|
Post by Zany on Oct 15, 2024 7:38:03 GMT
So, Rachael Reeves has given her strongest hint that its business that going to be hit once again. GuardianReeves hints at rise in employer national insurance, as critics claim it breaches manifesto
Chancellor says businesses will understand balancing the books is necessary for fiscal stabilityApparently businesses can understand this but people can't. Those faceless businesses who can just put their prices up. Higher minimum wages as well. Sigh.
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Oct 15, 2024 8:49:27 GMT
Time to sell up and retire?
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Oct 15, 2024 8:59:28 GMT
Time to sell up and retire? Very bad time. Covid wiped out our reserves, the cost of living crises reduced sales by 24%. I wouldn't get half what its worth at the moment even if I could find a buyer. At the moment I'm raising about £1.3m to buy out the investors, long story. Its shitty running a business in this country at the moment.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Oct 15, 2024 9:48:04 GMT
And this mooted idiocy will make it shittier.
Labour's mindset is still dominated by 'employers = evil' thinking of so many union activists. Employers are actually the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Oct 15, 2024 12:50:40 GMT
Still don't get why they don't even mention the super rich.
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Oct 15, 2024 15:25:30 GMT
I think of all places the government could increase the tax take, employers' NIC seems the worst option.
Anyone read some justification I may have missed?
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Oct 15, 2024 16:41:52 GMT
I think of all places the government could increase the tax take, employers' NIC seems the worst option.
Anyone read some justification I may have missed?
Not I Maybe the non thinking is how dare employers give people jobs earning an income, a sense of self worth and social interaction.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Oct 15, 2024 17:39:26 GMT
I think of all places the government could increase the tax take, employers' NIC seems the worst option.
Anyone read some justification I may have missed?
Not I Maybe the non thinking is how dare employers give people jobs earning an income, a sense of self worth and social interaction. Nothing so complicated, they didn't promise not to so they can. And business doesn't get a vote. Add to that a very large swage of people think businesses are all rich soulless entities who deserve whatever they get.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Oct 15, 2024 21:45:56 GMT
I think we're all on the same page here
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Oct 16, 2024 6:44:22 GMT
I think we're all on the same page here Yes I agree this forum has a very moderate group. Any idea why Labour are not mentioning the super rich?
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Oct 16, 2024 7:54:20 GMT
In today's Telegraph :
The Office for Budget Responsibility had concluded that 80 per cent of the increase levied on employers’ contributions would be “passed through to workers via lower nominal wages”.
The remaining 20 per cent rise on companies’ tax bills would have been shouldered by “consumers via higher prices”.
Across the economy, this sounds about right. Unsurprisingly, where a large proportion of an individual firm's employees are around minimum wage and there is liitle scope for price increases, the increase in NICs inevitably goes straight against that firm's bottom line. I suppose that must result in fewer minimum wage jobs and a direct reduction in consumption from that and from wage cuts quite a long way up the income ladder.
It makes no sense for a government going for growth to increase taxes on incomes that go directly to consumption rather than saving. This does seem like an odd thing to do, perhaps it will make more sense when the other budget measures are revealed.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Oct 16, 2024 8:37:43 GMT
I think we're all on the same page here Yes I agree this forum has a very moderate group. Any idea why Labour are not mentioning the super rich? Because they're not going to upset their donors?
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Oct 16, 2024 8:39:10 GMT
Dipping a very cautions toe back in this forums waters.
Most people would agree that public services in our country are in a dreadful state pretty much across the board. While efficiency reforms may provide a long term partial solution, in the short term we have to commit more funds to them if we want them to approve. If we are not to continuously sip in the waters of the funny money pot, that means we have to either raise more money from taxation or cut unnecessary spending elsewhere. Yet every time a spending cut comes along - eg the to my view justified if painful cut to Winter Fuel Allowance - there are howls of protest. And every time a tax increase is proposed, there are more howls of protest from those affected. We do need to make some difficult decisions.
There are undoubtedly some sectors in the economy that are really struggling of which leisure is one of the worst at present. Zany talks about a 24% reduction in revenue in his business which I suspect is not untypical in the sector. As many costs in that sector are fixed, in many cases that will translate into a 80 or 90 or even 110 or 120% drop in profitability through no fault of the business management. I fear a large part of that drop in business and hence drop in business values may be permanent in that sector. A rise in employers NI simply increases costs and hence pressure on the bottom line.
It is worth however putting that into context. Zany will know the rough impact of this change on his cost base depending on the employment profile of his employees. I would guess that a 1% increase in Ers NI rate results in roughly 0.5% increase in his salary costs. To put that into context if his total salary bill is £1m, the additional cost (and hence impact on profitability) would be £5,000. Zany can confirm but I would guess that level of cost increase would not change any of his business decisions especially in respect of hire or not hire decisions and remember this is in the context of pretty much full employment and even labour shortages.
I understand this tax rise would result in a rough boost the the treasury of £8bn with relatively minor if any negative consequential economic effects. We must wait until the budget to see what they do but I have to say this measure in tough times as part of an overall package doesn't feel unreasonable to me.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Oct 16, 2024 8:39:53 GMT
In today's Telegraph :
The Office for Budget Responsibility had concluded that 80 per cent of the increase levied on employers’ contributions would be “passed through to workers via lower nominal wages”.
The remaining 20 per cent rise on companies’ tax bills would have been shouldered by “consumers via higher prices”.
Across the economy, this sounds about right. Unsurprisingly, where a large proportion of an individual firm's employees are around minimum wage and there is liitle scope for price increases, the increase in NICs inevitably goes straight against that firm's bottom line. I suppose that must result in fewer minimum wage jobs and a direct reduction in consumption from that and from wage cuts quite a long way up the income ladder.
It makes no sense for a government going for growth to increase taxes on incomes that go directly to consumption rather than saving. This does seem like an odd thing to do, perhaps it will make more sense when the other budget measures are revealed.
When overall net profit margins are low % then other than cutting staff numbers there's nowhere else for such an extra cost to go.
|
|
|
Post by AvonCalling on Oct 16, 2024 15:08:47 GMT
It could be a situation where it's a political calculation...they weren't going to vote for us anyway so lets take it from them. I agree though that a tax on employment isn't great.
|
|