64% of Britons expect the taxes they pay will increase as a result of this week's budgetWill increase: 64%Will stay the same: 20%Will decrease: 1%https://t.co/ttUV5CXYPS pic.twitter.com/JZTvBf0tsf
Unlike most budgets this one won’t be cheered on day one, even if it’s actually a good one. It’s been trailed in such a doomy way.
I always thought Osborne's worst mistake was to trail all the good stuff in advance, so all the surprises and therefore the headlines were full of bad stuff for days afterwards. The smart thing to do is put the bad stuff forward first and then get good headlines later, as that's what people will remember.
The corporate tax roadmap will be one of the bright spots and has been well consulted. Aside from possible employer NI rises this one is looking pretty decent for companies, all things considered.
Whatever else there is to say about Biden's gaffe, the timing of it was awful.
Harris gave her (pretty positive and uplifting) closing message to one of the biggest crowds of the campaign ... and the headlines are all about Biden trying to walk back the garbage remark. Made on a Zoom call to a few activists.
The corporate tax roadmap will be one of the bright spots and has been well consulted. Aside from possible employer NI rises this one is looking pretty decent for companies, all things considered.
Is it ? Well over half the anticipated tax increases fall on employers - and the well above inflation minimum wage rise will also drive up employment costs. Businesses employing few people will do fairly well; the rest get something of a caning.
Whether that all works out depends a lot on what's done on the spending side.
Back on America for a moment, Harris will win. I did say "and it won't be close". OK maybe not a slam dunk now as it looked. But the hypothesis is simple:
The Trump campaign is a giant gas bag. Self-reinforcing and self-inflating, a vast echo chamber promoted and enhanced on Twitter and Fux and Newsmax and Lies Social. Where EVERYONE you speak to and interact with is voting Trump and thinks like you and has the same fears as you and wants the same Murica as you. EVERYONE.
We know the pollsters have had to correct in favour of Trump. Because they must be missing his voters considering that EVERYONE is voting Trump and the data isn't showing that without correction. So it looks closer now because its been corrected to look closer.
Counter to that, we know that women are more likely to vote than men. We know that whilst the core Trump vote is ANGRY, the rest are just caught up and usually don't vote. Women - and proper men who don't belittle women - are angry at Trump and the GOP, have been registering in large numbers and are motivated.
Don't drink the Trump cool-aid. That is literally what the Trump Musk campaign is wanting you to do.
The markets briefings I have seen show a very big fiscal gap from the March 2024 budget. Extra taxes and borrowings in mid to high tens of billions £ are needed if the government maintains departmental spending at the same rate as now.
It seems Rachel Reeves does have a point about Jeremy Hunt.
Back on America for a moment, Harris will win. I did say "and it won't be close". OK maybe not a slam dunk now as it looked. But the hypothesis is simple:
My book really, really, really wants to agree with you
The corporate tax roadmap will be one of the bright spots and has been well consulted. Aside from possible employer NI rises this one is looking pretty decent for companies, all things considered.
Is it ? Well over half the anticipated tax increases fall on employers - and the well above inflation minimum wage rise will also drive up employment costs. Businesses employing few people will do fairly well; the rest get something of a caning.
Whether that all works out depends a lot on what's done on the spending side.
Obviously teh workers will pay for it , private companies do not have a magic money treee like the public sector. Means either employing less people or no wage rises till they make up the losses. Economics for idiots.
Someone on twitter/X said that Reeves looks like Richard III and now I can't unsee that.
She's going to kidnap landlords and hold them in a dark and noisome dungeon in Yorkshire until they sign over their properties to her?
Well, it's a view.
(This is a reference to Richard, then Duke of Gloucester, threatening to abduct the Dowager Countess of Oxford unless she signed over her lands to him.)
What we need to do is a macro economic plan that is coherent and achievable over the medium term. Something that addresses our underlying problems. Reeves and Starmer have both gone on about a reset in our economy. We definitely need this. Our public expenditure has been out of line with our tax revenues since the consequences of Covid knocked them for six and 2 years on its really not getting any better.
So, we need some cuts in spending. We need increases in taxes. We need a plan to get spending back into balance in a sensible time frame. We need to find enough resources to make capital investments to drive growth. I am not particularly fussed whether the measures are "popular" or not. I want a coherent plan. Its been a while.
The corporate tax roadmap will be one of the bright spots and has been well consulted. Aside from possible employer NI rises this one is looking pretty decent for companies, all things considered.
Is it ? Well over half the anticipated tax increases fall on employers - and the well above inflation minimum wage rise will also drive up employment costs. Businesses employing few people will do fairly well; the rest get something of a caning.
Whether that all works out depends a lot on what's done on the spending side.
For micro businesses a big question here is the employers allowance. The first £5k of employers national insurance is free so if you are employing 1 person or two or three part time, the actual rate doesn't matter if that allowance is kept.
Whatever else there is to say about Biden's gaffe, the timing of it was awful.
Harris gave her (pretty positive and uplifting) closing message to one of the biggest crowds of the campaign ... and the headlines are all about Biden trying to walk back the garbage remark. Made on a Zoom call to a few activists.
He’s a liability and has given Trump a boost after a few days of negative coverage around the rally in NY . Harris gave a very good speech which will now be lost in garbage gate . I can only imagine what was said behind closed doors after Biden’s gaffe .
One things clear Biden has zero chance of being on stage with Harris before the election and he needs to go away and stay hidden in the WH .
The corporate tax roadmap will be one of the bright spots and has been well consulted. Aside from possible employer NI rises this one is looking pretty decent for companies, all things considered.
Is it ? Well over half the anticipated tax increases fall on employers - and the well above inflation minimum wage rise will also drive up employment costs. Businesses employing few people will do fairly well; the rest get something of a caning.
Whether that all works out depends a lot on what's done on the spending side.
Obviously teh workers will pay for it , private companies do not have a magic money treee like the public sector. Means either employing less people or no wage rises till they make up the losses. Economics for idiots.
Economics for voters who refuse to vote for higher tax rises or lower spending, yes this is whats left.
The corporate tax roadmap will be one of the bright spots and has been well consulted. Aside from possible employer NI rises this one is looking pretty decent for companies, all things considered.
Is it ? Well over half the anticipated tax increases fall on employers - and the well above inflation minimum wage rise will also drive up employment costs. Businesses employing few people will do fairly well; the rest get something of a caning.
Whether that all works out depends a lot on what's done on the spending side.
Obviously teh workers will pay for it , private companies do not have a magic money treee like the public sector. Means either employing less people or no wage rises till they make up the losses. Economics for idiots.
Business employing fewer people and increasing efficiency is actually a good thing for our economy if you look at it from a macro perspective.
For the public sector: a cookie and a hug. For the private sector: a hammer.
Slight improvement from the recent Tories.
For pensioners: a cookie and a hug
For the workers: a hammer
And given the fiscal situation (chunky deficit pencilled in for the next few years) and the electoral situation (big majority, lots of years until the next election), then a budget that increases taxes is the right thing to do. It's what Maggie (real Maggie, not cartoon Maggie) would have done.
One of the rabbit holes some on the right seem to have fallen down is viewing all taxes as a punishment, rather than the cost of things that make for a good society. Not good in themselves, and not to be increased gratuitously, but necessary.
Whatever else there is to say about Biden's gaffe, the timing of it was awful.
Harris gave her (pretty positive and uplifting) closing message to one of the biggest crowds of the campaign ... and the headlines are all about Biden trying to walk back the garbage remark. Made on a Zoom call to a few activists.
He’s a liability and has given Trump a boost after a few days of negative coverage around the rally in NY . Harris gave a very good speech which will now be lost in garbage gate . I can only imagine what was said behind closed doors after Biden’s gaffe .
One things clear Biden has zero chance of being on stage with Harris before the election and he needs to go away and stay hidden in the WH .
We are in danger of forgetting the first rule of politics
What we need to do is a macro economic plan that is coherent and achievable over the medium term. Something that addresses our underlying problems. Reeves and Starmer have both gone on about a reset in our economy. We definitely need this. Our public expenditure has been out of line with our tax revenues since the consequences of Covid knocked them for six and 2 years on its really not getting any better.
So, we need some cuts in spending. We need increases in taxes. We need a plan to get spending back into balance in a sensible time frame. We need to find enough resources to make capital investments to drive growth. I am not particularly fussed whether the measures are "popular" or not. I want a coherent plan. Its been a while.
Based on all we’ve heard so far, the one thing we can be almost certain about is the total lack of a coherent plan.
What we need to do is a macro economic plan that is coherent and achievable over the medium term. Something that addresses our underlying problems. Reeves and Starmer have both gone on about a reset in our economy. We definitely need this. Our public expenditure has been out of line with our tax revenues since the consequences of Covid knocked them for six and 2 years on its really not getting any better.
So, we need some cuts in spending. We need increases in taxes. We need a plan to get spending back into balance in a sensible time frame. We need to find enough resources to make capital investments to drive growth. I am not particularly fussed whether the measures are "popular" or not. I want a coherent plan. Its been a while.
Agreed. My biggest concern is the number of things pre-Budget briefings have described as "investment", when they're nothing of the sort.
The corporate tax roadmap will be one of the bright spots and has been well consulted. Aside from possible employer NI rises this one is looking pretty decent for companies, all things considered.
Is it ? Well over half the anticipated tax increases fall on employers - and the well above inflation minimum wage rise will also drive up employment costs. Businesses employing few people will do fairly well; the rest get something of a caning.
Whether that all works out depends a lot on what's done on the spending side.
Obviously teh workers will pay for it , private companies do not have a magic money treee like the public sector. Means either employing less people or no wage rises till they make up the losses. Economics for idiots.
Business employing less people and increasing efficiency is actually a good thing for our economy if you look at it from a macro perspective.
And the state needs better job retention and in the NHS recruitment, and generally to reduce public sector strikes and future pay demands. Increasing the cost to private employers whilst getting money straight back from public sector makes some sense from that perspective.
Is saying India should remain majority Hindu or China and Japan majority Chinese or Japanese or Africa majority black racist?
Of course there are races who have become the minority in their nations, the American Indians or the Aborigines in Australia or Maori in New Zealand for example. Many on the woke left now think that a crime.
It is quite possible within a century Eastern Europe could be the only majority white area of the globe, for better or worse
It's a curious question.
Wrt race, it points up how strange is evaluating by colour of skin, bearing in mind what we know about common genetic inheritance etc. That overwhelmingly tells us more about the crass superficiality of the commentator making the claim than about the group targeted. As I see it at present skin colour is simply a convenient label for something else (religion, culture) to which it may bear little relation.
Wrt religion (or lack of religion used the same way see eg Communist States), which is different as it is ultimately a matter of opinion (subject to attempts at self-bleaching, makeup, operation Abracadabra cf Rachel Dolezal etc), it seems difficult. It also depends on the religion (or non-religion) concerned believes, and what it preaches about society and treatment of others.
We have examples of religious (or non-religious) majorities changing, for example certain Pacific island nations since WW2 or the 19C due to missionary activity or migration. We also have non-religious or don't knows moving into an alleged majority in countries including, some Western countries. And we have large countries where a majority religion has been replaced by a number of significant groups, none with a majority - examples are South Korea, Singapore, maybe USA and perhaps Brazil. I think then the civic vision of the religion / lack of religion concerned is the important thing.
It's interesting that those claiming to represent the non-religious or don't knows, which organisations in the UK only have perhaps 2k to 10k members, are perhaps the most keen in imposing their beliefs / opinions on society.
I think the important thing is the civic vision of the religion or lack-of-religion concerned, rather than externalities.
Skin colour bears an increasingly distant relation to nationality or religion, and those arguing that way are on a vanishing foundation.
...“What Donald Trump has never understood is that ‘E pluribus unum,’ out of many one, isn’t just a phrase on a dollar bill. It is a living truth about the heart of our nation. Our democracy, it doesn’t require us to agree on anything,” she added. “And the fact that someone disagrees with us does not make them the enemy within.” “Unlike Donald Trump, I don’t believe people who disagree with me are the enemy. He wants to put them in jail. I’ll give them a seat at the table,”..
On topic, the joy of politics is that the counterfactual can turn into the factual.
Truss was right.
We need economic growth and we need it consistently over a sustained period. We have cut and shrunk, shrunk and cut our economy over a long period, with the biggest contraction in the last decade when we were at our most vulnerable.
Truss was wrong in that she thought the way to growth was slash taxes and spending, but she also wanted investment. Borrowing to invest - and the delivering a return on that investment - is NOT bad economics. It is capitalism. And when the state borrows to invest in capacity, skills and infrastructure it has a long-term benefit.
At the same time, we need to cut the crap. We had dug ourselves into the ground when it comes to digging into the ground. We spend hundreds of millions on reports and surveys and impact assessments *without actually building anything*. The Tories gamed house planning so that the developers always beat the council. Not that the developers built what was needed. Do the same but *for the state*. We need to build this, it's going here, please accept this mitigation (or don't), start building. For housing we must have local people involved as its their communities being expanded, but the answer cannot just be "no".
Sadly I expect nothing from the Chancellor to drive growth, to drive investment, to try and course correct the UK so that we're comparable with France or Germany or Spain or the Netherlands or any of the rest of European nations who aren't as crushed by cuts as we are. Unless she pulls a massive rabbit out of the hat, Labour have already failed.
The markets briefings I have seen show a very big fiscal gap from the March 2024 budget. Extra taxes and borrowings in mid to high tens of billions £ are needed if the government maintains departmental spending at the same rate as now.
It seems Rachel Reeves does have a point about Jeremy Hunt.
As I have said the finances have not recovered since Covid and Ukraine and the inflationary burst that gave us. The level of borrowing is far too high. The situation was unsustainable and Hunt was not exactly giving us way signs as to how we get out of it. It is one of the main reasons I became disenchanted with the last government.
The corporate tax roadmap will be one of the bright spots and has been well consulted. Aside from possible employer NI rises this one is looking pretty decent for companies, all things considered.
Is it ? Well over half the anticipated tax increases fall on employers - and the well above inflation minimum wage rise will also drive up employment costs. Businesses employing few people will do fairly well; the rest get something of a caning.
Whether that all works out depends a lot on what's done on the spending side.
It’s all relative. Say you’re a business with 100 of sales, total costs of 85 of which payroll is say 40. That’s quite typical. A 2% employer NI rise would cost just over 0.5, after tax deductions. When the last government raised CT to 25% that was closer to 1 on those numbers, straight to the bottom line.
The corporate tax roadmap will be one of the bright spots and has been well consulted. Aside from possible employer NI rises this one is looking pretty decent for companies, all things considered.
Is it ? Well over half the anticipated tax increases fall on employers - and the well above inflation minimum wage rise will also drive up employment costs. Businesses employing few people will do fairly well; the rest get something of a caning.
Whether that all works out depends a lot on what's done on the spending side.
For micro businesses a big question here is the employers allowance. The first £5k of employers national insurance is free so if you are employing 1 person or two or three part time, the actual rate doesn't matter if that allowance is kept.
Had a drink (well, water) with a friend last night. She employs 15 people. Her NIC increase is a 10% increase in her non payroll costs. And that needs to be paid for out of her cash balances (it’s a tech start up - the sort of thing that the country wants to encourage)
On topic, the joy of politics is that the counterfactual can turn into the factual.
Truss was right.
We need economic growth and we need it consistently over a sustained period. We have cut and shrunk, shrunk and cut our economy over a long period, with the biggest contraction in the last decade when we were at our most vulnerable.
Truss was wrong in that she thought the way to growth was slash taxes and spending, but she also wanted investment. Borrowing to invest - and the delivering a return on that investment - is NOT bad economics. It is capitalism. And when the state borrows to invest in capacity, skills and infrastructure it has a long-term benefit.
At the same time, we need to cut the crap. We had dug ourselves into the ground when it comes to digging into the ground. We spend hundreds of millions on reports and surveys and impact assessments *without actually building anything*. The Tories gamed house planning so that the developers always beat the council. Not that the developers built what was needed. Do the same but *for the state*. We need to build this, it's going here, please accept this mitigation (or don't), start building. For housing we must have local people involved as its their communities being expanded, but the answer cannot just be "no".
Sadly I expect nothing from the Chancellor to drive growth, to drive investment, to try and course correct the UK so that we're comparable with France or Germany or Spain or the Netherlands or any of the rest of European nations who aren't as crushed by cuts as we are. Unless she pulls a massive rabbit out of the hat, Labour have already failed.
I wish people would stop saying Truss was right that we need economic growth. I say this because the value of economic growth was not some great revelation Truss gave us, it’s literally economic orthodoxy and something >90% of politicians agree on.
The corporate tax roadmap will be one of the bright spots and has been well consulted. Aside from possible employer NI rises this one is looking pretty decent for companies, all things considered.
Is it ? Well over half the anticipated tax increases fall on employers - and the well above inflation minimum wage rise will also drive up employment costs. Businesses employing few people will do fairly well; the rest get something of a caning.
Whether that all works out depends a lot on what's done on the spending side.
For micro businesses a big question here is the employers allowance. The first £5k of employers national insurance is free so if you are employing 1 person or two or three part time, the actual rate doesn't matter if that allowance is kept.
Had a drink (well, water) with a friend last night. She employs 15 people. Her NIC increase is equivalent to 1.5 new hires. So she’s slowing down her expansion plans.
The corporate tax roadmap will be one of the bright spots and has been well consulted. Aside from possible employer NI rises this one is looking pretty decent for companies, all things considered.
Is it ? Well over half the anticipated tax increases fall on employers - and the well above inflation minimum wage rise will also drive up employment costs. Businesses employing few people will do fairly well; the rest get something of a caning.
Whether that all works out depends a lot on what's done on the spending side.
Obviously teh workers will pay for it , private companies do not have a magic money treee like the public sector. Means either employing less people or no wage rises till they make up the losses. Economics for idiots.
Business employing fewer people and increasing efficiency is actually a good thing for our economy if you look at it from a macro perspective.
So long as:
1. Efficiency actually rises, rather than the company contracting or failing to expand overall. 2. The changes don’t lead to an increase in unemployment.
Back on America for a moment, Harris will win. I did say "and it won't be close". OK maybe not a slam dunk now as it looked. But the hypothesis is simple:
The Trump campaign is a giant gas bag. Self-reinforcing and self-inflating, a vast echo chamber promoted and enhanced on Twitter and Fux and Newsmax and Lies Social. Where EVERYONE you speak to and interact with is voting Trump and thinks like you and has the same fears as you and wants the same Murica as you. EVERYONE.
We know the pollsters have had to correct in favour of Trump. Because they must be missing his voters considering that EVERYONE is voting Trump and the data isn't showing that without correction. So it looks closer now because its been corrected to look closer.
Counter to that, we know that women are more likely to vote than men. We know that whilst the core Trump vote is ANGRY, the rest are just caught up and usually don't vote. Women - and proper men who don't belittle women - are angry at Trump and the GOP, have been registering in large numbers and are motivated.
Don't drink the Trump cool-aid. That is literally what the Trump Musk campaign is wanting you to do.
Has Alex Cole-Hamilton been sending back positive reports from the door step? Or stoop for authenticity.
The corporate tax roadmap will be one of the bright spots and has been well consulted. Aside from possible employer NI rises this one is looking pretty decent for companies, all things considered.
Is it ? Well over half the anticipated tax increases fall on employers - and the well above inflation minimum wage rise will also drive up employment costs. Businesses employing few people will do fairly well; the rest get something of a caning.
Whether that all works out depends a lot on what's done on the spending side.
Obviously teh workers will pay for it , private companies do not have a magic money treee like the public sector. Means either employing less people or no wage rises till they make up the losses. Economics for idiots.
Business employing fewer people and increasing efficiency is actually a good thing for our economy if you look at it from a macro perspective.
So long as:
1. Efficiency actually rises, rather than the company contracting or failing to expand overall. 2. The changes don’t lead to an increase in unemployment.
There is huge unfulfilled demand for staff in several sectors, including health care, care and construction. Now the reality is a lot of people don't want those jobs but I think we are a long way from significant unemployment regardless.
The corporate tax roadmap will be one of the bright spots and has been well consulted. Aside from possible employer NI rises this one is looking pretty decent for companies, all things considered.
Is it ? Well over half the anticipated tax increases fall on employers - and the well above inflation minimum wage rise will also drive up employment costs. Businesses employing few people will do fairly well; the rest get something of a caning.
Whether that all works out depends a lot on what's done on the spending side.
For micro businesses a big question here is the employers allowance. The first £5k of employers national insurance is free so if you are employing 1 person or two or three part time, the actual rate doesn't matter if that allowance is kept.
Had a drink (well, water) with a friend last night. She employs 15 people. Her NIC increase is equivalent to 1.5 new hires. So she’s slowing down her expansion plans.
A 2% increase in NI is not 1.5 new people.
At worst (say full NI on pensions with the employer contribution 10% of pension) it's the equivalent of a 3.6% pay increase for her staff so the equivalent of 0.54 of a worker...
If we are talking the 2% employer NI increase alone its 0.3 of a worker...
Got to say I really would prefer to employee NI or income to be returned to 2023 level.
Back on topic, Harris will win. I did say "and it won't be close". OK maybe not a slam dunk now as it looked. But the hypothesis is simple:
The Trump campaign is a giant gas bag. Self-reinforcing and self-inflating, a vast echo chamber promoted and enhanced on Twitter and Fux and Newsmax and Lies Social. Where EVERYONE you speak to and interact with is voting Trump and thinks like you and has the same fears as you and wants the same Murica as you. EVERYONE.
We know the pollsters have had to correct in favour of Trump. Because they must be missing his voters considering that EVERYONE is voting Trump and the data isn't showing that without correction. So it looks closer now because its been corrected to look closer.
Counter to that, we know that women are more likely to vote than men. We know that whilst the core Trump vote is ANGRY, the rest are just caught up and usually don't vote. Women - and proper men who don't belittle women - are angry at Trump and the GOP, have been registering in large numbers and are motivated.
Don't drink the Trump cool-aid. That is literally what the Trump Musk campaign is wanting you to do.
I hope you're right. But I fear you're not. And I fear Harris needs a big win to ensure state legislatures and the House under Johnson don't try to overturn things.
Back on topic, Harris will win. I did say "and it won't be close". OK maybe not a slam dunk now as it looked. But the hypothesis is simple:
The Trump campaign is a giant gas bag. Self-reinforcing and self-inflating, a vast echo chamber promoted and enhanced on Twitter and Fux and Newsmax and Lies Social. Where EVERYONE you speak to and interact with is voting Trump and thinks like you and has the same fears as you and wants the same Murica as you. EVERYONE.
We know the pollsters have had to correct in favour of Trump. Because they must be missing his voters considering that EVERYONE is voting Trump and the data isn't showing that without correction. So it looks closer now because its been corrected to look closer.
Counter to that, we know that women are more likely to vote than men. We know that whilst the core Trump vote is ANGRY, the rest are just caught up and usually don't vote. Women - and proper men who don't belittle women - are angry at Trump and the GOP, have been registering in large numbers and are motivated.
Don't drink the Trump cool-aid. That is literally what the Trump Musk campaign is wanting you to do.
I hope you're right. But I fear you're not. And I fear Harris needs a big win to ensure state legislatures and the House under Johnson don't try to overturn things.
...“What Donald Trump has never understood is that ‘E pluribus unum,’ out of many one, isn’t just a phrase on a dollar bill. It is a living truth about the heart of our nation. Our democracy, it doesn’t require us to agree on anything,” she added. “And the fact that someone disagrees with us does not make them the enemy within.” “Unlike Donald Trump, I don’t believe people who disagree with me are the enemy. He wants to put them in jail. I’ll give them a seat at the table,”..
More proof of the truth universally acknowledged, that Trump can say the most egregious shit that insults everyone in the country and get away with it, whereas Harris and her campaign have to be perfect and the slightest gaffe buries them.
It’s like the difference between the Tories and the Lib Dems in the coalition.
Back on America for a moment, Harris will win. I did say "and it won't be close". OK maybe not a slam dunk now as it looked. But the hypothesis is simple:
The Trump campaign is a giant gas bag. Self-reinforcing and self-inflating, a vast echo chamber promoted and enhanced on Twitter and Fux and Newsmax and Lies Social. Where EVERYONE you speak to and interact with is voting Trump and thinks like you and has the same fears as you and wants the same Murica as you. EVERYONE.
We know the pollsters have had to correct in favour of Trump. Because they must be missing his voters considering that EVERYONE is voting Trump and the data isn't showing that without correction. So it looks closer now because its been corrected to look closer.
Counter to that, we know that women are more likely to vote than men. We know that whilst the core Trump vote is ANGRY, the rest are just caught up and usually don't vote. Women - and proper men who don't belittle women - are angry at Trump and the GOP, have been registering in large numbers and are motivated.
Don't drink the Trump cool-aid. That is literally what the Trump Musk campaign is wanting you to do.
I'll put my neck out here and be gladly ridiculed if I am wrong - I don't think it's close, not even by a million miles. I think Trump will win 'bigly' and we will all be shocked by the scale of his victory.
I'd be less certain re the House but I think the Senate we may be looking at 53-54 GOP seats,
The corporate tax roadmap will be one of the bright spots and has been well consulted. Aside from possible employer NI rises this one is looking pretty decent for companies, all things considered.
Is it ? Well over half the anticipated tax increases fall on employers - and the well above inflation minimum wage rise will also drive up employment costs. Businesses employing few people will do fairly well; the rest get something of a caning.
Whether that all works out depends a lot on what's done on the spending side.
It’s all relative. Say you’re a business with 100 of sales, total costs of 85 of which payroll is say 40. That’s quite typical. A 2% employer NI rise would cost just over 0.5, after tax deductions. When the last government raised CT to 25% that was closer to 1 on those numbers, straight to the bottom line.
also many organisations cannot just put up prices to compensate - charities for instance are going to have to shed staff because of the NIC increase
I wonder if the poor WASPI women will get their compensation
Not sure anyone should be compensated for a grotesque inability to pay attention over a multi year span of time.
Despite their legal challenges failing its been an insanely successful campaign in some ways with it taken as read for many people that they were unreasonably hard done by.
Nothing I've seen to date has persuaded me that's the case. And even if some people are hard hit by a government decision that doesn't make it either unlawful or unfair.
Many people facing tax rises are also probably about to learn that.
Of course with various vague legal duties to be imposed it will be easier to legally challenge any unliked decision.
The corporate tax roadmap will be one of the bright spots and has been well consulted. Aside from possible employer NI rises this one is looking pretty decent for companies, all things considered.
Is it ? Well over half the anticipated tax increases fall on employers - and the well above inflation minimum wage rise will also drive up employment costs. Businesses employing few people will do fairly well; the rest get something of a caning.
Whether that all works out depends a lot on what's done on the spending side.
For micro businesses a big question here is the employers allowance. The first £5k of employers national insurance is free so if you are employing 1 person or two or three part time, the actual rate doesn't matter if that allowance is kept.
Had a drink (well, water) with a friend last night. She employs 15 people. Her NIC increase is equivalent to 1.5 new hires. So she’s slowing down her expansion plans.
On the surface of it - and I recognise it is far more complex - that could tip business towards increasing productivity, which is one direction we have been worried about for 2 or 3 decades.
It depends on the overall mix, and other measures.
I'd welcome comment from someone who has run the numbers on overall NIC changes (both employee / employers) since 2023 comparing the size of this likely increase, with the cut (from 12% to 10%?) in main Employee NICs which only came in in 2024.
Is there actually that much overall change at all from 2023, apart from a shift from Employee to Employer?
The corporate tax roadmap will be one of the bright spots and has been well consulted. Aside from possible employer NI rises this one is looking pretty decent for companies, all things considered.
Is it ? Well over half the anticipated tax increases fall on employers - and the well above inflation minimum wage rise will also drive up employment costs. Businesses employing few people will do fairly well; the rest get something of a caning.
Whether that all works out depends a lot on what's done on the spending side.
It’s all relative. Say you’re a business with 100 of sales, total costs of 85 of which payroll is say 40. That’s quite typical. A 2% employer NI rise would cost just over 0.5, after tax deductions. When the last government raised CT to 25% that was closer to 1 on those numbers, straight to the bottom line.
Depends on the business. Some (see StillWater's example above) will be hit a lot harder than that.
Back on topic, Harris will win. I did say "and it won't be close". OK maybe not a slam dunk now as it looked. But the hypothesis is simple:
The Trump campaign is a giant gas bag. Self-reinforcing and self-inflating, a vast echo chamber promoted and enhanced on Twitter and Fux and Newsmax and Lies Social. Where EVERYONE you speak to and interact with is voting Trump and thinks like you and has the same fears as you and wants the same Murica as you. EVERYONE.
We know the pollsters have had to correct in favour of Trump. Because they must be missing his voters considering that EVERYONE is voting Trump and the data isn't showing that without correction. So it looks closer now because its been corrected to look closer.
Counter to that, we know that women are more likely to vote than men. We know that whilst the core Trump vote is ANGRY, the rest are just caught up and usually don't vote. Women - and proper men who don't belittle women - are angry at Trump and the GOP, have been registering in large numbers and are motivated.
Don't drink the Trump cool-aid. That is literally what the Trump Musk campaign is wanting you to do.
I hope you're right. But I fear you're not. And I fear Harris needs a big win to ensure state legislatures and the House under Johnson don't try to overturn things.
There will be violence too.
It will be good for America if Trump is thrashed
The very best that could happen is something off the wall, where Trump loses Texas and Florida, so there is no chance whatsoever of his "I was robbed by the Librul cheats!" gaining any traction.
Back on America for a moment, Harris will win. I did say "and it won't be close". OK maybe not a slam dunk now as it looked. But the hypothesis is simple:
The Trump campaign is a giant gas bag. Self-reinforcing and self-inflating, a vast echo chamber promoted and enhanced on Twitter and Fux and Newsmax and Lies Social. Where EVERYONE you speak to and interact with is voting Trump and thinks like you and has the same fears as you and wants the same Murica as you. EVERYONE.
We know the pollsters have had to correct in favour of Trump. Because they must be missing his voters considering that EVERYONE is voting Trump and the data isn't showing that without correction. So it looks closer now because its been corrected to look closer.
Counter to that, we know that women are more likely to vote than men. We know that whilst the core Trump vote is ANGRY, the rest are just caught up and usually don't vote. Women - and proper men who don't belittle women - are angry at Trump and the GOP, have been registering in large numbers and are motivated.
Don't drink the Trump cool-aid. That is literally what the Trump Musk campaign is wanting you to do.
I'll put my neck out here and be gladly ridiculed if I am wrong - I don't think it's close, not even by a million miles. I think Trump will win 'bigly' and we will all be shocked by the scale of his victory.
I'd be less certain re the House but I think the Senate we may be looking at 53-54 GOP seats,
Do you think the polling which is on a knife edge is wrong, or just that margin or error will consistently be in his favour?
Back on America for a moment, Harris will win. I did say "and it won't be close". OK maybe not a slam dunk now as it looked. But the hypothesis is simple:
The Trump campaign is a giant gas bag. Self-reinforcing and self-inflating, a vast echo chamber promoted and enhanced on Twitter and Fux and Newsmax and Lies Social. Where EVERYONE you speak to and interact with is voting Trump and thinks like you and has the same fears as you and wants the same Murica as you. EVERYONE.
We know the pollsters have had to correct in favour of Trump. Because they must be missing his voters considering that EVERYONE is voting Trump and the data isn't showing that without correction. So it looks closer now because its been corrected to look closer.
Counter to that, we know that women are more likely to vote than men. We know that whilst the core Trump vote is ANGRY, the rest are just caught up and usually don't vote. Women - and proper men who don't belittle women - are angry at Trump and the GOP, have been registering in large numbers and are motivated.
Don't drink the Trump cool-aid. That is literally what the Trump Musk campaign is wanting you to do.
I'll put my neck out here and be gladly ridiculed if I am wrong - I don't think it's close, not even by a million miles. I think Trump will win 'bigly' and we will all be shocked by the scale of his victory.
I'd be less certain re the House but I think the Senate we may be looking at 53-54 GOP seats,
I'll put my neck out here and be gladly ridiculed if I am wrong - I don't think it's close, not even by a million miles. I think Harris will win 'bigly' and we will all be shocked by the scale of her victory.
Is saying India should remain majority Hindu or China and Japan majority Chinese or Japanese or Africa majority black racist?
Of course there are races who have become the minority in their nations, the American Indians or the Aborigines in Australia or Maori in New Zealand for example. Many on the woke left now think that a crime.
It is quite possible within a century Eastern Europe could be the only majority white area of the globe, for better or worse
It's a curious question.
Wrt race, it points up how strange is evaluating by colour of skin, bearing in mind what we know about common genetic inheritance etc. That overwhelmingly tells us more about the crass superficiality of the commentator making the claim than about the group targeted. As I see it at present skin colour is simply a convenient label for something else (religion, culture) to which it may bear little relation.
Wrt religion (or lack of religion used the same way see eg Communist States), which is different as it is ultimately a matter of opinion (subject to attempts at self-bleaching, makeup, operation Abracadabra cf Rachel Dolezal etc), it seems difficult. It also depends on the religion (or non-religion) concerned believes, and what it preaches about society and treatment of others.
We have examples of religious (or non-religious) majorities changing, for example certain Pacific island nations since WW2 or the 19C due to missionary activity or migration. We also have non-religious or don't knows moving into an alleged majority in countries including, some Western countries. And we have large countries where a majority religion has been replaced by a number of significant groups, none with a majority - examples are South Korea, Singapore, maybe USA and perhaps Brazil. I think then the civic vision of the religion / lack of religion concerned is the important thing.
It's interesting that those claiming to represent the non-religious or don't knows, which organisations in the UK only have perhaps 2k to 10k members, are perhaps the most keen in imposing their beliefs / opinions on society.
I think the important thing is the civic vision of the religion or lack-of-religion concerned, rather than externalities.
Skin colour bears an increasingly distant relation to nationality or religion, and those arguing that way are on a vanishing foundation.
I can attest to your last point. I have three mixed race children who are all 100% British, culturally speaking, and are all different colours so clearly the correlation between skin tone and culture is zero. I watch my son's U16 football team most Sundays, I'd guess well over half the kids including my son don't have two white British parents, but the kids are all 100% South London and the camaraderie they share gives me no fears about the ability of a less racially homogeneous society to hang together. It seems to me that a lot of the anxiety on this point is simply projection.
What we need to do is a macro economic plan that is coherent and achievable over the medium term. Something that addresses our underlying problems. Reeves and Starmer have both gone on about a reset in our economy. We definitely need this. Our public expenditure has been out of line with our tax revenues since the consequences of Covid knocked them for six and 2 years on its really not getting any better.
So, we need some cuts in spending. We need increases in taxes. We need a plan to get spending back into balance in a sensible time frame. We need to find enough resources to make capital investments to drive growth. I am not particularly fussed whether the measures are "popular" or not. I want a coherent plan. Its been a while.
You will not see one from this lot for sure. Will be a lurch to the opposite of the Tories. No sign of talent in Labour cabinet and the leader is useless so forlorn hope that these clowns will elad us out of the desert.
The corporate tax roadmap will be one of the bright spots and has been well consulted. Aside from possible employer NI rises this one is looking pretty decent for companies, all things considered.
Is it ? Well over half the anticipated tax increases fall on employers - and the well above inflation minimum wage rise will also drive up employment costs. Businesses employing few people will do fairly well; the rest get something of a caning.
Whether that all works out depends a lot on what's done on the spending side.
Obviously teh workers will pay for it , private companies do not have a magic money treee like the public sector. Means either employing less people or no wage rises till they make up the losses. Economics for idiots.
Business employing fewer people and increasing efficiency is actually a good thing for our economy if you look at it from a macro perspective.
So long as:
1. Efficiency actually rises, rather than the company contracting or failing to expand overall. 2. The changes don’t lead to an increase in unemployment.
There is huge unfulfilled demand for staff in several sectors, including health care, care and construction. Now the reality is a lot of people don't want those jobs but I think we are a long way from significant unemployment regardless.
NHS employment is at an all time high (I believe) - 1.3M FTE and up 30% since 2009.
...“What Donald Trump has never understood is that ‘E pluribus unum,’ out of many one, isn’t just a phrase on a dollar bill. It is a living truth about the heart of our nation. Our democracy, it doesn’t require us to agree on anything,” she added. “And the fact that someone disagrees with us does not make them the enemy within.” “Unlike Donald Trump, I don’t believe people who disagree with me are the enemy. He wants to put them in jail. I’ll give them a seat at the table,”..
More proof of the truth universally acknowledged, that Trump can say the most egregious shit that insults everyone in the country and get away with it, whereas Harris and her campaign have to be perfect and the slightest gaffe buries them.
It’s like the difference between the Tories and the Lib Dems in the coalition.
It's really really weird, and a public thing not just a media thing, to be inured to all but the most egregious Trump comments but see the entire Harris campaign as undermined by single slips or statements.
What we need to do is a macro economic plan that is coherent and achievable over the medium term. Something that addresses our underlying problems. Reeves and Starmer have both gone on about a reset in our economy. We definitely need this. Our public expenditure has been out of line with our tax revenues since the consequences of Covid knocked them for six and 2 years on its really not getting any better.
So, we need some cuts in spending. We need increases in taxes. We need a plan to get spending back into balance in a sensible time frame. We need to find enough resources to make capital investments to drive growth. I am not particularly fussed whether the measures are "popular" or not. I want a coherent plan. Its been a while.
You will not see one from this lot for sure. Will be a lurch to the opposite of the Tories. No sign of talent in Labour cabinet and the leader is useless so forlorn hope that these clowns will elad us out of the desert.
I fear you are right Malcolm but I genuinely hope otherwise. We need a government who has a clear, achievable plan for the country. It is in all our interests.
The corporate tax roadmap will be one of the bright spots and has been well consulted. Aside from possible employer NI rises this one is looking pretty decent for companies, all things considered.
Is it ? Well over half the anticipated tax increases fall on employers - and the well above inflation minimum wage rise will also drive up employment costs. Businesses employing few people will do fairly well; the rest get something of a caning.
Whether that all works out depends a lot on what's done on the spending side.
Obviously teh workers will pay for it , private companies do not have a magic money treee like the public sector. Means either employing less people or no wage rises till they make up the losses. Economics for idiots.
Business employing fewer people and increasing efficiency is actually a good thing for our economy if you look at it from a macro perspective.
So long as:
1. Efficiency actually rises, rather than the company contracting or failing to expand overall. 2. The changes don’t lead to an increase in unemployment.
There is huge unfulfilled demand for staff in several sectors, including health care, care and construction. Now the reality is a lot of people don't want those jobs but I think we are a long way from significant unemployment regardless.
NHS employment is at an all time high (I believe) - 1.3M FTE and up 30% since 2009.
Back on America for a moment, Harris will win. I did say "and it won't be close". OK maybe not a slam dunk now as it looked. But the hypothesis is simple:
The Trump campaign is a giant gas bag. Self-reinforcing and self-inflating, a vast echo chamber promoted and enhanced on Twitter and Fux and Newsmax and Lies Social. Where EVERYONE you speak to and interact with is voting Trump and thinks like you and has the same fears as you and wants the same Murica as you. EVERYONE.
We know the pollsters have had to correct in favour of Trump. Because they must be missing his voters considering that EVERYONE is voting Trump and the data isn't showing that without correction. So it looks closer now because its been corrected to look closer.
Counter to that, we know that women are more likely to vote than men. We know that whilst the core Trump vote is ANGRY, the rest are just caught up and usually don't vote. Women - and proper men who don't belittle women - are angry at Trump and the GOP, have been registering in large numbers and are motivated.
Don't drink the Trump cool-aid. That is literally what the Trump Musk campaign is wanting you to do.
I'll put my neck out here and be gladly ridiculed if I am wrong - I don't think it's close, not even by a million miles. I think Trump will win 'bigly' and we will all be shocked by the scale of his victory.
I'd be less certain re the House but I think the Senate we may be looking at 53-54 GOP seats,
I think that the plausible outcomes range from a Trump landslide in the EC, to a Harris EC landslide, though the popular vote will probably be only 2% to Harris. The swing states are very likely to swing the same way.
The corporate tax roadmap will be one of the bright spots and has been well consulted. Aside from possible employer NI rises this one is looking pretty decent for companies, all things considered.
Is it ? Well over half the anticipated tax increases fall on employers - and the well above inflation minimum wage rise will also drive up employment costs. Businesses employing few people will do fairly well; the rest get something of a caning.
Whether that all works out depends a lot on what's done on the spending side.
It’s all relative. Say you’re a business with 100 of sales, total costs of 85 of which payroll is say 40. That’s quite typical. A 2% employer NI rise would cost just over 0.5, after tax deductions. When the last government raised CT to 25% that was closer to 1 on those numbers, straight to the bottom line.
also many organisations cannot just put up prices to compensate - charities for instance are going to have to shed staff because of the NIC increase
Does that mean they were all adding staff when NI went down?
We’ve had a decade of average wages rising more slowly than RPI. Wage inflation has not been the problem for the economy.
Nobody likes tax to go up, but when the alternative is cutting already crumbling public services further to the bone and continuing on the long slow journey to looking like a developing country, something’s got to give.
I’d have raised VAT to 23% and reversed the employee NI cuts, but those were off the table in the manifesto. I’d also cut CT back to 19%.
The corporate tax roadmap will be one of the bright spots and has been well consulted. Aside from possible employer NI rises this one is looking pretty decent for companies, all things considered.
Is it ? Well over half the anticipated tax increases fall on employers - and the well above inflation minimum wage rise will also drive up employment costs. Businesses employing few people will do fairly well; the rest get something of a caning.
Whether that all works out depends a lot on what's done on the spending side.
It’s all relative. Say you’re a business with 100 of sales, total costs of 85 of which payroll is say 40. That’s quite typical. A 2% employer NI rise would cost just over 0.5, after tax deductions. When the last government raised CT to 25% that was closer to 1 on those numbers, straight to the bottom line.
Depends on the business. Some (see StillWater's example above) will be hit a lot harder than that.
The numbers in that example are hysterical fantasy horror. How can a 2% increase in the cost of 15 staff (also capped at UEL) possibly be 1.5 staff?
The corporate tax roadmap will be one of the bright spots and has been well consulted. Aside from possible employer NI rises this one is looking pretty decent for companies, all things considered.
Is it ? Well over half the anticipated tax increases fall on employers - and the well above inflation minimum wage rise will also drive up employment costs. Businesses employing few people will do fairly well; the rest get something of a caning.
Whether that all works out depends a lot on what's done on the spending side.
Obviously teh workers will pay for it , private companies do not have a magic money treee like the public sector. Means either employing less people or no wage rises till they make up the losses. Economics for idiots.
Business employing fewer people and increasing efficiency is actually a good thing for our economy if you look at it from a macro perspective.
So long as:
1. Efficiency actually rises, rather than the company contracting or failing to expand overall. 2. The changes don’t lead to an increase in unemployment.
There is huge unfulfilled demand for staff in several sectors, including health care, care and construction. Now the reality is a lot of people don't want those jobs but I think we are a long way from significant unemployment regardless.
NHS employment is at an all time high (I believe) - 1.3M FTE and up 30% since 2009.
Have we all got that much sicker over time? What are all those people doing?
Basic demographics mean that our rapidly ageing population could on average get less sick over time, and we’d still need ever increasing amounts spent on health and social care. It’s just the maths.
Every developed economy has the same insurmountable problem.
Back on America for a moment, Harris will win. I did say "and it won't be close". OK maybe not a slam dunk now as it looked. But the hypothesis is simple:
The Trump campaign is a giant gas bag. Self-reinforcing and self-inflating, a vast echo chamber promoted and enhanced on Twitter and Fux and Newsmax and Lies Social. Where EVERYONE you speak to and interact with is voting Trump and thinks like you and has the same fears as you and wants the same Murica as you. EVERYONE.
We know the pollsters have had to correct in favour of Trump. Because they must be missing his voters considering that EVERYONE is voting Trump and the data isn't showing that without correction. So it looks closer now because its been corrected to look closer.
Counter to that, we know that women are more likely to vote than men. We know that whilst the core Trump vote is ANGRY, the rest are just caught up and usually don't vote. Women - and proper men who don't belittle women - are angry at Trump and the GOP, have been registering in large numbers and are motivated.
Don't drink the Trump cool-aid. That is literally what the Trump Musk campaign is wanting you to do.
I'll put my neck out here and be gladly ridiculed if I am wrong - I don't think it's close, not even by a million miles. I think Trump will win 'bigly' and we will all be shocked by the scale of his victory.
I'd be less certain re the House but I think the Senate we may be looking at 53-54 GOP seats,
I think that the plausible outcomes range from a Trump landslide in the EC, to a Harris EC landslide, though the popular vote will probably be only 2% to Harris. The swing states are very likely to swing the same way.
It all hinges on turnout IMO.
EC probably won't be close I agree, my personal prediction is probably wrong. If one swing state goes the others probably do too, so I'm hoping Nevada, which looks good for GOP is not a sign.
1) Gilts haven't moved much so far. By this time for the Truss budget, they had already surged significantly - there was plenty of warning from the markets.
2) Increasing employer NICs might be a bit regressive, depending on how much is passed on to employees through reductions to gross salaries, because employer NICs are raised at a flat rate except at the very bottom (£9,100 threshold).
Smaller salaries = less income tax paid, and for higher earners, the marginal rate for income tax is higher, so the government raises less income tax revenue, and the tax burden shifts slightly towards lower income deciles. (Otoh, employee NIC rates are regressive already, so that would mitigate this effect somewhat).
3) The productivity argument for NICs increases feels like an argument after the fact to me. It's what happened in Scotland after 2008, with lots of people on low wages losing their jobs = productivity surge. Balancing the labour market and stimulating productivity growth is tricky, and I'm no sure taxing employment is the best way to do it. In-work poverty remains a large and unusual problem for the UK, but this would just be swapping it for out-of-work poverty. I'm curious as to how many firms deliberately employ people part-time up to £9,100 - equivalent to 14 hours a week on NMW.
4) Transport is one of the few areas of public spending that is actually regressive by user, with roads and rail tending towards the top income deciles, and walking, cycling and buses the bottom. This is an area of serious risk for Labour from the left. You can expect more general outrage over fuel duty increases, though a rabbit out of the hat might be a significant reform to all motoring taxes, including VED, in the spring.
The corporate tax roadmap will be one of the bright spots and has been well consulted. Aside from possible employer NI rises this one is looking pretty decent for companies, all things considered.
Is it ? Well over half the anticipated tax increases fall on employers - and the well above inflation minimum wage rise will also drive up employment costs. Businesses employing few people will do fairly well; the rest get something of a caning.
Whether that all works out depends a lot on what's done on the spending side.
For micro businesses a big question here is the employers allowance. The first £5k of employers national insurance is free so if you are employing 1 person or two or three part time, the actual rate doesn't matter if that allowance is kept.
Had a drink (well, water) with a friend last night. She employs 15 people. Her NIC increase is equivalent to 1.5 new hires. So she’s slowing down her expansion plans.
A 2% increase in NI is not 1.5 new people.
At worst (say full NI on pensions with the employer contribution 10% of pension) it's the equivalent of a 3.6% pay increase for her staff so the equivalent of 0.54 of a worker...
If we are talking the 2% employer NI increase alone its 0.3 of a worker...
Got to say I really would prefer to employee NI or income to be returned to 2023 level.
It was a long night last night…
(But I misspoke - it was a 10% increase in her NIC costs not her employment costs)
Back on America for a moment, Harris will win. I did say "and it won't be close". OK maybe not a slam dunk now as it looked. But the hypothesis is simple:
The Trump campaign is a giant gas bag. Self-reinforcing and self-inflating, a vast echo chamber promoted and enhanced on Twitter and Fux and Newsmax and Lies Social. Where EVERYONE you speak to and interact with is voting Trump and thinks like you and has the same fears as you and wants the same Murica as you. EVERYONE.
We know the pollsters have had to correct in favour of Trump. Because they must be missing his voters considering that EVERYONE is voting Trump and the data isn't showing that without correction. So it looks closer now because its been corrected to look closer.
Counter to that, we know that women are more likely to vote than men. We know that whilst the core Trump vote is ANGRY, the rest are just caught up and usually don't vote. Women - and proper men who don't belittle women - are angry at Trump and the GOP, have been registering in large numbers and are motivated.
Don't drink the Trump cool-aid. That is literally what the Trump Musk campaign is wanting you to do.
I'll put my neck out here and be gladly ridiculed if I am wrong - I don't think it's close, not even by a million miles. I think Trump will win 'bigly' and we will all be shocked by the scale of his victory.
I'd be less certain re the House but I think the Senate we may be looking at 53-54 GOP seats,
I think that the plausible outcomes range from a Trump landslide in the EC, to a Harris EC landslide, though the popular vote will probably be only 2% to Harris. The swing states are very likely to swing the same way.
It all hinges on turnout IMO.
That is the main straw I am now clinging to. Harris has pumped serious money and time into a truly massive GOTV operation in the swing states, in Pennsylvania in particular. Trump basically hasn't with Musk's efforts generally being laughed at. The professionals generally claim GOTV can be worth 2-3%. If that is true Harris wins PA, MI, WI and very probably NC, GA and NV as well.
The corporate tax roadmap will be one of the bright spots and has been well consulted. Aside from possible employer NI rises this one is looking pretty decent for companies, all things considered.
Is it ? Well over half the anticipated tax increases fall on employers - and the well above inflation minimum wage rise will also drive up employment costs. Businesses employing few people will do fairly well; the rest get something of a caning.
Whether that all works out depends a lot on what's done on the spending side.
It’s all relative. Say you’re a business with 100 of sales, total costs of 85 of which payroll is say 40. That’s quite typical. A 2% employer NI rise would cost just over 0.5, after tax deductions. When the last government raised CT to 25% that was closer to 1 on those numbers, straight to the bottom line.
also many organisations cannot just put up prices to compensate - charities for instance are going to have to shed staff because of the NIC increase
Does that mean they were all adding staff when NI went down?
We’ve had a decade of average wages rising more slowly than RPI. Wage inflation has not been the problem for the economy.
Nobody likes tax to go up, but when the alternative is cutting already crumbling public services further to the bone and continuing on the long slow journey to looking like a developing country, something’s got to give.
I’d have raised VAT to 23% and reversed the employee NI cuts, but those were off the table in the manifesto. I’d also cut CT back to 19%.
public sector efficiency is very poor atm - you only have to try and contact HMRC to know that. It cannot not be an option to look at improving this through hard choices rather than take the easier way of raising taxes on the more efficient private sector
On topic, the joy of politics is that the counterfactual can turn into the factual.
Truss was right.
We need economic growth and we need it consistently over a sustained period. We have cut and shrunk, shrunk and cut our economy over a long period, with the biggest contraction in the last decade when we were at our most vulnerable.
Truss was wrong in that she thought the way to growth was slash taxes and spending, but she also wanted investment. Borrowing to invest - and the delivering a return on that investment - is NOT bad economics. It is capitalism. And when the state borrows to invest in capacity, skills and infrastructure it has a long-term benefit.
At the same time, we need to cut the crap. We had dug ourselves into the ground when it comes to digging into the ground. We spend hundreds of millions on reports and surveys and impact assessments *without actually building anything*. The Tories gamed house planning so that the developers always beat the council. Not that the developers built what was needed. Do the same but *for the state*. We need to build this, it's going here, please accept this mitigation (or don't), start building. For housing we must have local people involved as its their communities being expanded, but the answer cannot just be "no".
Sadly I expect nothing from the Chancellor to drive growth, to drive investment, to try and course correct the UK so that we're comparable with France or Germany or Spain or the Netherlands or any of the rest of European nations who aren't as crushed by cuts as we are. Unless she pulls a massive rabbit out of the hat, Labour have already failed.
I wish people would stop saying Truss was right that we need economic growth. I say this because the value of economic growth was not some great revelation Truss gave us, it’s literally economic orthodoxy and something >90% of politicians agree on.
Do they? And having agreed on it do they *act* on it? Long-term, sustainable growth with investment into capacity, skills and infrastructure?
Truss was a deluded moron. But her singular shining light was recognising that we cant go on as we are and wanting to get a bit radical to achieve turnaround. OK so her radical plan was bonkers, but at least she diagnosed the problem.
I think the Treasury are the problem - there is a growing acceptance that a change to their mindset must be achieved. Reeves saying she's changing the rules to borrow to invest in capex is a good start.
We need to break the idiocy - usually advocated by Tories - of " we can't afford it, who will pay for it". As if the spend is balanced on the other side of the equation by no spend. There is not a no-spend option, just do you spend to invest smartly up front for long-term benefits, or spend on emergency solutions to the crisis created by cuts?
Back on topic, Harris will win. I did say "and it won't be close". OK maybe not a slam dunk now as it looked. But the hypothesis is simple:
The Trump campaign is a giant gas bag. Self-reinforcing and self-inflating, a vast echo chamber promoted and enhanced on Twitter and Fux and Newsmax and Lies Social. Where EVERYONE you speak to and interact with is voting Trump and thinks like you and has the same fears as you and wants the same Murica as you. EVERYONE.
We know the pollsters have had to correct in favour of Trump. Because they must be missing his voters considering that EVERYONE is voting Trump and the data isn't showing that without correction. So it looks closer now because its been corrected to look closer.
Counter to that, we know that women are more likely to vote than men. We know that whilst the core Trump vote is ANGRY, the rest are just caught up and usually don't vote. Women - and proper men who don't belittle women - are angry at Trump and the GOP, have been registering in large numbers and are motivated.
Don't drink the Trump cool-aid. That is literally what the Trump Musk campaign is wanting you to do.
I hope you're right. But I fear you're not. And I fear Harris needs a big win to ensure state legislatures and the House under Johnson don't try to overturn things. There will be violence too.
1) Gilts haven't moved much so far. By this time for the Truss budget, they had already surged significantly - there was plenty of warning from the markets.
2) Increasing employer NICs might be a bit regressive, depending on how much is passed on to employees through reductions to gross salaries, because employer NICs are raised at a flat rate except at the very bottom (£9,100 threshold).
Smaller salaries = less income tax paid, and for higher earners, the marginal rate for income tax is higher, so is less income tax revenue, and the tax burden shifts slightly towards lower income deciles. (Otoh, employee NIC rates are regressive already, so that would mitigate this effect somewhat).
3) The productivity argument for NICs increases feels like an argument after the fact to me. It's what happened in Scotland after 2008, with lots of people on low wages losing their jobs = productivity surge. Balancing the labour market and stimulating productivity growth is tricky, and I'm no sure taxing employment is the best way to do it. In-work poverty remains a large and unusual problem for the UK, but this would just be swapping it for out-of-work poverty.
4) Transport is one of the few areas of public spending that is actually regressive by user, with roads and rail tending towards the top income deciles, and walking, cycling and buses the bottom. This is an area of serious risk for Labour from the left. You can expect more general outrage over fuel duty increases, though a rabbit out of the hat might be a significant reform to all motoring taxes, including VED, in the spring.
There will be a surprise somewhere. That’s the fun of budgets. I’m scratching my head to know what it will be, because any kind of giveaway is highly unlikely.
Some kind of root and branch reform of the system, perhaps. But 3 months isn’t long to cook something like that up.
The corporate tax roadmap will be one of the bright spots and has been well consulted. Aside from possible employer NI rises this one is looking pretty decent for companies, all things considered.
Is it ? Well over half the anticipated tax increases fall on employers - and the well above inflation minimum wage rise will also drive up employment costs. Businesses employing few people will do fairly well; the rest get something of a caning.
Whether that all works out depends a lot on what's done on the spending side.
Obviously teh workers will pay for it , private companies do not have a magic money treee like the public sector. Means either employing less people or no wage rises till they make up the losses. Economics for idiots.
Business employing fewer people and increasing efficiency is actually a good thing for our economy if you look at it from a macro perspective.
So long as:
1. Efficiency actually rises, rather than the company contracting or failing to expand overall. 2. The changes don’t lead to an increase in unemployment.
There is huge unfulfilled demand for staff in several sectors, including health care, care and construction. Now the reality is a lot of people don't want those jobs but I think we are a long way from significant unemployment regardless.
NHS employment is at an all time high (I believe) - 1.3M FTE and up 30% since 2009.
Have we all got that much sicker over time? What are all those people doing?
Dealing with us getting older. And older, and older.
That, and sicker. When I started in Leicester we had 23 500 with diabetes in the patch, now it's 92 000. Some of that is better diagnosis (though we still see late presentations with vascular disease etc), but the majority is a genuine increase, and it is occurring in all ethnic groups, albeit particularly frequent in British South Asians. The population of the area has increased by about 10% over that time.
The corporate tax roadmap will be one of the bright spots and has been well consulted. Aside from possible employer NI rises this one is looking pretty decent for companies, all things considered.
Is it ? Well over half the anticipated tax increases fall on employers - and the well above inflation minimum wage rise will also drive up employment costs. Businesses employing few people will do fairly well; the rest get something of a caning.
Whether that all works out depends a lot on what's done on the spending side.
Obviously teh workers will pay for it , private companies do not have a magic money treee like the public sector. Means either employing less people or no wage rises till they make up the losses. Economics for idiots.
Business employing fewer people and increasing efficiency is actually a good thing for our economy if you look at it from a macro perspective.
So long as:
1. Efficiency actually rises, rather than the company contracting or failing to expand overall. 2. The changes don’t lead to an increase in unemployment.
There is huge unfulfilled demand for staff in several sectors, including health care, care and construction. Now the reality is a lot of people don't want those jobs but I think we are a long way from significant unemployment regardless.
NHS employment is at an all time high (I believe) - 1.3M FTE and up 30% since 2009.
Have we all got that much sicker over time? What are all those people doing?
We are getting sicker because of covid and obesity Demographics people getting older Technology opens up more treatment options We have low motivation through previous pay restraint We have poor retention of senior experienced staff who retire early or go to private sector, or part time public/private mix Chaotic organisational changes
All of those are obvious from the outside I'm sure there are more issues visible from within, but its a multi issue problem.
The markets briefings I have seen show a very big fiscal gap from the March 2024 budget. Extra taxes and borrowings in mid to high tens of billions £ are needed if the government maintains departmental spending at the same rate as now.
It seems Rachel Reeves does have a point about Jeremy Hunt.
As I have said the finances have not recovered since Covid and Ukraine and the inflationary burst that gave us. The level of borrowing is far too high. The situation was unsustainable and Hunt was not exactly giving us way signs as to how we get out of it. It is one of the main reasons I became disenchanted with the last government.
The implication is Jeremy Hunt wasn't entirely honest in the numbers he provided at the last budget. This I think is the root of the spat about whether to release OBR analysis on the numbers they were provided with
On your more important point, yep. It's likely taxes and borrowing will both go up AND government spending squeezed. It's not a great situation to be in.
On topic, the joy of politics is that the counterfactual can turn into the factual.
Truss was right.
We need economic growth and we need it consistently over a sustained period. We have cut and shrunk, shrunk and cut our economy over a long period, with the biggest contraction in the last decade when we were at our most vulnerable.
Truss was wrong in that she thought the way to growth was slash taxes and spending, but she also wanted investment. Borrowing to invest - and the delivering a return on that investment - is NOT bad economics. It is capitalism. And when the state borrows to invest in capacity, skills and infrastructure it has a long-term benefit.
At the same time, we need to cut the crap. We had dug ourselves into the ground when it comes to digging into the ground. We spend hundreds of millions on reports and surveys and impact assessments *without actually building anything*. The Tories gamed house planning so that the developers always beat the council. Not that the developers built what was needed. Do the same but *for the state*. We need to build this, it's going here, please accept this mitigation (or don't), start building. For housing we must have local people involved as its their communities being expanded, but the answer cannot just be "no".
Sadly I expect nothing from the Chancellor to drive growth, to drive investment, to try and course correct the UK so that we're comparable with France or Germany or Spain or the Netherlands or any of the rest of European nations who aren't as crushed by cuts as we are. Unless she pulls a massive rabbit out of the hat, Labour have already failed.
You're still assuming that every 'investment' generates a positive return.
That's not true in betting, that's not true in business and most of all its not true when government does it.
The corporate tax roadmap will be one of the bright spots and has been well consulted. Aside from possible employer NI rises this one is looking pretty decent for companies, all things considered.
Is it ? Well over half the anticipated tax increases fall on employers - and the well above inflation minimum wage rise will also drive up employment costs. Businesses employing few people will do fairly well; the rest get something of a caning.
Whether that all works out depends a lot on what's done on the spending side.
It’s all relative. Say you’re a business with 100 of sales, total costs of 85 of which payroll is say 40. That’s quite typical. A 2% employer NI rise would cost just over 0.5, after tax deductions. When the last government raised CT to 25% that was closer to 1 on those numbers, straight to the bottom line.
also many organisations cannot just put up prices to compensate - charities for instance are going to have to shed staff because of the NIC increase
Does that mean they were all adding staff when NI went down?
We’ve had a decade of average wages rising more slowly than RPI. Wage inflation has not been the problem for the economy.
Nobody likes tax to go up, but when the alternative is cutting already crumbling public services further to the bone and continuing on the long slow journey to looking like a developing country, something’s got to give.
I’d have raised VAT to 23% and reversed the employee NI cuts, but those were off the table in the manifesto. I’d also cut CT back to 19%.
public sector efficiency is very poor atm - you only have to try and contact HMRC to know that. It cannot not be an option to look at improving this through hard choices rather than take the easier way of raising taxes on the more efficient private sector
That's efficacy. Efficiency is efficacy divided by input. HMRC has lost a lot of staff over the years, IIRC,
Is saying India should remain majority Hindu or China and Japan majority Chinese or Japanese or Africa majority black racist?
Of course there are races who have become the minority in their nations, the American Indians or the Aborigines in Australia or Maori in New Zealand for example. Many on the woke left now think that a crime.
It is quite possible within a century Eastern Europe could be the only majority white area of the globe, for better or worse
It's a curious question.
Wrt race, it points up how strange is evaluating by colour of skin, bearing in mind what we know about common genetic inheritance etc. That overwhelmingly tells us more about the crass superficiality of the commentator making the claim than about the group targeted. As I see it at present skin colour is simply a convenient label for something else (religion, culture) to which it may bear little relation.
Wrt religion (or lack of religion used the same way see eg Communist States), which is different as it is ultimately a matter of opinion (subject to attempts at self-bleaching, makeup, operation Abracadabra cf Rachel Dolezal etc), it seems difficult. It also depends on the religion (or non-religion) concerned believes, and what it preaches about society and treatment of others.
We have examples of religious (or non-religious) majorities changing, for example certain Pacific island nations since WW2 or the 19C due to missionary activity or migration. We also have non-religious or don't knows moving into an alleged majority in countries including, some Western countries. And we have large countries where a majority religion has been replaced by a number of significant groups, none with a majority - examples are South Korea, Singapore, maybe USA and perhaps Brazil. I think then the civic vision of the religion / lack of religion concerned is the important thing.
It's interesting that those claiming to represent the non-religious or don't knows, which organisations in the UK only have perhaps 2k to 10k members, are perhaps the most keen in imposing their beliefs / opinions on society.
I think the important thing is the civic vision of the religion or lack-of-religion concerned, rather than externalities.
Skin colour bears an increasingly distant relation to nationality or religion, and those arguing that way are on a vanishing foundation.
I can attest to your last point. I have three mixed race children who are all 100% British, culturally speaking, and are all different colours so clearly the correlation between skin tone and culture is zero. I watch my son's U16 football team most Sundays, I'd guess well over half the kids including my son don't have two white British parents, but the kids are all 100% South London and the camaraderie they share gives me no fears about the ability of a less racially homogeneous society to hang together. It seems to me that a lot of the anxiety on this point is simply projection.
That's positive. Too often it seems to be there are people trying to aggravate and emphasise racial difference, to the point of even denigrating the former ideal of a colour blind society in the future, and it comes from both sides even, from nativist racists to obsessives hyperfocused on racial categorisation and grievance.
When it seems to me the goal of eventually no one giving a crap, we're all British, should still be very attainable.
I wonder if the poor WASPI women will get their compensation
Not sure anyone should be compensated for a grotesque inability to pay attention over a multi year span of time.
I feel I am betraying the sisterhood by not supporting the WASPIs. But I was fully aware of the proposed changes. I remember mentioning the proposals to other mothers at my son's pre-school playgroup to be met with blank faces and mutterings of "Don't know anything about that" and "So what?" I think the problem is that many regard pensions is the most boring topic until they get to mid 50s. Then their attitude changes.
Mind you, if WASPIs get compensation, I'd be happy to accept it.
1) Gilts haven't moved much so far. By this time for the Truss budget, they had already surged significantly - there was plenty of warning from the markets.
2) Increasing employer NICs might be a bit regressive, depending on how much is passed on to employees through reductions to gross salaries, because employer NICs are raised at a flat rate except at the very bottom (£9,100 threshold).
Smaller salaries = less income tax paid, and for higher earners, the marginal rate for income tax is higher, so is less income tax revenue, and the tax burden shifts slightly towards lower income deciles. (Otoh, employee NIC rates are regressive already, so that would mitigate this effect somewhat).
3) The productivity argument for NICs increases feels like an argument after the fact to me. It's what happened in Scotland after 2008, with lots of people on low wages losing their jobs = productivity surge. Balancing the labour market and stimulating productivity growth is tricky, and I'm no sure taxing employment is the best way to do it. In-work poverty remains a large and unusual problem for the UK, but this would just be swapping it for out-of-work poverty.
4) Transport is one of the few areas of public spending that is actually regressive by user, with roads and rail tending towards the top income deciles, and walking, cycling and buses the bottom. This is an area of serious risk for Labour from the left. You can expect more general outrage over fuel duty increases, though a rabbit out of the hat might be a significant reform to all motoring taxes, including VED, in the spring.
There will be a surprise somewhere. That’s the fun of budgets. I’m scratching my head to know what it will be, because any kind of giveaway is highly unlikely.
Some kind of root and branch reform of the system, perhaps. But 3 months isn’t long to cook something like that up.
I am close to buying a new car so rest assured it will be a trebling of the first vehicle tax payment.
The corporate tax roadmap will be one of the bright spots and has been well consulted. Aside from possible employer NI rises this one is looking pretty decent for companies, all things considered.
Is it ? Well over half the anticipated tax increases fall on employers - and the well above inflation minimum wage rise will also drive up employment costs. Businesses employing few people will do fairly well; the rest get something of a caning.
Whether that all works out depends a lot on what's done on the spending side.
It’s all relative. Say you’re a business with 100 of sales, total costs of 85 of which payroll is say 40. That’s quite typical. A 2% employer NI rise would cost just over 0.5, after tax deductions. When the last government raised CT to 25% that was closer to 1 on those numbers, straight to the bottom line.
also many organisations cannot just put up prices to compensate - charities for instance are going to have to shed staff because of the NIC increase
Does that mean they were all adding staff when NI went down?
We’ve had a decade of average wages rising more slowly than RPI. Wage inflation has not been the problem for the economy.
Nobody likes tax to go up, but when the alternative is cutting already crumbling public services further to the bone and continuing on the long slow journey to looking like a developing country, something’s got to give.
I’d have raised VAT to 23% and reversed the employee NI cuts, but those were off the table in the manifesto. I’d also cut CT back to 19%.
public sector efficiency is very poor atm - you only have to try and contact HMRC to know that. It cannot not be an option to look at improving this through hard choices rather than take the easier way of raising taxes on the more efficient private sector
That's efficacy. Efficiency is efficacy divided by input. HMRC has lost a lot of staff over the years, IIRC,
so where is the highest tax burden ad borrowing since WW2 being spent? Its obviously not being efficiently spent so why crave for more spending until this answer is known
Back on America for a moment, Harris will win. I did say "and it won't be close". OK maybe not a slam dunk now as it looked. But the hypothesis is simple:
The Trump campaign is a giant gas bag. Self-reinforcing and self-inflating, a vast echo chamber promoted and enhanced on Twitter and Fux and Newsmax and Lies Social. Where EVERYONE you speak to and interact with is voting Trump and thinks like you and has the same fears as you and wants the same Murica as you. EVERYONE.
We know the pollsters have had to correct in favour of Trump. Because they must be missing his voters considering that EVERYONE is voting Trump and the data isn't showing that without correction. So it looks closer now because its been corrected to look closer.
Counter to that, we know that women are more likely to vote than men. We know that whilst the core Trump vote is ANGRY, the rest are just caught up and usually don't vote. Women - and proper men who don't belittle women - are angry at Trump and the GOP, have been registering in large numbers and are motivated.
Don't drink the Trump cool-aid. That is literally what the Trump Musk campaign is wanting you to do.
I'll put my neck out here and be gladly ridiculed if I am wrong - I don't think it's close, not even by a million miles. I think Trump will win 'bigly' and we will all be shocked by the scale of his victory.
I'd be less certain re the House but I think the Senate we may be looking at 53-54 GOP seats,
I think that the plausible outcomes range from a Trump landslide in the EC, to a Harris EC landslide, though the popular vote will probably be only 2% to Harris. The swing states are very likely to swing the same way.
It all hinges on turnout IMO.
That is the main straw I am now clinging to. Harris has pumped serious money and time into a truly massive GOTV operation in the swing states, in Pennsylvania in particular. Trump basically hasn't with Musk's efforts generally being laughed at. The professionals generally claim GOTV can be worth 2-3%. If that is true Harris wins PA, MI, WI and very probably NC, GA and NV as well.
In the UK I criticise most such efforts as not as vital as people think. If it is worth 2-3% though that is more than enough as that covers about 7 states.
Comments
Best she can hope for is recognition in a couple of years time that this was a sensible long term budget.
For the best performers, anticipation is part of the fun.
Shame no markets. Shadsy used to put up a few to fund his Christmas bonus on tie colour and sips of water. The country has gone to the dogs.
Harris gave her (pretty positive and uplifting) closing message to one of the biggest crowds of the campaign ... and the headlines are all about Biden trying to walk back the garbage remark. Made on a Zoom call to a few activists.
For pensioners: a cookie and a hug
For the workers: a hammer
Well over half the anticipated tax increases fall on employers - and the well above inflation minimum wage rise will also drive up employment costs.
Businesses employing few people will do fairly well; the rest get something of a caning.
Whether that all works out depends a lot on what's done on the spending side.
The Trump campaign is a giant gas bag. Self-reinforcing and self-inflating, a vast echo chamber promoted and enhanced on Twitter and Fux and Newsmax and Lies Social. Where EVERYONE you speak to and interact with is voting Trump and thinks like you and has the same fears as you and wants the same Murica as you. EVERYONE.
We know the pollsters have had to correct in favour of Trump. Because they must be missing his voters considering that EVERYONE is voting Trump and the data isn't showing that without correction. So it looks closer now because its been corrected to look closer.
Counter to that, we know that women are more likely to vote than men. We know that whilst the core Trump vote is ANGRY, the rest are just caught up and usually don't vote. Women - and proper men who don't belittle women - are angry at Trump and the GOP, have been registering in large numbers and are motivated.
Don't drink the Trump cool-aid. That is literally what the Trump Musk campaign is wanting you to do.
It seems Rachel Reeves does have a point about Jeremy Hunt.
Different hair colour, but I see what you mean.
We will know soon enough
Well, it's a view.
(This is a reference to Richard, then Duke of Gloucester, threatening to abduct the Dowager Countess of Oxford unless she signed over her lands to him.)
So, we need some cuts in spending. We need increases in taxes. We need a plan to get spending back into balance in a sensible time frame. We need to find enough resources to make capital investments to drive growth. I am not particularly fussed whether the measures are "popular" or not. I want a coherent plan. Its been a while.
Are we all ready to assume the position? 😂
One things clear Biden has zero chance of being on stage with Harris before the election and he needs to go away and stay hidden in the WH .
One of the rabbit holes some on the right seem to have fallen down is viewing all taxes as a punishment, rather than the cost of things that make for a good society. Not good in themselves, and not to be increased gratuitously, but necessary.
95% of stuff doesn't matter...
My biggest concern is the number of things pre-Budget briefings have described as "investment", when they're nothing of the sort.
An interesting conversation from the previous threads about race/religious minorities by several commenters. From @MoonRabbit , I think: It's a curious question.
Wrt race, it points up how strange is evaluating by colour of skin, bearing in mind what we know about common genetic inheritance etc. That overwhelmingly tells us more about the crass superficiality of the commentator making the claim than about the group targeted. As I see it at present skin colour is simply a convenient label for something else (religion, culture) to which it may bear little relation.
Wrt religion (or lack of religion used the same way see eg Communist States), which is different as it is ultimately a matter of opinion (subject to attempts at self-bleaching, makeup, operation Abracadabra cf Rachel Dolezal etc), it seems difficult. It also depends on the religion (or non-religion) concerned believes, and what it preaches about society and treatment of others.
We have examples of religious (or non-religious) majorities changing, for example certain Pacific island nations since WW2 or the 19C due to missionary activity or migration. We also have non-religious or don't knows moving into an alleged majority in countries including, some Western countries. And we have large countries where a majority religion has been replaced by a number of significant groups, none with a majority - examples are South Korea, Singapore, maybe USA and perhaps Brazil. I think then the civic vision of the religion / lack of religion concerned is the important thing.
It's interesting that those claiming to represent the non-religious or don't knows, which organisations in the UK only have perhaps 2k to 10k members, are perhaps the most keen in imposing their beliefs / opinions on society.
I think the important thing is the civic vision of the religion or lack-of-religion concerned, rather than externalities.
Skin colour bears an increasingly distant relation to nationality or religion, and those arguing that way are on a vanishing foundation.
...“What Donald Trump has never understood is that ‘E pluribus unum,’ out of many one, isn’t just a phrase on a dollar bill. It is a living truth about the heart of our nation. Our democracy, it doesn’t require us to agree on anything,” she added. “And the fact that someone disagrees with us does not make them the enemy within.”
“Unlike Donald Trump, I don’t believe people who disagree with me are the enemy. He wants to put them in jail. I’ll give them a seat at the table,”..
Truss was right.
We need economic growth and we need it consistently over a sustained period. We have cut and shrunk, shrunk and cut our economy over a long period, with the biggest contraction in the last decade when we were at our most vulnerable.
Truss was wrong in that she thought the way to growth was slash taxes and spending, but she also wanted investment. Borrowing to invest - and the delivering a return on that investment - is NOT bad economics. It is capitalism. And when the state borrows to invest in capacity, skills and infrastructure it has a long-term benefit.
At the same time, we need to cut the crap. We had dug ourselves into the ground when it comes to digging into the ground. We spend hundreds of millions on reports and surveys and impact assessments *without actually building anything*. The Tories gamed house planning so that the developers always beat the council. Not that the developers built what was needed. Do the same but *for the state*. We need to build this, it's going here, please accept this mitigation (or don't), start building. For housing we must have local people involved as its their communities being expanded, but the answer cannot just be "no".
Sadly I expect nothing from the Chancellor to drive growth, to drive investment, to try and course correct the UK so that we're comparable with France or Germany or Spain or the Netherlands or any of the rest of European nations who aren't as crushed by cuts as we are. Unless she pulls a massive rabbit out of the hat, Labour have already failed.
Had a drink (well, water) with a friend last night. She employs 15 people. Her NIC increase is a 10% increase in her non payroll costs. And that needs to be paid for out of her cash balances (it’s a tech start up - the sort of thing that the country wants to encourage)
1. Efficiency actually rises, rather than the company contracting or failing to expand overall.
2. The changes don’t lead to an increase in unemployment.
Or stoop for authenticity.
A 2% increase in NI is not 1.5 new people.
At worst (say full NI on pensions with the employer contribution 10% of pension) it's the equivalent of a 3.6% pay increase for her staff so the equivalent of 0.54 of a worker...
If we are talking the 2% employer NI increase alone its 0.3 of a worker...
Got to say I really would prefer to employee NI or income to be returned to 2023 level.
There will be violence too.
It’s like the difference between the Tories and the Lib Dems in the coalition.
I'd be less certain re the House but I think the Senate we may be looking at 53-54 GOP seats,
Still getting a hearing though.
Nothing I've seen to date has persuaded me that's the case. And even if some people are hard hit by a government decision that doesn't make it either unlawful or unfair.
Many people facing tax rises are also probably about to learn that.
Of course with various vague legal duties to be imposed it will be easier to legally challenge any unliked decision.
It depends on the overall mix, and other measures.
I'd welcome comment from someone who has run the numbers on overall NIC changes (both employee / employers) since 2023 comparing the size of this likely increase, with the cut (from 12% to 10%?) in main Employee NICs which only came in in 2024.
Is there actually that much overall change at all from 2023, apart from a shift from Employee to Employer?
Some (see StillWater's example above) will be hit a lot harder than that.
Go on America, prick the boil.
And boil the prick too.
https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/data-and-charts/nhs-workforce-nutshell#:~:text=The NHS in England currently,time equivalent (FTE) basis.
Have we all got that much sicker over time? What are all those people doing?
And older, and older.
It all hinges on turnout IMO.
We’ve had a decade of average wages rising more slowly than RPI. Wage inflation has not been the problem for the economy.
Nobody likes tax to go up, but when the alternative is cutting already crumbling public services further to the bone and continuing on the long slow journey to looking like a developing country, something’s got to give.
I’d have raised VAT to 23% and reversed the employee NI cuts, but those were off the table in the manifesto. I’d also cut CT back to 19%.
Every developed economy has the same insurmountable problem.
1) Gilts haven't moved much so far. By this time for the Truss budget, they had already surged significantly - there was plenty of warning from the markets.
2) Increasing employer NICs might be a bit regressive, depending on how much is passed on to employees through reductions to gross salaries, because employer NICs are raised at a flat rate except at the very bottom (£9,100 threshold).
Smaller salaries = less income tax paid, and for higher earners, the marginal rate for income tax is higher, so the government raises less income tax revenue, and the tax burden shifts slightly towards lower income deciles. (Otoh, employee NIC rates are regressive already, so that would mitigate this effect somewhat).
3) The productivity argument for NICs increases feels like an argument after the fact to me. It's what happened in Scotland after 2008, with lots of people on low wages losing their jobs = productivity surge. Balancing the labour market and stimulating productivity growth is tricky, and I'm no sure taxing employment is the best way to do it. In-work poverty remains a large and unusual problem for the UK, but this would just be swapping it for out-of-work poverty. I'm curious as to how many firms deliberately employ people part-time up to £9,100 - equivalent to 14 hours a week on NMW.
4) Transport is one of the few areas of public spending that is actually regressive by user, with roads and rail tending towards the top income deciles, and walking, cycling and buses the bottom. This is an area of serious risk for Labour from the left. You can expect more general outrage over fuel duty increases, though a rabbit out of the hat might be a significant reform to all motoring taxes, including VED, in the spring.
(But I misspoke - it was a 10% increase in her NIC costs not her employment costs)
Truss was a deluded moron. But her singular shining light was recognising that we cant go on as we are and wanting to get a bit radical to achieve turnaround. OK so her radical plan was bonkers, but at least she diagnosed the problem.
I think the Treasury are the problem - there is a growing acceptance that a change to their mindset must be achieved. Reeves saying she's changing the rules to borrow to invest in capex is a good start.
We need to break the idiocy - usually advocated by Tories - of " we can't afford it, who will pay for it". As if the spend is balanced on the other side of the equation by no spend. There is not a no-spend option, just do you spend to invest smartly up front for long-term benefits, or spend on emergency solutions to the crisis created by cuts?
Some kind of root and branch reform of the system, perhaps. But 3 months isn’t long to cook something like that up.
Demographics people getting older
Technology opens up more treatment options
We have low motivation through previous pay restraint
We have poor retention of senior experienced staff who retire early or go to private sector, or part time public/private mix
Chaotic organisational changes
All of those are obvious from the outside I'm sure there are more issues visible from within, but its a multi issue problem.
On your more important point, yep. It's likely taxes and borrowing will both go up AND government spending squeezed. It's not a great situation to be in.
That's not true in betting, that's not true in business and most of all its not true when government does it.
👿👿👿
When it seems to me the goal of eventually no one giving a crap, we're all British, should still be very attainable.
Mind you, if WASPIs get compensation, I'd be happy to accept it.