Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35122962)

That just moves the welfare from individuals to companies, it's not the government's job to prop companies feeling the pinch up if they are being forced to pay higher salaries. If companies feel the pinch they can either reduce costs or raise prices. One is inflationary the other causes increased unemployment. Ideally neither would happen.

It's rather a socialist point of view advocating that companies pay higher wages using government subsidy don't you think? Companies will inevitably look for ways to get at those subsidies.

If we want people off welfare the most viable way would probably be ensuring that working people are always noticeably better off than those on welfare. Tax reductions and graduated welfare withdrawal strike me as better options than corporate subsidy.

Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 35123157)

I am not talking about massive corperations rather the small cleaning companies and the like that might struggle to pay even small increases for a year or two until their contracts are renewed and I don't think it's a socialist view, more a sensible short term safety net.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet (Post 35123364)

The government requiring companies pay higher salaries and potentially funding said salaries is extremely distasteful and quite socialist. It's nothing more than redistribution of wealth which frankly is not the government's business.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35122624)

Your proposal assumes that we have the necessary skills and knowledge to fill two thirds of all jobs in a company in our "indigenous" workforce - how would we carry on whilst we train up our British Citizens?