Employers NI raise confirmed by BBC?

masonic

zagfles said:

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" 

Your example isn't far wide of the mark of the lengths some seem to be going to classify themselves as a "working person".

zagfles said:
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. 

Indeed, and you don't even have to go back that far to find a broken manifesto pledge not to increase income tax, VAT or National Insurance, just to 2019. But you are right, it was clear to the public that tax rises were inevitable, yet neither main party was willing to acknowledge it. But I try to let these things wash over me, so as not to so agitated I need to book one of those extra 50 million GP appointments per year or visit one of the 40 new hospitals staffed with 50,000 more nurses.

zagfles

masonic said:

zagfles said:

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" 

Your example isn't far wide of the mark of the lengths some seem to be going to classify themselves as a "working person".

Well, they "earn an income", as in your quoted "pledge" above! But maybe they can "write a cheque to get themselves out of trouble". Or not, as who has a cheque book these days 

zagfles said:
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. 

Indeed, and you don't even have to go back that far to find a broken manifesto pledge not to increase income tax, VAT or National Insurance, just to 2019. But you are right, it was clear to the public that tax rises were inevitable, yet neither main party was willing to acknowledge it. But I try to let these things wash over me, so as not to so agitated I need to book one of those extra 50 million GP appointments per year or visit one of the 40 new hospitals staffed with 50,000 more nurses.

Too late, I've booked them all. Amazing for a "broken" system which is "in crisis" or has been "dismantled" etc etc. 

Ooops getting a bit political now. I'll shut up!

masonic

zagfles said:

masonic said:

zagfles said:

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" 

Your example isn't far wide of the mark of the lengths some seem to be going to classify themselves as a "working person".

Well, they "earn an income", as in your quoted "pledge" above! But maybe they can "write a cheque to get themselves out of trouble". Or not, as who has a cheque book these days 

Maybe you missed the word "not" in the sentence. I was describing what the pledge was not, but how some people commenting in the media have chosen to interpret it.

friolento

intalex said:

...although Reeves is not likely to introduce the levy to employers' pensions contributions.

This is surprising... objectively, this would be a more justifiable change, but optically, a straight increase to employers' NI rate may be perceived more favourably by "working people"... even if many employers will pass on these costs to employees either way...

The costs would almost certainly be passed on, either to employees or to customers, or both. I have a friend who owns a shop and employs two staff. The plan is that prices in the shop will rise by between 5% and 10% to fund any employer NI increase. Nice contribution to inflation 😉

friolento

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.

There are many employers, particularly in SMEs, who are apoplectic with anger by the implied suggestion that they are not working people. 

Dazed_and_C0nfused

friolento said:

intalex said:

...although Reeves is not likely to introduce the levy to employers' pensions contributions.

This is surprising... objectively, this would be a more justifiable change, but optically, a straight increase to employers' NI rate may be perceived more favourably by "working people"... even if many employers will pass on these costs to employees either way...

The costs would almost certainly be passed on, either to employees or to customers, or both. I have a friend who owns a shop and employs two staff. The plan is that prices in the shop will rise by between 5% and 10% to fund any employer NI increase. Nice contribution to inflation 😉

And is that person not a "worker" of some description 🤔

Bit of a stupid hole they have dug for themselves here really.  Nothing new for politicians mind.

masonic

friolento 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. This was raised as a loophole in a similar deleted thread here before the speculation in the media got to it.

There are many employers, particularly in SMEs, who are apoplectic with anger by the implied suggestion that they are not working people. 

I could understand a sole trader being angry about the suggestion, but SMEs are usually limited liability companies who pay corporation tax on their profits rather paying tax on their income, with the corporate entity being separate to the directors, who may or may not be considered working people depending on how they pay themselves. But I am sure there are many salaried employees that would not fit into the bizarre definition involving cheques. I don't think I would. Yet I have been in continuous employment since finishing education and have never earned enough to pay a penny in higher rate tax.

Brie

Albermarle said:

It is very likely that the article will be on the nose. I think we are all expecting this as one of the most likely measures

Especially when you read this in the article .

Any changes to the tax can be introduced quickly, within weeks of a Budget, through digitalised payroll systems, meaning revenues can also be generated at speed.

I particularly like that last sentence and am contemplating the bafflement of all those very small businesses (i.e. the shop with 2 employees) about how they are going to get their digitalised payroll systems to generate the needed changes at speed.  I expect they will get it wrong for a couple of months before they manage to update their excel spreadsheet they use for payroll or remember to use the new numbers when they get their calculator out before actually writing those cheques.  

And yes it will affect all working people whatever that description is - higher costs, higher prices for goods, lower pay rises. 

Qyburn

friolento said:

I have a friend who owns a shop and employs two staff. The plan is that prices in the shop will rise by between 5% and 10% to fund any employer NI increase. Nice contribution to inflation 😉

How much are they expecting NI to rise by?  If even doubling of employers' NI equates to 5% of their revenue then either they must be paying huge salaries, or their sales are really low. It would be interesting to see their workings. Either way I don't expect their competitors will be putting up prices by nearly that much.

Hoenir

masonic said:

friolento 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. This was raised as a loophole in a similar deleted thread here before the speculation in the media got to it.

There are many employers, particularly in SMEs, who are apoplectic with anger by the implied suggestion that they are not working people. 

I could understand a sole trader being angry about the suggestion, but SMEs are usually limited liability companies who pay corporation tax on their profits rather paying tax on their income

An employee turns up, does their contracted hours and gets paid every week/month. No worries. A business owner gets paid after everybody else. Borrows money and uses their personal private residence to secure the debt. Has the worry of what might tomorrow might bring. Entrepreneurs create wealth. Create new jobs. Often work 70 hours plus a week. Crush that spirit and the UK economy will flounder.