NEWS
Ben Southwood discusses Cameron's pay gap pledge on BBC 5 Live
Ben Southwood discusses the gender wage gap on BBC 5 Live. Listen here (Starts 11:40).
ASI spokespeople discuss the gender wage gap on BBC Radio Kent and BBC Radio Merseyside
Head of Research Ben Southwood discussed Cameron's pledge to close the pay gap on BBC Radio Kent: Listen here (Starts 1:06:29)
Head of Communications Kate Andrews also discussed Cameron's pledge on BBC Radio Merseyside:
Listen here. (Starts 22:47)
Press Release: The gender pay gap is a myth
For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact Kate Andrews, Head of Communications, at kate@adamsmith.org | 07584 778207. Commenting on David Cameron's announcement to make businesses with 250+ employees publish their pay gap figures, Head of Communications at the Adam Smith Institute Kate Andrews said:
It’s a sad state of affairs when even the Prime Minister is promoting the gender pay gap myth. According to the ONS, women between the ages of 22 – 39 working more than 30 hours a week earn, on average, more than their male counterparts.
Forcing business with more than 250 employees to publish their ‘pay gaps’ will only promote more myths and confusion. There is no such thing as an ‘average salary’; education, previous experiences, negotiating tactics, and unique abilities all contribute to one’s salary, none of which can be known by comparing John and Jane’s annual take-home pay on a spreadsheet.
Furthermore, men and women often choose to make difference career decisions – usually based on flexibility and rigor – so they can embrace other, equally meaningful parts of their life; this, naturally, can be reflected in their pay.
The Prime Minster’s claim that the implementation of the National Living Wage will primarily help women in lower paid jobs is a weak justification for another recent policy faux pas. It is women, particularly who are less-skilled or less-educated, who are most likely to be part of the 60,000 who are estimated by the OBR to be cut by their employers when they are unable to afford this wage increase.
FTSE 100 companies have met the proposed target for 25% female board members not because the government told them to, but because women, through their own abilities and determination, are thriving in the work place more than ever before. But leave it to the government to try to usurp their achievements.
Notes to editors:
For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact Kate Andrews, Head of Communications, at kate@adamsmith.org | 07584 778207.
The Adam Smith Institute is a free market, libertarian think tank based in London. It advocates classically liberal public policies to create a richer, freer world.
Ben Southwood discusses the National Living Wage on BBC Sunday Politics Scotland
Head of Research at the Adam Smith Institute Ben Southwood explained the consequences of implementing a mandatory living wage on BBC Sunday Politics Scotland.
Sam Bowman's comments on the Summer Budget in the Financial Times
Deputy Director Sam Bowman's comments on the Chancellor's latest Budget have featured in the Financial Times.
Sam Bowman of the Adam Smith Institute denounced the chancellor’s decision to impose a £7.20 minimum wage on business from April as a “disaster that will condemn tens of thousands of people to long-term unemployment”.Mr Bowman wrote: “Almost all the most methodologically robust academic indicate that increases in the minimum wage kills jobs.”
Read the full article here.
New ASI Report: Scrap mandatory National Living Wage, slash taxes on low-earners instead
For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact Deputy Director Sam Bowman: sam@adamsmith.org | 07584 778207
- Instead of imposing a mandatory National Living Wage, the Chancellor should take minimum wage workers out of tax and National Insurance, giving workers a similar level of post-tax income while avoiding the 60,000 higher unemployment and £1.5 billion lower GDP that the Office for Budget Responsibility predicts will accompany his plans.
- Even if the minimum wage for the over-25s is increased to £9/hour under the current tax system, take home pay will be only 69p/hour above the untaxed level of the 2015 minimum wage. This difference will become even less significant considering planned increases in the minimum wage in the coming 5 years.
- Without tax, working 37.5 hours a week on the minimum wage would bring workers to within 5% of the living wage.
Instead of imposing a mandatory National Living Wage, the Chancellor should give minimum wage workers a ‘living wage’-level income by slashing taxes on low-paid workers, according to a new paper from the Adam Smith Institute.
The paper, Abolish the Poor: How raising the Income Tax and National Insurance thresholds could give everyone a living wage, shows that income tax and national insurance contributions from low-paid workers are significant causes of in-work poverty, and argues that raising these thresholds to the full-time minimum wage level would bring minimum wage workers’ incomes to within 5% (up to 32p an hour or £670 a year) of the living wage.
This would avoid the 60,000 job losses and £1.5 billion hit to GDP that the Office for Budget Responsibility predicts will accompany his plans.
Even if the minimum wage for the over-25s is increased to £9/hour under the current tax system, take home pay will be only 69p/hour above the untaxed level of the 2015 minimum wage. This difference will become even less significant considering planned increases in the minimum wage in the coming 5 years.
The paper, written by ASI Senior Fellow Tim Worstall, also illustrates that in-work benefits are not a net subsidy to employers of low-wage employees, except to the extent that they attract more people into work. Economist Jesse Rothstein found that $1 of Earned Income Tax Credit (the US tax credit) spending results in $0.74 in higher wages to the recipient. This doesn't imply an $0.26 benefit to employers, however – if wages have only fallen because more people have entered the workforce, the ‘lost’ sum may be spread among other workers.
Employer-side national insurance contributions, which tax employment, also fall partly on workers’ wages and partly on job numbers. If the government truly wants to raise wages and improve the labour market at the bottom end, it should consider reducing their rate, increasing the threshold at which they kick in, and eventually scrapping them altogether. They are a pay-destroying stealth tax on workers.
Senior Fellow at the Adam Smith Institute and author of the report, Tim Worstall, said:
If we want to kill working poverty stone dead then all we've got to do is stop taxing the working poor so much.
The simple truth is that the difference between the current minimum wage, which it is said still leaves people working full-time in poverty, and the living wage which would take all of those working full-time out of poverty, is the incredible, unconscionable, amount of taxation upon incomes that we charge to people with those low incomes. By simply raising the national insurance and income tax allowance to the full year, full-time, minimum wage we can rid ourselves of this problem.
We may or may not take those who campaign about relative poverty to heart but why not take them seriously for a moment? If that living wage is all that is needed to entirely abolish working poverty in this country then the solution is in the hands of the government. Simply stop taxing those who make low incomes. For the truth is that we do not have low wage poverty in the UK, we have tax poverty.
ASI Head of Research Ben Southwood added:
There has been a lot of bluster around tax credits—the government and others have claimed that they 'subsidise' employers. But it's more true to say that employers 'subsidise' the government by taking on low-productivity workers and reducing the benefits bill for the government to pick up. Would the government rather they were in work?
Abolish the Poor is a timely reminder that we should look at evidence before we make ad-hoc eyeball judgements. Economics is complex and surprising and we cannot jump to conclusions.
Notes to editors:
For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact Deputy Director Sam Bowman: sam@adamsmith.org | 07584 778207.
To access the full report Abolish the Poor: How raising the Income Tax and National Insurance thresholds could give everyone a living wage, click here.
The Adam Smith Institute is a free market, libertarian think tank based in London. It advocates classically liberal public policies to create a richer, freer world.
Charlotte Bowyer gives a post-Budget reaction on Sky News
Head of Digital Policy at the Adam Smith Institute, Charlotte Bowyer, spoke to Sky News about the Chancellor's emergency Budget.
ASI Budget Reaction features in The Guardian and The Herald
The Adam Smith Institute's Budget reaction has featured in The Guardian and Herald Scotland. From The Guardian:
Interestingly, the strongest opposition to the plan came from the free market thinktanks: the Adam Smith Institute and the Institute of Economic Affairs. The CBI wasn’t all that keen either. Its director general, John Cridland, said the government was getting pretty close to setting an overtly political mandate for the Low Pay Commission. “That’s not something I welcome,” he added.
Both the ASI and the IEA would have preferred Osborne to tackle the low pay issue in a different way. They would have preferred deeper spending cuts to fund bigger reductions in taxes. And they would have liked a more radical reform of the tax system, with moves towards the harmonisation of income tax and national insurance. Raising the level at which employees start to pay NI towards the level of the income tax personal allowance would, they argue, do more to help the low paid than a compulsory increase in wages that the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates will cost 60,000 jobs.
To read our reaction in the Herald Scotland, click here.
ASI Budget Reaction features in City AM and The Telegraph:
Deputy Director Sam Bowman has written on the impact of the Chancellor's new living wage on employment for CityAM.
There is lots of research into what the minimum wage does to jobs. Of the 103 papers reviewed by economists David Neumark and William Wascher in a 2006 study, most of them showed that raising the minimum wage reduces long-term employment. Of the 33 most methodologically robust studies, 28 (85 per cent) demonstrated this.
The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that the new living wage will see 60,000 job losses and a £1.5bn cost to the economy overall. This will be among over 25s, who may be their families’ main breadwinners. Until now, the Low Pay Commission has raised the minimum wage very slowly to avoid job losses, and it has often been very restrained in doing so. Those days are now over.
The people who point out that 1997’s minimum wage introduction did not lead to substantial job losses, without considering all the other evidence, are embarrassing themselves. Based on the evidence, there is a consensus: minimum wage hikes cost jobs.
Read the full article here.
Director of The Entrepreneurs Network Philip Salter's comments on the impact of the Budget on entrepreneurs are in the Telegraph.
Philip Salter, director of The Entrepreneurs Network, said: "The Government should leave the decision of what level to set any wage floors in the hands of the experts at the Low Pay Commission, so that business owners aren't forced to sack employees if payroll costs go up too much.
"If the Chancellor wanted to help the low paid, he should have slashed Employers' National Insurance, 70pc of which is paid for by the employees, rather than just increase the Employment Allowance from £2,000 to £3,000 a year."
Read the full article here.
Adam Smith Institute Budget Reaction: Mandatory Living Wage is a disaster
For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact Head of Communications Kate Andrews: kate@adamsmith.org | 07584 778207 Commenting on the Mandatory Living Wage announcement, Deputy Director of the Adam Smith Institute Sam Bowman said:
The new National Living Wage is a disaster that will condemn tens of thousands of people to long-term unemployment. Almost all of the most methodologically-robust academic studies indicate that increases in the minimum wage kill jobs. Low-skilled people, young people and ethnic minorities are the ones who are hit worst.
There is also evidence to suggest that higher minimum wages slow down the creation of new jobs, particularly in sectors that employ large numbers of low-skilled workers. Firms may also respond to this by cutting back on non-monetary worker compensation like break times and sick leave, to offset their increased labour costs.
Britain’s experience with the minimum wage has been benign so far because the Low Pay Commission’s remit has always been to minimise job losses. It has done this admirably, restraining hikes like this. This can no longer be the case.
There is no magic wand we can wave to make workers more productive. Raising the National Insurance threshold for low-income workers would have given them more take-home pay and created jobs. But that would have required spending cuts or tax rises elsewhere, so the Chancellor has taken the politically-easy way out. If the OBR’s estimates are to be believed, today the Chancellor will have put 60,000 people out of work.
Notes to Editors:
For further comments or to arrange an interview, contact Kate Andrews, Head of Communications, at kate@adamsmith.org | 07584 778207.
The Adam Smith Institute is a free market, libertarian think tank based in London. It advocates classically liberal public policies to create a richer, freer world.
Media contact:
emily@adamsmith.org
Media phone: 07584778207
Archive
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- January 2021
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007