WHAT direction Ian Bell ("Working people depend on benefits Osborne is cutting", The Herald, Kay 20) was going in to sort low pay poverty was not too clear - while most totally agree that it is iniquitous that those paid so little have to have top-ups from other taxpayers, Mr Bell didn't come up with much about its rectification.
It seemed that Tesco, for example, was thought to be able to divert some of its profits to increasing wages thus reducing the scale of the top-ups for its employees. This raises the question of why companies need profits, why isn't all profit distributed to the work-force? There would be less money for development, innovations, improving ability to keep up with competitors.
Pay for the executive grades may be excessive, but cutting back here does not free up that much, apparently. Anyway, a company would just increase what it charged for its products to maintain profits and top pay, thus spreading the cost over the entire population - a bit like tax credits.
This is not to say that low pay should stay, but reducing the inequality needs a more considered approach, including increasing taxation across the board to further public services' provision. On its own the so-called living wage of nearly £8 per hour while better for so many of course does not do much for "social justice": how can it cover rents/house purchase, council taxes, healthier foods, transport, other everyday living costs and allow putting some into savings? Again, the charges for goods and services would no doubt be raised to cover the extra outlay, thus clawing back some of the money. Those able to buy more however would then put disproportionately more into a company or public purse. That would help with the inequality gap.
Joe Darby,
Glenburn,
St Martins Mill,
Cullicudden,
Dingwall.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article