scroobal said:
Have been watching this thread. Looks like everyone has missed the menaing of LCY's approach and the excellent analysis by the author.
LCY has actually done a quantitative analysis of the whole thing. His critics are doing it at only the qualitative level.
Given that the middle income earners earn an average of 3 times the income of those earning below $1500pm. If middle incomes are frozen for 3 years, and based on past statistics, annual income growth is about 5% a year, this will more or less fund the increase in the 50% increase over 3 years for the lower end.
The middle income, in turn, need not remain frozen if the highest income group has their income frozen for 3 years and the money from their normal increase can be used to provide a higher than normal increase for the middle income earners. Overall, no actual increase of payroll from past trend need to take place.
The only problem is in the details of implementation. Possibly, it is sufficient to do it for the public sector and let that provide the catalytic effect for the private sector. Perhaps at the low end, not every skill group need to be uplifted. Some jobs may not find any local interest whatever which can be left to FW. Do we have to do as much for these jobs?
The degree of "subsidies" will probably have to be adjusted. The relative cost of things will change and such changes need to be managed through fiscal policies.
Best of all, it fits in well with the reduction in ministerial salaries.