Living wages

Miliband's IFS document on the living wage makes interesting reading. Not only does it incentivise work over welfare, it directly helps the lowest paid, and does so in a way that attaches social responsibility to business practices. The key detail is:

An increase in wages for everyone in the private sector to the level of the
"living wage" (£7.85 in London and £7.60 in the rest of the UK) would lead to an increase in gross earnings of between £11.4 billion and £12.0 billion, of which about £4.5 to £4.9billion would accrue to the Government through higher income tax and employee national insurance payments and lower spending on benefits and tax credits. Employers would also pay about £1.4 to £1.5 billion more in Employers’ National Insurance. In total, the Treasury would gain between £5.9 billion to £6.3 billion.

Dizzy had an interesting take on it yesterday morning re welfare reform. Note the calculation involves 'everyone in the private sector' including SME's paying a lot less in corporation tax (21%) than larger enterprises (28%), with little consequent scope for tax reductions. But this is just the type of initiative the treasury needs to be looking at.

Be careful what you wish for...

I keep reading that Ed Miliband is now expected to beat his more high profile older brother for the Labour leadership by virtue of the fact that he has fewer enemies and presents himself as a nicer person - not to mention the workings of the AV electoral system which the party so principally rejects.

Often such characteristics in a politician suggest little or no thoughts of their own; a lack of strength in moral conviction or being vacuously described as 'all things to all men'.

In fact, exactly what they accused Cameron of being during his recent travels to Obamaland, Turkey and India - telling each what they wanted to hear.

Strange then that the very same party should be looking to elect exactly the characteristics they find so objectionable in the Prime Minister as their new leader.