[Politics] The Labour Government

[fly high]

14 voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations across Sussex have calculated the additional costs of the NI increases will total £1,827,000.

I am trustee of a charity that supports hundreds of people with learning difficulties across the county (Downs , Autism etc). For our organisation alone the cost will be £176,000. After years of cuts to social care, there is no fat left to cut and many (most?) charities providing public services will not survive this. This will be nothing short of disastrous for the people we support and little better for the thousands who will lose their jobs. I am not at all sure our charity will survive but if it does it will only be through severe cuts to the support we give to some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

There are still people on here determined to defend the government on their budget. Could those people please tell me now how this is 'OK' and how this fits with a party (which I stupidly supported) that promised to be different to the uncaring Tories?

I REALLY want to know

There are aspects of this budget which are completely indefensible. It all started with the failure to protect the poorest pensioner properly. The complete failure to take into account the affect the rise on NI would have on all charities, especially ones supporting the vulnerable such as your charity. There are hospices which save the NHS hundreds of millions of £s each year, loose those & NHS spend will rocket. Loose the many charities which provide all sorts of support & people will expect Government to step in & they won't be nearly as efficient.

Add to that the attack on small/medium farmers where they really want to hit the richest why target the smaller ones as well. Government figures suggest that the average return on capital for farms (which is the percentage return that they are making from things like land and machinery) is only about 0.5%, which is very low (taken from BBC Verify). So from these meagre profits they are expected to hand over money to HMRC to squander. The treasury expects to take approx. £230m in 2026 rising to approx. £500 by 2029, not exactly much to the treasury in the great scheme of things but absolutely massive for farmers. Set the start point higher to get the rich but leave the poorer alone.

 

[Giraffe]

If they really thought they needed that much tax they should have put it all on corp tax not Ers NI. Therefore purely on profits made. Set the right level and generate the same amount of tax. It would have no impact on charities that are not for profit making and less imp t on employment because big businesses are generally judged on their pre tax profit. It’s a cash hit not a profit hit.

 

[Weststander]

If they really thought they needed that much tax they should have put it all on corp tax not Ers NI. Therefore purely on profits made. Set the right level and generate the same amount of tax. It would have no impact on charities that are not for profit making and less imp t on employment because big businesses are generally judged on their pre tax profit. It’s a cash hit not a profit hit.

Corp tax at 26.5% and 25% on all but the lowest profit companies is at the mid to higher range across the OECD/Europe.

Nations considered social democracies have lowered the rate below ours to attract business, whilst Ireland have gone far further.

It’s a competitive world. Everything counts in large amounts.

 

[KZNSeagull]

Corp tax at 26.5% and 25% on all but the lowest profit companies is at the mid to higher range across the OECD/Europe.

Nations considered social democracies have lowered the rate below ours to attract business, whilst Ireland have gone far further.

It’s a competitive world. Everything counts in large amounts.

The grabbing hands grab all they can.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Thank goodness that the 'grown-ups' are back in the building


The UK's economy barely grew between July and September, with uncertainty about the Budget being blamed for the weak growth.

The economy grew by just 0.1% over the three-month period, and shrank during September itself.

Labour made boosting economic growth its top priority when it came into power but Chancellor Rachel Reeves said she was "not satisfied" with these latest figures which cover the first three months of the new government.

However, many businesses have criticised tax rises in the Budget which they say will hit employment and push up prices.

Major companies, including Marks & Spencer and Sainsbury's, have hinted they will increase prices because of the changes.

The latest growth figure was weaker than expected and was a sharp slowdown from the 0.5% growth seen in the April to June period.

A number of economists said that concerns about what measures would be included in October's Budget had affected decision making by firms and households.

Ben Jones, lead economist at the CBI business group, said firms had widely reported "a slowdown in decision making" prior to the Budget. He added that once it had been announced it had "set off warning lights for business".

The increase in National Insurance Contributions for firms together with other measures "is expected to trigger a more cautious approach to pay, hiring and investment", Mr Jones said.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Thank goodness that the 'grown-ups' are back in the building


The UK's economy barely grew between July and September, with uncertainty about the Budget being blamed for the weak growth.

The economy grew by just 0.1% over the three-month period, and shrank during September itself.

Labour made boosting economic growth its top priority when it came into power but Chancellor Rachel Reeves said she was "not satisfied" with these latest figures which cover the first three months of the new government.

However, many businesses have criticised tax rises in the Budget which they say will hit employment and push up prices.

Major companies, including Marks & Spencer and Sainsbury's, have hinted they will increase prices because of the changes.

The latest growth figure was weaker than expected and was a sharp slowdown from the 0.5% growth seen in the April to June period.

A number of economists said that concerns about what measures would be included in October's Budget had affected decision making by firms and households.

Ben Jones, lead economist at the CBI business group, said firms had widely reported "a slowdown in decision making" prior to the Budget. He added that once it had been announced it had "set off warning lights for business".

The increase in National Insurance Contributions for firms together with other measures "is expected to trigger a more cautious approach to pay, hiring and investment", Mr Jones said.

Looking a bit deeper, which I have no doubt you did, compared to this time last year growth is up 1%. And the trend seems to be a dip in Q3. It's difficult to read much into this especially when you start looking at individual sectors. What do you think?

Care to post the link where you got this from?

 

[Is it PotG?]

Care to post the link where you got this from?

Tried clicking on the link?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Tried clicking on the link?

Thanks. The figure at the bottom shows what I was saying. All things considered, 0.1 is a start and is at least consistent, or better, with previous Q3s. Nothing much to see here to be fair.

 

[Is it PotG?]

Thanks. The figure at the bottom shows what I was saying. All things considered, 0.1 is a start and is at least consistent, or better, with previous Q3s. Nothing much to see here to be fair.

Nowt to worry about, all is rosy in the garden.

Thanks for that.


The Bank of England expects growth to remain lacklustre in the final quarter of the year and has forecast a 0.3 per cent expansion. Earlier this month, the BoE cut interest to 4.75 per cent but indicated that a further reduction in borrowing costs was unlikely before early next year, as it weighs the outlook for inflation.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Thank goodness that the 'grown-ups' are back in the building


The UK's economy barely grew between July and September, with uncertainty about the Budget being blamed for the weak growth.

The economy grew by just 0.1% over the three-month period, and shrank during September itself.

Labour made boosting economic growth its top priority when it came into power but Chancellor Rachel Reeves said she was "not satisfied" with these latest figures which cover the first three months of the new government.

However, many businesses have criticised tax rises in the Budget which they say will hit employment and push up prices.

Major companies, including Marks & Spencer and Sainsbury's, have hinted they will increase prices because of the changes.

The latest growth figure was weaker than expected and was a sharp slowdown from the 0.5% growth seen in the April to June period.

A number of economists said that concerns about what measures would be included in October's Budget had affected decision making by firms and households.

Ben Jones, lead economist at the CBI business group, said firms had widely reported "a slowdown in decision making" prior to the Budget. He added that once it had been announced it had "set off warning lights for business".

The increase in National Insurance Contributions for firms together with other measures "is expected to trigger a more cautious approach to pay, hiring and investment", Mr Jones said.

Imagine what that would look like without Brexit though, which has cost our economy 140 billion so far, rising to over 300 billion and is once again causing senior financial officials to urge a reset on our relationship with Europe. Link from those well known pinkos Sky News.

Brexit has 'weighed' on economy and UK 'must rebuild relations' with EU - Bank of England governor

Sir Keir Stamer has vowed a reset with the EU, but he is under pressure to explain what that could look like. And now Andrew Bailey has suggested closer ties would make economic sense.

news.sky.com

 

[Is it PotG?]

Imagine what that would look like without Brexit though, which has cost our economy 140 billion so far, rising to over 300 billion and is once again causing senior financial officials to urge a reset on our relationship with Europe. Link from those well known pinkos Sky News.

Brexit has 'weighed' on economy and UK 'must rebuild relations' with EU - Bank of England governor

Sir Keir Stamer has vowed a reset with the EU, but he is under pressure to explain what that could look like. And now Andrew Bailey has suggested closer ties would make economic sense.

news.sky.com

Whataboutery of an extreme level Sir?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Whataboutery of an extreme level Sir?

I don't think you understand what this means

To quote, it is "the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue."

@Guinness Boy 's post is neither; it's a causal suggestion.

 

[Is it PotG?]

I don't think you understand what this means

To quote, it is "the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue."

@Guinness Boy 's post is neither. It's a causal suggestion.

No, no it wasn't.

 

[Guinness Boy]

No, no it wasn't.

Yes, yes it was. The economy would be in a totally different place without the continued burden of Brexit. A recent report estimated this at reduction in growth of 2.5%. Now doesn't 2.6 look a MUCH bigger number than 0.1?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

No, no it wasn't.

Okay. Explain why it was not a "causal suggestion". And then explain why it's whataboutery. I'm all ears, I hope to learn something.

 

[drew]

14 voluntary, community and social enterprise organisations across Sussex have calculated the additional costs of the NI increases will total £1,827,000.

I am trustee of a charity that supports hundreds of people with learning difficulties across the county (Downs , Autism etc). For our organisation alone the cost will be £176,000. After years of cuts to social care, there is no fat left to cut and many (most?) charities providing public services will not survive this. This will be nothing short of disastrous for the people we support and little better for the thousands who will lose their jobs. I am not at all sure our charity will survive but if it does it will only be through severe cuts to the support we give to some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

There are still people on here determined to defend the government on their budget. Could those people please tell me now how this is 'OK' and how this fits with a party (which I stupidly supported) that promised to be different to the uncaring Tories?

I REALLY want to know

Would I be right in assuming your charities annual wage bill is therefore in the region of £14.5m? (not taking into account NI is paid on the first £5k)

 

[dsr-burnley]

Would I be right in assuming your charities annual wage bill is therefore in the region of £14.5m? (not taking into account NI is paid on the first £5k)

Almost certainly not. The 1.2% rise in the rate is for most companies the lesser of the two rises. It's the lowering of the starting rate, from £9,100 to £5,000, that is the real blow to employment. Any employee on £9,100 or more (ie. part time employees) is hit by an increase, or rather their employer is, of £615.

To calculate the true increase in a back-of-a-fag packet way, you need to take the number of employees x £615, and then add on 1.2% of the gross salary for the company after deducting £10k per employee. And that's total number of employees, not full time equivalent number.

It's a killer for companies that have part-time staff. Someone on £50k per year, the rise is £1,106 per year which is 2.2%. Someone on £10k per year, the rise is £626 which is 6.3%. Whether by accident or design, it's aimed particularly at lower paid staff.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Almost certainly not. The 1.2% rise in the rate is for most companies the lesser of the two rises. It's the lowering of the starting rate, from £9,100 to £5,000, that is the real blow to employment. Any employee on £9,100 or more (ie. part time employees) is hit by an increase, or rather their employer is, of £615.

To calculate the true increase in a back-of-a-fag packet way, you need to take the number of employees x £615, and then add on 1.2% of the gross salary for the company after deducting £10k per employee. And that's total number of employees, not full time equivalent number.

It's a killer for companies that have part-time staff. Someone on £50k per year, the rise is £1,106 per year which is 2.2%. Someone on £10k per year, the rise is £626 which is 6.3%. Whether by accident or design, it's aimed particularly at lower paid staff.

So in percentage terms the impact is lower once they start paying the new living wage that everyone (and by everyone I mean everyone except the poorest paid people in the country) is moaning about?

 

[beorhthelm]

Thanks. The figure at the bottom shows what I was saying. All things considered, 0.1 is a start and is at least consistent, or better, with previous Q3s. Nothing much to see here to be fair.

surprised you didn't take the opportunity to show how much worse UK growth is compared to Germany. standards are slipping.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

surprised you didn't take the opportunity to show how much worse UK growth is compared to Germany. standards are slipping.

Ha ha. Good point. Whilst German growth in Q3 was higher than the UK, like the UK the figures present a mixed bag, some areas doing well and some not so well. I’m just glad things have stabilized after the Russian energy crises. If we’re still chugging along at the same rate this time next year I might gloat!