Miliband relaunches his abysmal ‘predistribution’ policy and the BBC give it 2nd highest billing on its frontpage and plenty of airtime.
And yet it is an old story from over a year ago:
Ed Miliband unveils ‘predistribution’ plan to fix economy
For 2013 Miliband has rejigged his plan slightly:
Ed Miliband pledges living wage tax breaks for firms
Some of Britain’s lowest-paid workers could get pay rises under plans drawn up by Labour leader Ed Miliband.
If the party wins the next election, Mr Miliband plans to offer firms a 12-month tax break in 2016 if they agree to pay the so-called “living wage”.
Although the BBC reports this:
Labour claims the plan will save money because benefit bills would go down and tax revenues would increase.
…it misses the essential point that claim raises….
If benefits are going down, and this ‘predistribution’ is merely a replacement for those benefits….then actual cash in the hand doesn’t go up for the ‘poorest’…in fact it might go down….
Labour claims the plan will save money because benefit bills would go down and tax revenues would increase.
Miliband will take the plaudits and credit for supposedly ‘increasing pay’ and then tax the workers on it.
The ‘poorest’ will remain the ‘poorest’ and in fact may be made poorer by Miliband.
And what about the big companies that now subsidise the small ones…..as the taxes of the big companies go towards funding tax allowances and benefits now used to top up low wages will those companies get a tax cut?…..Is Miliband cutting Big Businesses tax payments whilst imposing huge costs on small business who may well find themselves no longer in business?
Or…will small business be forced to fund Labour’s new ‘benefits tax’ on the poorest(see what I did there….just as the Tories introduced the ‘bedroom tax’ by cutting benefits….) and Big Business continue to be taxed at the same rate….thereby increasing massively the tax burden on the nation’s businesses?
The BBC doesn’t provide that analysis…though strangely reports the words of Union Dinosaur, Bob Crowe, who does at least see part of the problem….
“Offering employers a tax break to try and drag them into paying a decent rate just smacks of corporate welfare.”
Yet again another laughably ruinous idea from the Two Eds to add to the list…..
Miliband’s craven U-turn in tackling the Unions….
Miliband’s grand plan for ‘apprentices’…roundly panned….and no longer heard of…
Miliband’s freeze on Energy prices….again roundly panned as unworkable…
and now his ‘Predistribution’ or as rebranded, the ‘living wage’ scheme……again totally unworkable in the real world.
(and let’s not forget the green taxes imposed on us by Miliband)
And yet none of these have received the critical and rigorous scrutiny from the BBC that would show them to be no more than the headline grabbing hype that they are clearly intended to be but which the BBC so obligingly co-operates in highlighting for Labour.
So, Miliband’s “Big Idea” is to encourage firms to pay people at just above minimum wage, rather than higher than that, as they will be rewarded by government.
15 likes
It doesn’t matter what he says, it’s the way the BBC push it. How much coverage has the lifting (and continued lifting of) of MILLIONS of workers out of tax altogether had?
23 likes
So the organisations that routinely pay above the ‘living wage’ anyway, will, in future, receive tax payers’ £££ for something that they would have done anyway?
Glad that the BBC have been relentless in pressing Miliband for the detail!
13 likes
BBC East Midlands news this morning announced that Nottingham City Council will join Nottinghamshire County Council and start paying staff – who currently earn the minimum wage or just above -the ‘living wage’.
So where are they going to find the money from when both councils are constantly complaining about budget cuts and lack of money? Why can’t the BBC question this as they always point out the problems arising from austerity measures and cuts in local funding?
4 likes
Of course the flipside to increased wages will be that I assume tax credits in some cases will reduce leaving a net increase of possibly nothing or even a net decrease.
2 likes