, 'Don't Cry For Me United Kingdom'. How about it Crewekern Gazette? Please, please do it!