Employers NI raise confirmed by BBC?

zagfles

masonic said:

zagfles said:

Didn't take long to blatantly break a manifesto promise. "...we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT". Assuming this speculation is on the mark. 

They will be relying on the bit before the "...", namely "Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why...". Employer NI is not a tax on working people, even if employers decide to recover the cost through reduced wages or benefits.

I'm sure they will. But it clearly rubbish, VAT is not a tax on "working people" specifically, it's a tax on everyone who spends on VAT'able items, so why is VAT included in that sentence? And does it mean they are free to raise income tax rates on unearned income? Employer's NI is just as much a tax on "working people" as VAT is, probably more so. 

george4064

masonic said:

zagfles said:

Didn't take long to blatantly break a manifesto promise. "...we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT". Assuming this speculation is on the mark. 

They will be relying on the bit before the "...", namely "Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why...". Employer NI is not a tax on working people, even if employers decide to recover the cost through reduced wages or benefits. This was raised as a loophole in a similar deleted thread here before the speculation in the media got to it.

By that same logic, it would be believed that raising fuel duty tax wouldn’t impact drivers…. Bonkers.

Hoenir

Baldytyke88 said:

hallmark said:

Are you suggesting that Liz Truss was in the wrong for sticking to the rules of parliament and that labour should be applauded for breaking them? That would be an unusual take.

Liz Truss didn't even have a budget, but a statement called a growth plan, which was the excuse for not having the OBR involved.

Whereas Labour have a budget but no actual growth plan. 

Albermarle

dcs34 said:

Baldytyke88 said:

Instead of doing what Liz Truss did, not telling anyone what their plans were, they are informing the media of their plans so that any response by the markets is gradual.

Yields on 10-year UK gilts have already risen to 4.25% - above the 4% level following the mini-budget which "crashed the economy". Does that mean Rachel Reeves has "crashed the economy"?

As far as the media is concerned all Labour have done this week is make it very clear they are having to shift the goalposts re-define what it means to be "working people".

And then there's the allegations that the Chancellor hasn't been entirely honest when it comes to her CV...

The Liz Truss mini budget, spiked yields up from a much lower level, to a peak of 4.25% so was a lot more dramatic.
The current 4.25% is actually lower than a year ago but 0.25% higher than a month ago.
UK 10 year Gilt Bond, chart, prices - FT.com

hallmark

Rachel Reeves previously admitted that increasing National Insurance (NI) for employers would hit workers’ pay.

Two years ago, Ms Reeves, when she was the shadow chancellor, said a plan by Rishi Sunak, the then-chancellor, to increase employers’ NI contributions was “the worst possible tax rise at the worst possible time” and would affect employees’ pay packets.

masonic

zagfles said:

masonic said:

zagfles said:

Didn't take long to blatantly break a manifesto promise. "...we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT". Assuming this speculation is on the mark. 

They will be relying on the bit before the "...", namely "Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why...". Employer NI is not a tax on working people, even if employers decide to recover the cost through reduced wages or benefits.

I'm sure they will. But it clearly rubbish, VAT is not a tax on "working people" specifically, it's a tax on everyone who spends on VAT'able items, so why is VAT included in that sentence? And does it mean they are free to raise income tax rates on unearned income? Employer's NI is just as much a tax on "working people" as VAT is, probably more so. 

VAT may not be a tax on working people specifically, but working people pay it, unlike employer NI. I suppose they could introduce a non-consumer rate of VAT that is higher than the consumer rate to engineer a similar scenario, but that would be very challenging to implement. Likewise, they only mentioned three rates of income tax, which does not preclude the introduction of another.

Call me cynical, but I read nothing more into that statement than precisely what was stated, and with the least generous interpretation possible. I'd rather they did break the pledge explicitly and did what needed to be done, rather than tinker round the edges to save face.

zagfles

masonic said:

zagfles said:

masonic said:

zagfles said:

Didn't take long to blatantly break a manifesto promise. "...we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT". Assuming this speculation is on the mark. 

They will be relying on the bit before the "...", namely "Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why...". Employer NI is not a tax on working people, even if employers decide to recover the cost through reduced wages or benefits.

I'm sure they will. But it clearly rubbish, VAT is not a tax on "working people" specifically, it's a tax on everyone who spends on VAT'able items, so why is VAT included in that sentence? And does it mean they are free to raise income tax rates on unearned income? Employer's NI is just as much a tax on "working people" as VAT is, probably more so. 

VAT may not be a tax on working people specifically, but working people pay it, unlike employer NI.

Call me cynical, but I read nothing more into that statement than precisely what was stated, and with the least generous interpretation possible. I'd rather they did break the pledge explicitly and did what needed to be done, rather than tinker round the edges to save face.

Precisely what was stated was "...we will not increase National Insurance...", stuff around was just reasoning rather than qualifying. Working people also pay fuel duty, some will pay CGT, IHT etc. Doesn't mean they're safe. 

masonic

zagfles said:

masonic said:

zagfles said:

masonic said:

zagfles said:

Didn't take long to blatantly break a manifesto promise. "...we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT". Assuming this speculation is on the mark. 

They will be relying on the bit before the "...", namely "Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why...". Employer NI is not a tax on working people, even if employers decide to recover the cost through reduced wages or benefits.

I'm sure they will. But it clearly rubbish, VAT is not a tax on "working people" specifically, it's a tax on everyone who spends on VAT'able items, so why is VAT included in that sentence? And does it mean they are free to raise income tax rates on unearned income? Employer's NI is just as much a tax on "working people" as VAT is, probably more so. 

VAT may not be a tax on working people specifically, but working people pay it, unlike employer NI.

Call me cynical, but I read nothing more into that statement than precisely what was stated, and with the least generous interpretation possible. I'd rather they did break the pledge explicitly and did what needed to be done, rather than tinker round the edges to save face.

Precisely what was stated was "...we will not increase National Insurance...", stuff around was just reasoning rather than qualifying. Working people also pay fuel duty, some will pay CGT, IHT etc. Doesn't mean they're safe. 

Of course it was qualifying, and omitting it results in the words you have latched onto being taken out of context. This is a route to disappointment. The pledge will have been written carefully, such that every word has significance. The pledge was not that nobody who earns an income will be worse off due to tax rises.

MX5huggy

So frustrating listening to journalists dancing round on a head of a pin with the politicians about what a “working” person is. I property portfolio owner is not a “worker” because they do a few repairs and collect rent. Unless they set up a Ltd company and pay themselves a wages via PAYE. 

zagfles

masonic said:

zagfles said:

masonic said:

zagfles said:

masonic said:

zagfles said:

Didn't take long to blatantly break a manifesto promise. "...we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT". Assuming this speculation is on the mark. 

They will be relying on the bit before the "...", namely "Labour will not increase taxes on working people, which is why...". Employer NI is not a tax on working people, even if employers decide to recover the cost through reduced wages or benefits.

I'm sure they will. But it clearly rubbish, VAT is not a tax on "working people" specifically, it's a tax on everyone who spends on VAT'able items, so why is VAT included in that sentence? And does it mean they are free to raise income tax rates on unearned income? Employer's NI is just as much a tax on "working people" as VAT is, probably more so. 

VAT may not be a tax on working people specifically, but working people pay it, unlike employer NI.

Call me cynical, but I read nothing more into that statement than precisely what was stated, and with the least generous interpretation possible. I'd rather they did break the pledge explicitly and did what needed to be done, rather than tinker round the edges to save face.

Precisely what was stated was "...we will not increase National Insurance...", stuff around was just reasoning rather than qualifying. Working people also pay fuel duty, some will pay CGT, IHT etc. Doesn't mean they're safe. 

Of course it was qualifying, and omitting it results in the words you have latched onto being taken out of context. This is a route to disappointment. The pledge will have been written carefully, such that every word has significance. 

"which is why..." is obviously reasoning, not qualifying. If it said "we won't raise taxes on working people such as income tax, NI etc" then it would be qualifying. 

The pledge was not that nobody who earns an income will be worse off due to tax rises.

  That would be even more ridiculous, where does it say that? So someone with job earning £10k but also with an investment portfolio earning £50k and a potential inheritance of £2 million wouldn't be "worse off due to tax rises" because they "earn an income" 

But who cares anyway, nobody with any sense believed the manifesto, they broke their last manifesto commitment not to raise taxes the last time they won an election.