…in the short term. In the long term, it would encourage more academics and students to relocate outside London to regions where the cost of living is lower, which would be good for all concerned.

(this is also why subsidised housing for ‘key workers’ should be abolished – rather, public sector employers should be forced to pay their staff the appropriate rate *in actual money* to afford accommodation. Again, this would encourage the relocation of public sector work out of London, which would be a Good Thing)

Alternatively, the universities may beg for more money from the government, which would increase government spending and impact on inflation (which would hit low paid workers hardest), or they might beg for the the right to increase the top-up fees of students, which might have a longer term impact on social mobility. Whichever way you cut it, you can’t guarantee a net benefit for cleaners, rather than just shifting and the costs that impact on them around a bit. If, on the other hand, you just cut taxes for the lower paid, you have pretty much guaranteed it, so long as you can find the savings elsewhere (firing a few of the more over-paid bureaucrats for example).

“Don’t answer that, right-wing libertarian readers.”

And Balls…(or, at least, his staff)…

Well it’s a question of who pays isn’t it. If you raise people’s net income by raising their tax allowances then, all other things being equal, that has to be paid for by higher taxes on other people. Now there’s certainly an argument for doing that as a general redistributative measure, but the principle behind the minimum wage and the “living wage” is that employers should pay their staff enough to live on.

Wouldn’t it be rather easier to increase their standard of living by simply not taking the tax from them?

Much too rational, I’m afraid. What we want is layers of bureaucracy and plenty of opportunity to get it wrong. Oh, and if you could throw in a malfunctioning, over-budget and late IT system, so much the better.

Eh? Do you regard the personal allowance as a subsidy from the taxpayer? I certainly don’t.

Is this a significant issue anywhere other than London? If so, I guess you could make a case for that.

The second is that the national minimum now is 5.73 or so and the difference between that and, for someone working full time, the desired London living wage, is around 3,300 pounds a year. That same person on that London living wage wopuld be paying some 2,600 or so in income tax and NI. Wouldn’t it be rather easier to increase their standard of living by simply not taking the tax from them?

Why should taxpayers subsidise employers who don’t want to pay their staff a living wage?

The very concept of a living wage “in London” tells us that the cost of living varies across the country. So we shouldn’t in fact have a “national” minimum wage, nor in fact national pay bargaining. Pay should be determined in the context of local issues. That is what you’re saying, yes?

The second is that the national minimum now is 5.73 or so and the difference between that and, for someone working full time, the desired London living wage, is around 3,300 pounds a year. That same person on that London living wage wopuld be paying some 2,600 or so in income tax and NI. Wouldn’t it be rather easier to increase their standard of living by simply not taking the tax from them?

(can’t left wing non-libertarians be worried about adverse effects from minimum wages? I’m not especially worried, as it happens, but still)