Why Governments Love Raising the Minimum Wage – Because it’s Really a Tax

In a previous article, we examined how the minimum wage works in practice. Higher, more comfortable pay for easier and lower-skilled jobs attracts capable, energetic workers into those roles, displacing the genuinely low-skilled from the labour market and trapping them on benefits. These effects are neither subtle nor controversial. They are visible everywhere.

And yet, year after year, chancellors of all parties have pushed the minimum wage higher – not merely in line with inflation, but far beyond it. By April 2025, the annualised minimum wage had risen to £25,500, around 60% higher in real terms than when the policy was introduced in 1999.

One can see why Labour governments, committed to equality whatever the consequences, favour such increases. But Conservative governments have overseen them too – raising the minimum wage by around 20% in their final two years in office. To understand why, we need to look not at rhetoric, but at how the minimum wage works in practice, both for workers and for government finances.

The missing piece is Universal Credit (UC). Low-paid workers do not live on their employer’s wage alone. Many receive UC on top of their pay, delivered directly into their bank accounts. UC is a generous benefit, making a real difference to the standard of living of many low-paid workers. But it comes with a sting in its tail: a withdrawal rate of 55%. For every additional £10 a worker earns, £5.50 is taken away through reduced UC.

Out of roughly 33 million people in employment, nearly three million are on UC while working. Of these, around two million are on or close to the minimum wage.

In April 2025 the minimum wage rose by 7%, from an annual wage of £23,900 to £25,500 – about £1,600 more a year. That makes a fine headline. But it is not just those on the minimum wage who receive increases. Employers must raise the pay of other lower-paid workers by a similar amount to preserve incentives for skill, experience and responsibility.

Now look at what actually happens to that £1,600 increase for the two million lower-paid workers affected.

The pay rise costs the employer £1,840 once Employer’s National Insurance is included.

The worker immediately loses £880 as UC is withdrawn at 55%.

Income tax takes a further £320.

National Insurance takes another £130.

The result is stark. Out of a supposed £1,600 pay rise, which costs the employer over £1,800 to provide, the worker keeps £270, just a sixth of the claimed pay increase.

Where does the missing £1,600 go? To the government.

When the minimum wage rose to £25,500 in April 2025, it increased take-home pay for roughly two million low-paid workers by about £5 per week, while delivering around £3 billion in additional revenue to the government from employers. And so the minimum wage rises again in April 2026, this time to £26,528.

This is why politicians love announcing minimum-wage hikes. They sound generous. They cost the government nothing directly. And they allow ministers to pose as champions of working people.

In reality, the minimum wage has become a payroll raid. It destroys marginal jobs, traps workers in dependency and quietly expands the state’s take – all while pretending to do the opposite.

The minimum wage is not a workers’ policy. It is a tax-raising policy – and a foolish one at that. By its very nature, increases in the minimum wage are inflationary. There may be no explicit tax labelled ‘working people’, but the costs are passed on to everyone through higher prices for goods and services. Like any payroll tax, the minimum wage raises the cost of labour, reduces employment at the margin and hits hardest when the economy weakens. When downturns arrive, it is the most vulnerable workers who suffer most – not through lower pay, but through lost jobs. What appears to be an efficient tax take in good times ultimately misfires: the revenue gained upfront is outweighed by the tax lost when unemployment inevitably rises.

Subscribe
Notify of

To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.

Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.

8 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
JohnK
3 months ago

And don’t forget the convoluted ‘claw back” method, in which the DWP increase state pensions linked to average wage rises if they are higher than inflation or at least 2.5%, coupled with frozen transition levels for tax bands. E,g, in the next tax year I’ll be eligible for the basic state pension, but I will be paying 40% on the top slice, with the DWP paying gross, and the HMRC clawing a chunk back the other way via PAYE.

JXB
JXB
3 months ago
Reply to  JohnK

If the politicians wallowing in their crocodile tears really wanted to help the ubiquitous poor – now nearly all imported – they would not tax them at all by raising the tax threshold to £15 000 or even £20 000 and doing away with “benefits”.

This has two downsides for them: it removes the opportunity to bribe people for votes; it prevents “churning” where money is circulated in the current account. Money which will be paid back to claimants first enters the current account to be used for other purposes before later being paid back. It is in effect an interest free loan by the “poor” to the Government. Since the money is taken ahead of the payback on a continuous basis, this is the churning.

An equivalent, which is illegal, is a solicitor holding client funds for some later use by the client – house purchase maybe – but instead of it being in an interest-bearing client account, the solicitor uses the money for his own purposes until it is needed by the client.

Nothing Government does is legal or moral if anyone or any entity were to do it

huxleypiggles
3 months ago

The increase in the minimum wage was a deliberate ploy intended to cripple small businesses and particularly those in the hospitality sector such as pubs, restaurants, cafés and small hotels. I would expect the devastation to be apparent by March or sooner if these businesses suffer a bad Christmas.

Gezza England
Gezza England
3 months ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

I doubt that was the intention but, as usual with governments, their ‘good ideas’ have consequences their lack of any business experience prevents them from seeing.

What I see coming is a host of price rises in January that have been held back but can no longer be. Christmas sales look like being awful, with only maybe Next coming out well as this company is well run, and some firms will bail on staff before April. Come the new tax year and the dawning of extra taxes and costs, the slump will really start. Family farms and businesses will be in the firing line and as the song goes ‘things can only get shitter.’

And if the i piece is true that the incompetent moron at the Treasury is thinking of further tax rises in next year’s budget then the last hope may be gone of avoiding so much damage no government can fix it in a single parliament.

Neil Datson
Neil Datson
3 months ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

‘. . . a deliberate ploy . . .’ Obviously it looks like one, as its likely consequences (like the hike in Employer’s NI) are obvious to anybody with the most basic grasp of small business economics. But never disregard Hanlon’s Razor: ‘Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.’ Reeves, and the people who have her ear, really are that ignorant.

JXB
JXB
3 months ago
Reply to  huxleypiggles

Apparent now. TGI Friday calling in the receivers.

RTSC
RTSC
3 months ago

Not only that ….by making UC immediately available to immigrants, they are also fuelling high levels of welfare-dependant immigration.

JXB
JXB
3 months ago

“ Low-paid workers do not live on their employer’s wage alone. Many receive UC on top of their pay, delivered directly into their bank accounts.” The UC is not present in the transaction cost to consumers for the output bought. It means the true selling prices are artificially lower, and invisible to the consumer. A consumer’s decision to buy a good rests on their perceived value to them compared with the value they attach to the money they must pay to get it. If the value of the good to them exceeds the value to them of the money, then the exchange makes them wealthier, as they have something of greater value (to them) than the money they paid. If the converse were true, they would not make the exchange as it would make them poorer. Paying for a good once at the point of sale – cost seen, a second time via taxes taken – cost unseen, deprives the consumer of the price information vital to make the right decision about a purchase to ensure it makes them wealthier rather than poorer. By subsiding a wage, it means the value of the labour input exceeds the value of output. If… Read more »