Employers NI raise confirmed by BBC?

Albermarle

artyboy said:

Economic debate, namely how to adjust to and manage any changes or new rules, is fine and perfectly MSE... political debate, which is more around slagging off the current party in power, Tories wouldn't have been any better/worse, etc etc... that's where the line is drawn.

I would say things seem a bit more relaxed than in the period preceding the election, but overall what you say is correct.
Although there is always a grey area, such as the discussion about what are 'working people'  .....

Altior

artyboy said:

Altior said:

artyboy said:

Economic debate, namely how to adjust to and manage any changes or new rules, is fine and perfectly MSE... political debate, which is more around slagging off the current party in power, Tories wouldn't have been any better/worse, etc etc... that's where the line is drawn.

We're thankful there was no discussion around the Kwasi Kwarting budget. Nobody brings it up now, at least ! Good to hear from a moderator though. 

The chances of any moderator weighing in here is zero, you just have to hang around to *know* when the line has been crossed...

What often happens, to me anyway, someone makes some nonsense/outlandish claim as part of a politically motivated post, I'll pull them up on it and either my post, or the thread will eventually get zapped. For example they'll say, oh I had 1% mortgage rate and then due to the Liz Truss crash my rate is now 4.85% or whatever. I'll correct them (eg no, our mortgage rates would be what they are with or without Liz Truss). 

It would be far clearer if they did actually update the rules to completely disbar politically related/motivated posts. So instead of correcting the posts, I could flag them instead of correcting them. Until the rules are changed, if needed I'll continue to correct the outlandish (politically motivated) claims if/when I see fit. In fact, I'd far rather do that than flag them.

It's not up to me obviously, but finance and politics are inextricably linked, as political ideology underpins a lot of financial legislation and decision making. The forum is for adults. So it's a bit daft to all of a sudden (in the last six months or so), try to completely dissuade political debate by pretending the current rules don't allow it. Unless it falls into personal attacks, bullying or whatever, where there are rules to take care of those breaches, it should be allowed. An analogy of what they are trying to do imv is a bit like having a football forum and barring people talking about refereeing decisions. Not gonna happen. 
 

masonic

friolento said:

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, 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.

It's not so much about their tax status but about the implied suggestion that they are not working. It's disappointing messaging

I think excluding business owners from the group referred to as workers has been around as long as the Employment Rights Act 1996. While I'm certainly not suggesting "working people" is derived from it, the following definition has been available on the gov.uk website for a long time:

https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/worker

I don't think any of these instances of exclusionary language is intended to suggest business owners are not hard working.

In the current instance ("working people"), it does feel like someone decided "working class" could not be used and they failed to come up with anything as good. Given the intended meaning seems to be more related to income and wealth than employment status, I agree it was poor messaging.

Albermarle

It's not up to me obviously, but finance and politics are inextricably linked, as political ideology underpins a lot of financial legislation and decision making.

I would agree with the first part of the statement, but for the second part in a country like the UK, I would say that the need to win votes and appease financial markets, means that normally in the end political ideology has to take a backseat, and/or be heavily compromised.

kaMelo

It's actually painful watching numerous politicians in interviews dancing on a pin head trying to define the term 'working people'. when in reality it's just another meaningless phrase like all the others. Hard working families, Alarm Clock Britain, The Squeezed Middle, The Just Managing, (I'm sure there are more but those are off the top of my head.) All phrases uttered by politicians of the day, creating lots of noise without any substance. The only difference being it is a two word phrase rather than three which has clearly doomed them for breaking protocol.

artyboy

Altior said:

artyboy said:

Altior said:

artyboy said:

Economic debate, namely how to adjust to and manage any changes or new rules, is fine and perfectly MSE... political debate, which is more around slagging off the current party in power, Tories wouldn't have been any better/worse, etc etc... that's where the line is drawn.

We're thankful there was no discussion around the Kwasi Kwarting budget. Nobody brings it up now, at least ! Good to hear from a moderator though. 

The chances of any moderator weighing in here is zero, you just have to hang around to *know* when the line has been crossed...

What often happens, to me anyway, someone makes some nonsense/outlandish claim as part of a politically motivated post, I'll pull them up on it and either my post, or the thread will eventually get zapped. For example they'll say, oh I had 1% mortgage rate and then due to the Liz Truss crash my rate is now 4.85% or whatever. I'll correct them (eg no, our mortgage rates would be what they are with or without Liz Truss). 

It would be far clearer if they did actually update the rules to completely disbar politically related/motivated posts. So instead of correcting the posts, I could flag them instead of correcting them. Until the rules are changed, if needed I'll continue to correct the outlandish (politically motivated) claims if/when I see fit. In fact, I'd far rather do that than flag them.

It's not up to me obviously, but finance and politics are inextricably linked, as political ideology underpins a lot of financial legislation and decision making. The forum is for adults. So it's a bit daft to all of a sudden (in the last six months or so), try to completely dissuade political debate by pretending the current rules don't allow it. Unless it falls into personal attacks, bullying or whatever, where there are rules to take care of those breaches, it should be allowed. An analogy of what they are trying to do imv is a bit like having a football forum and barring people talking about refereeing decisions. Not gonna happen. 
 

I think that if flagging triggered a prompt response with corrective action, then it would be the right approach. Certainly it's the officially mandated position on here. Trouble is, as you're alluding, posts containing provocative misinformation (often of a political nature) have a habit of persisting for far longer than they should, especially at weekends. And those of us that have been around the block a bit, know that there are people that turn to the forum for advice, often when most desperately needed, and such posts can be quite damaging.

So yes, I'm with you that you just have to fight the good fight. Of course, this thread will be removed soon enough for us even daring to discuss this taboo issue outside of the graveyard of the site feedback board, but perhaps someone might eventually take notice...

Altior

kaMelo said:

It's actually painful watching numerous politicians in interviews dancing on a pin head trying to define the term 'working people'. when in reality it's just another meaningless phrase like all the others. Hard working families, Alarm Clock Britain, The Squeezed Middle, The Just Managing, (I'm sure there are more but those are off the top of my head.) All phrases uttered by politicians of the day, creating lots of noise without any substance. The only difference being it is a two word phrase rather than three which has clearly doomed them for breaking protocol.

Someone involved with the drafting of the manifesto claimed that they originally wanted to use the term working class. The person said they didn't want to be boxed in trying to explain what working class was, but the term they used was arguably even more nebulous.  

Altior

Albermarle said:

It's not up to me obviously, but finance and politics are inextricably linked, as political ideology underpins a lot of financial legislation and decision making.

I would agree with the first part of the statement, but for the second part in a country like the UK, I would say that the need to win votes and appease financial markets, means that normally in the end political ideology has to take a backseat, and/or be heavily compromised.

There are loads of examples though. Take an old one, right to buy, a current one, adding VAT to education. These are tangible financial decisions ie affecting real people, both political and ideological. 

Economists are themselves driven/motivated by ideology, I don't feel many, if any, are truly neutral. For example some will argue reducing corp tax will increase revenues in the long run, others will argue it would decrease them. I simply feel there is an inherent bias, and that bias even exists within institutions that are explicitly, overtly tasked with being politically independent (eg OBR, BoE). 

Albermarle

artyboy said:

Altior said:

artyboy said:

Altior said:

artyboy said:

Economic debate, namely how to adjust to and manage any changes or new rules, is fine and perfectly MSE... political debate, which is more around slagging off the current party in power, Tories wouldn't have been any better/worse, etc etc... that's where the line is drawn.

We're thankful there was no discussion around the Kwasi Kwarting budget. Nobody brings it up now, at least ! Good to hear from a moderator though. 

The chances of any moderator weighing in here is zero, you just have to hang around to *know* when the line has been crossed...

What often happens, to me anyway, someone makes some nonsense/outlandish claim as part of a politically motivated post, I'll pull them up on it and either my post, or the thread will eventually get zapped. For example they'll say, oh I had 1% mortgage rate and then due to the Liz Truss crash my rate is now 4.85% or whatever. I'll correct them (eg no, our mortgage rates would be what they are with or without Liz Truss). 

It would be far clearer if they did actually update the rules to completely disbar politically related/motivated posts. So instead of correcting the posts, I could flag them instead of correcting them. Until the rules are changed, if needed I'll continue to correct the outlandish (politically motivated) claims if/when I see fit. In fact, I'd far rather do that than flag them.

It's not up to me obviously, but finance and politics are inextricably linked, as political ideology underpins a lot of financial legislation and decision making. The forum is for adults. So it's a bit daft to all of a sudden (in the last six months or so), try to completely dissuade political debate by pretending the current rules don't allow it. Unless it falls into personal attacks, bullying or whatever, where there are rules to take care of those breaches, it should be allowed. An analogy of what they are trying to do imv is a bit like having a football forum and barring people talking about refereeing decisions. Not gonna happen. 
 

I think that if flagging triggered a prompt response with corrective action, then it would be the right approach. Certainly it's the officially mandated position on here. Trouble is, as you're alluding, posts containing provocative misinformation (often of a political nature) have a habit of persisting for far longer than they should, especially at weekends. And those of us that have been around the block a bit, know that there are people that turn to the forum for advice, often when most desperately needed, and such posts can be quite damaging.

So yes, I'm with you that you just have to fight the good fight. Of course, this thread will be removed soon enough for us even daring to discuss this taboo issue outside of the graveyard of the site feedback board, but perhaps someone might eventually take notice...

A couple of weekends ago I saw a couple of threads that were not particularly political, but were very unpleasant generally.
They both stayed up until later on Monday morning.

boingy

Rather brilliantly the latest version is that "working people will not see any tax rises on their pay slips". It's turning into a sitcom.