President Ramaphosa wants lower wages to help revive economy

R13...

R13...

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 4, 2008
Messages
46,553
porchrat said:
Sure, I'm just pointing out that 3% considering inflation means you're effectively earning less.

Unions are demanding stuff like 20% increases with housing and vehicle allowances on top. You can't really compare the 2 approaches.
Click to expand...
It's comparable in the sense that government told workers that they must live without increases for 3 years, but are clearly not indenting to lead by example. Workers are demanding more because the government has no intention of making sacrifices outside of sacrificing the workers and voting public.
 
SubtleBeast

SubtleBeast

Expert Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
1,833
porchrat said:
yes, I know... we agree... that was my point... (???)
Click to expand...
Not really the sense I got from your first post.
porchrat said:
To be fair that was a 3% increase.

If that's what the unions were asking for nobody would be freaking out.
Click to expand...
A zero percent increase would've been really fair if you consider the government reneged on their multi-year deal with employees.
 
TelkomUseless

TelkomUseless

Honorary Master
Joined
Mar 13, 2006
Messages
14,785
SubtleBeast

SubtleBeast

Expert Member
Joined
May 16, 2019
Messages
1,833
Swa

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
31,217
FaSMaN said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but lower wages result in lower spend , lower economy spent.

Economists feel free to correct me, as I have no idea.
Click to expand...
This depends. In a free and functioning economy it will enable more people to be employed. Also lower wages enables goods and services to be offered at lower prices. In the end a free market will balance itself out. Yes it's lower economic spend but it doesn't really matter. The reason you need the economy to grow is to keep up with inflation and we haven't done that. It's like comparing the economic spend in 1900 to today and then saying we were worse off because it was less but that isn't necessarily the case because money was worth more.

Caveat, not an economist myself but the basic principle remains that free and enabled markets sort themselves out more often than not. Why economists tend towards complete deregulation while politicians tend towards complete control.
 
N

Nuke

Senior Member
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
737
Fulcrum29 said:
I am starting to warm up to the idea to only have VAT. Make more mechanisms VAT compulsory, increase it up to 20% and introduce more tax-exempt basics. Then everyone is having the same cake.
Click to expand...
No. Remove all of it. If you can vote, you can play.
 
Paulsie

Paulsie

Executive Member
Joined
Apr 6, 2020
Messages
5,486
FaSMaN said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but lower wages result in lower spend , lower economy spent.

Economists feel free to correct me, as I have no idea.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily correct as lower wages can result in higher employment, but this must come with looser labour regulations. Higher employment results in higher spend overall.

It's the same (but in reverse), where business lowers the price to increase overall sales. If I can only sell 1 item to 1 person for R 100.00, but can sell to 2 people if I reduce the price to R 90.00, I benefit (provided that R 90.00 selling price is still profitable).
 
konfab

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,120
FaSMaN said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but lower wages result in lower spend , lower economy spent.

Economists feel free to correct me, as I have no idea.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily, because the goods that said wages will be used to buy would be cheaper. But you are looking at it the wrong way.

Economic growth happens to the extent that parties can negotiate the prices of goods and services freely. This is because both parties win when they voluntarily transact with each other, as they each have different valuations of the goods and services in the transition. If you want a cake that I have made, by definition, you will value the cake more than the R100 that you have in your wallet. For me, I would value the R100 more so than the time, electricity and ingredients I bought to make the cake. So we both win.
Centrally planned prices ruin this. Cyril Ramaphosa says that the cake is only worth R50, as that is what his panel of cake experts has told him. You are very happy with the deal, but I would not, as it wouldn't be worth my time. So either I sell the cake at R50, which is effectively redistributing the value I have to you, or I don't sell the cake and you don't get any cake. Either way, no party is happy with the outcome.
 
konfab

konfab

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
36,120
Fulcrum29 said:
I am starting to warm up to the idea to only have VAT. Make more mechanisms VAT compulsory, increase it up to 20% and introduce more tax-exempt basics. Then everyone is having the same cake.
Click to expand...
VAT is an evil concept if you are running a business. You have to fork over the government's share, even if your company is losing money.

IMO, the only mildy acceptable form of taxes are either flat taxes on income with a threshold, or an automated payment tax, which is a very low rate on every single bank transaction. Both of these would come with burning every other tax exemption there in the law.

Same rules for both corporate entities and individuals as well.
 
dualmeister

dualmeister

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
51,401
Ramaphosa wants.
Ramaphosa has a plan.
Ramaphosa promises.

Does he still represent the ANC or is he on his own mission now :whistling:
 
Fulcrum29

Fulcrum29

Honorary Master
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
55,064
konfab said:
VAT is an evil concept if you are running a business. You have to fork over the government's share, even if your company is losing money.

IMO, the only mildy acceptable form of taxes are either flat taxes on income with a threshold, or an automated payment tax, which is a very low rate on every single bank transaction. Both of these would come with burning every other tax exemption there in the law.

Same rules for both corporate entities and individuals as well.
Click to expand...

I have very little issue with VAT, though I do believe it can be better ‘value-added’. Neither do I believe that VAT must depreciate a business, nobody should be taxed on any negatives.

Yes, an automated system is what we need and the administrative onus on the taxpayer must be removed though should still be open to checks and balances. The only caveat being that hard cash will remain as king, and as we know, people with ‘plushy’ couches know this all too well.

Automating taxation within the banking system would be a good route to pursue. Flat would work. On this I do agree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top