Employers, rather than taxpayers, became the real subject of this vote. Yes won by a narrow majority, with the chamber treating the replacement of in-work benefits as a question of who should carry the cost of low pay.
The floor’s most-respected Yes case called benefits “corporate welfare”, arguing that a living wage would restore “the dignity of labour”. Another Yes voice insisted that both policies should be “phased in sensibly”, but the central proposition was blunt: profitable employers should not rely on public money to complete their wage bills.
No voters made more noise, but their case earned less respect. They warned that the minimum wage was “a two edged sword”, eroding the gap between entry-level work and better-paid jobs, while the sharpest practical objection was that “small businesses can't afford to pay extra”. The two sides were often answering different questions: Yes was asking who ought to pay, No whether some employers could survive the answer.
The argument also exposed a familiar tension within welfare reform: higher pay as a route out of state support, against the risk of pricing marginal workers or small firms out of the market. Even among Yes voters there was a qualification — “small businesses should be exempt” — while No voices ranged from calls for a higher earnings threshold to the claim that “Minimum wages distort labour markets”.
The verdict was narrow, but the hierarchy of the debate was clearer: Yes supplied the most respected moral case; No supplied the larger catalogue of cautions.
18 Opinions
I voted yes but it’s more nuanced than that .. yes for large corporates but small businesses should be exempt . People have free choice where to work and they can decide what suits them best
Minimum-wage workers represented only about 2.5% of the total weekly wage bill in 2025, introduction of MW and raises so far have not led to overall job losses despite warnings, in fact little effect on employment at all. A MW of £15/hr should save £3–5bn pa of Universal Credit but altering the sliding scale of reduction per £ earned might also be a needed reform
A higher minimum wage would make things even more difficult for already struggling business. This would be a disastrous policy with massive consequences. We are already seeing the results of higher national insurance costs etc.
In work benefits are state subsidies of business and ahould be phased out. Opponents of MW intriduction and subsequent raises have always predicted that it will ruin business. And have always been proved wrong. Opponents have never had to subsist on low wages, of course. MW stops exploitation, a decent MW would reduce the in work benefits but both need to be phased in sensibly.
I qualify my no vote with! People who own and run a business should gain the benefits however employees should not get the same. A CEO of a bank earning £2 million should see a huge amount taken re paye. Once people earn £200k between 50% and 95% should be taxed as that is pure greed. Greed Is an employee earning more than the Prime Minister.
Small businesses are struggling already with N I increase, rates ,tax , wage increases. Only thing I believe is the minimum hours to collect benefits should be increased, i believe it's at 18 or so hours at moment! Should be around 30 ish!!
Minimum wages distort labour markets, setting it too high destroys job creation. Far better to remove the millions of unskilled, cheap migrants that the economy has relied on and have markets adjust wages to encourage the non economically active off of benefits.
YES Why should the British tax payers subsidise employers by paying part of their wage bill? That's the reality of in work benefits, me & you paying part of a companies wage bill, so the company owners & shareholders can pocket more profit If a company/boss can't afford to pay a living wage then they shouldn't be in buisness The real problem is the huge gap between workers & bosses pay scales, bosses need to take less & pay employees more fairly That's the law in Europe!
The problem with raising the minimum wage is that small businesses can't afford to pay extra, if they do, staff has to be let go, or the business will close. As things stand they can keep the staff they currently have and keep their business going. Topping up a person's wage may well be cheaper than paying out unemployment benefit.
There is no minimum wage, the work price should be dictated by market. Increasing minimum wage restricts young and less skilled people from work. Obviously, in work benefits should not exist as well. Government should not subsidy business without economical sense.