There is a great deal of talk these days about cutting benefits and the main targets seem to be the neediest, but are we approaching this from the wrong end?
The main concern at the moment is to push people back into work, (which I agree with in principle). My concern is that when they are back in work they will still have to be in receipt of benefits because they will probably be on the minimum wage, which leads me to the conclusion that benefits are being paid not to assist the worker but they are a form of subsidy to the employer so that he can pay low wages.
What I propose is a minimum wage of nine pounds per hour for a 40 hour week making (£360pw), a man with a wife and two children will not pay tax or insurance on that amount, anything over that amount will be taxed and insurance paid, the family will not be entitled to benefits, if the other partner works the full amount of that partners earnings will be subject to tax.
A flat rate of 20% tax on all earnings under thirty thousand pa.
A flat rate of 30% tax on all earnings under forty thousand pa.
A flat rate of 40% tax on all earnings over fifty thousand pa.
The new French government has introduced a so-called 'rich tax' and the rich have sold up and left. It has not worked, there the French government is now collecting less in taxes.
The idea here is to take the employed off benefits by ensuring that they can earn a living wage. We achieve this by requiring employers to pay an honest wage for honest work.
By Erik UKR