FG Inaugurates Committee for Implementation of New Minimum Wage

The Federal Government on Tuesday inaugurated the committee to negotiate the necessary adjustment in salaries following the approval of the new National Minimum Wage.

The high-powered committee is chaired by Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Winifred Oyo-Ita.

While inaugurating the committee, Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Boss Mustapha, who is an alternate chairman of the committee, said the committee has four weeks to complete its assignment with the inaugural meeting scheduled to hold on May 20, 2019.

Among the members of the committee are the ministers of Labour and Employment, Finance, Health, Budget, and National Planning and Education.

Others are the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Director General, Budget Office, Secretary of the Federal Judicial Service Commission, Secretary, National Assembly Service Commission and Chairman, National Salaries, Income, and Wages Commission, who will serve as the committee Secretary.

,

1 thought on “FG Inaugurates Committee for Implementation of New Minimum Wage

  1. What would be better than raising the minimum wage by $X/week? A punitive “vacancy tax” on vacant land and unoccupied buildings, which property owners are so keen to avoid that it *reduces rents* by $X/week. Why would this be better? Because:
    (1) When you allow for income tax (and withdrawal of welfare, if applicable), a dollar *saved* is worth much more than a dollar *earned*.
    (2) By themselves, higher wages would be competed away in higher rents. Landlords might even try to raise rents by the *gross* increase in wages, not allowing for the Effective Marginal Tax Rate.
    (3) Nobody says lower rents would price workers out of a job! Indeed, the scramble to avoid the vacancy tax would *create* jobs. And the lower rents would create more jobs, because jobs can’t exist unless (a) the employers can afford business accommodation, and (b) the employees can afford housing within reach of their jobs, on wages that the employers can pay. (Implication: The tax should apply to both commercial & residential property.)
    (4) Why should employers pay for a problem caused by deadbeat landowners?
    (5) The economic activity driven by a vacancy tax would broaden the bases of other taxes, allowing their rates to be reduced, so that the rest of us would pay LESS tax!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *