|
|
Post by Tim on Sept 19, 2024 7:41:12 GMT
The 13.8% is paid by the employer over and above your salary. As an employee you currently pay 8% employee's NI between £12,570 and £50,240 and 2% thereafter (rumoured to be 3% or 4% after the budget) Yeah, I know that, what I mean is that, when an employer is looking at the cost of employing me he has to take into account that extra 13.8% and factor it into his offer. Without that I could, arguably, secure a higher salary. The employer might hand it over to HMRC but the employee is effectively paying it through the efforts of his labour. While that's true in the practical aspects my experience is that the employer thinks of a number based on gross and conveniently forgets the ER NIC (and ER Pension contributions as well  ). In fact most of the time the employer offers what they think is the market rate (plus a bit if they get someone they really want) and while that may have been dictated by more thoughtful companies taking account of the extra costs I suspect for the majority of employers/decision makers they are simply paying according to a gross-based market. I've spent the last few years reminding my CEO that any salary he offers costs us an extra 21% but he's always surprised when we do the following year budgets and he sees the true cost of the shiny new employee that started 6 months ago. |
|
|
|
Post by alf on Sept 19, 2024 10:51:09 GMT
When I sold call centre services we always went x1.5 on the salaries of the new people required to service a contract, by the time we had put a roof over their heads, trained them, set up IT etc and also taking into account the NI.
Back on the original topic its going swimmingly isn't it? Doctors got 22% - with dire warnings they will strike again if the next agreements are not above-inflation. Train drivers got a compound 15.5% including back dated pensions and payments, even for people who have since left. What private company would do that? None, because its a waste of money you don't have to waste... I thought we were supposed to be reducing the supposed tax black hole???
I don't see a lot of incentives for public sector workers NOT to strike currently. Given the moral vacumn of "everything is everyone else's fault, I'm worth it" that we live in, I can't see many moral objections. I mean when doctors strike, people die, can't get less moral than that can you? It didn't stop them.
It's a shame we can't go on a taxpaying strike until they stop wasting it and start spending it like its their own, most big departments from the MOD to NHS seem mired in too many staff and failed major projects. I actually have a lot more time for local council spending efficiency, the pots are so much smaller and not bottomless, I suspect they give far better value than central government. As people have said here, massive projects encourage massive overspend - look at the recent HS2 revelations. It's like crash-for-cash type insurance fraud, people think they're taking from an endless resource - but all of us, are that resource!
I really don't like where all this is headed in the budget - and hope that the supposed raids on pensions are propoganda. Like with NHS spending, where not nearly enough spending is preventative, taking money from people's retirement will financially backfire in the long run. It makes for an even more two-tier system, directly raising more taxes from private sector taxpayers to pay public sector pensions no one has the balls to challenge. Hitting private sector pension pots for what are pretty normal salaries by modern standars, in the 40% bracket, at the same time as paying through the nose for public sector pensions and pay rises would be a disgusting act of pork-barelling the people that vote for that one party. Exactly what they said they would NOT do.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Sept 19, 2024 11:05:03 GMT
I really don't like where all this is headed in the budget - and hope that the supposed raids on pensions are propoganda. Like with NHS spending, where not nearly enough spending is preventative, taking money from people's retirement will financially backfire in the long run. It makes for an even more two-tier system, directly raising more taxes from private sector taxpayers to pay public sector pensions no one has the balls to challenge. Hitting private sector pension pots for what are pretty normal salaries by modern standars, in the 40% bracket, at the same time as paying through the nose for public sector pensions and pay rises would be a disgusting act of pork-barelling the people that vote for that one party. Exactly what they said they would NOT do. Don't forget they've got form for it; see Gordon Brown's raid on pension dividends that destroyed the best funded private pension provisions in Europe. That's estimated to have cost all of us £250 billion. |
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Sept 19, 2024 11:22:12 GMT
Maybe it is time for the UK Government to use hypothecation with NI being set aside for the NHS and State Pension and separate amounts of tax set aside for social care, defence etc etc.
At the moment the NHS and social care account for about 50% of all Government expenditure, split roughly 50/50. If tax rises were directly associated with one type of expenditure it might concentrate the mind of the electorate a bit with regards to what is acceptable and where lines need to be drawn.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Sept 19, 2024 11:44:25 GMT
In my local area there is currently a campaign against the planning for an Active Corridor which has somehow managed to get to approval stage with public consultation which consisted of an interested party getting his pals at the golf club to say they thought it was a great idea.
One of the reasons there is so much public anger is that there is a local primary school with leaks in the ceiling, buckets everywhere, mould on ceilings and walls and cold single glazing which the Council say they can't afford to fix.
The local roads are full of potholes and they want to narrow 5 miles of road and build a joint cycle lane/pavement, taking down hundreds of trees and hedge rows in the process - and reduce the speed limit to 30mph for a busy commuter route. The cost is initially estimated at £5m, more likely to be £10m to enable people to walk and cycle between two towns that currently have a tiny number of people walking or cycling between (in fact I can never remember seeing anyone walking it). There are other country roads that make the same journey which are far preferred by anyone on foot or bike.
This is, according to the Council, "free money" which is part of £300m set aside by the Scottish Government to create all these corridors, no doubt pushed by the Greens as part of their deal to Vote with the SNP. This is surely a Scottish Government failing in funding councils properly and setting aside large amounts of money for vanity projects which will hardly be used. If they took a proper hedge cutter and mower along the current route they could create a perfectly feasible pathway using the existing pavement. Nobody in their right mind would walk between Milngavie and Torrance or vice versa when there are a thousand far nicer places to walk and enjoy the countryside in the same area.
|
|
|
|
Post by alf on Sept 20, 2024 8:59:58 GMT
Funnily enough John that cycle lane proposal somehow made it to my feed (suggested stories on the iPad I think!).
I was always against the protection of NHS budgets under the Cameron/Osborne Austerity (which overall I think had to happen, though left wingers have been trying to deny this ever since). Brown's big spending splurge on the NHS proved that there was no linearity between spending and the standards of care - this has been well documented. So why protect the biggest single budget, while taking a chainsaw to the rest? The NHS then had the temerity to whine about this meaning a "real world" cut because they were totally used to ever expanding budgets. Logically, your biggest budget is where you biggest savings are.........
|
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 20, 2024 13:58:21 GMT
I read that La Reeves has suddenly been gifted a £10bn "windfall" by the BoE but that under no circumstances does this mean taxes shouldn't go up, because, you know, "TORY BLACK HOLE"!
I must admit that although I wasn't going to vote for them and I realise they've been out of power a long time, and many of them have never been in government before, I did at least expect that they'd appear more competent than is currently the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Sept 20, 2024 15:04:44 GMT
I read that La Reeves has suddenly been gifted a £10bn "windfall" by the BoE but that under no circumstances does this mean taxes shouldn't go up, because, you know, "TORY BLACK HOLE"! I must admit that although I wasn't going to vote for them and I realise they've been out of power a long time, and many of them have never been in government before, I did at least expect that they'd appear more competent than is currently the case. She’s not got much experience so I think we’re all having to pay for her to learn on the job. |
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 20, 2024 17:32:23 GMT
I read that La Reeves has suddenly been gifted a £10bn "windfall" by the BoE but that under no circumstances does this mean taxes shouldn't go up, because, you know, "TORY BLACK HOLE"! I must admit that although I wasn't going to vote for them and I realise they've been out of power a long time, and many of them have never been in government before, I did at least expect that they'd appear more competent than is currently the case. She’s not got much experience so I think we’re all having to pay for her to learn on the job. I'm starting to think "Sue Gray" ought to be added to the Cockney lexicon as rhyming slang for "pay"... |
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Sept 21, 2024 9:47:25 GMT
I read that La Reeves has suddenly been gifted a £10bn "windfall" by the BoE but that under no circumstances does this mean taxes shouldn't go up, because, you know, "TORY BLACK HOLE"! I must admit that although I wasn't going to vote for them and I realise they've been out of power a long time, and many of them have never been in government before, I did at least expect that they'd appear more competent than is currently the case. I didn't vote for Labour as I'm not happy with their ideology and I think I'm thus far not being proven wrong on this. I just have to have a wry chuckle at those who campaigned so hard to get rid of the evil tories complaining about having got what they asked for. |
|
|
|
Post by myself on Sept 21, 2024 17:13:19 GMT
I did not vote laboured either, they are just not worth the points. They are going to so fuck the counbtry that they will be out at the next election.
Comon sense in politics, WTF is that?
|
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Sept 23, 2024 14:31:20 GMT
Real life example: Doctor's surgery getting paid £29K a year for amongst other things, child and pre school vaccinations which they hardly do any of. The rule seems to be that they get paid for the same things every year even if they don't do them anymore.
However Doctor's surgeries won't deal with nursing homes because the NHS won't put up the amount they pay them to do it.
Surgeries are offered large amounts to open on Saturdays in January/February to try to ease the pressure on A&E. No-one advertises this fact meaning that they only see a handful of patients because no-one knows they are open.
There is no joined up thinking at all and at the same time the money is being flushed down the toilet!
|
|
|
|
Post by PG on Oct 22, 2024 12:26:36 GMT
I just came across this bloke on YouTube. Who says all comedians are left wing.... If this one makes you laugh, there are plenty more. |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Oct 30, 2024 15:37:24 GMT
Can I come out from under the bed now?
|
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Oct 30, 2024 15:55:45 GMT
As an employer and a working man, this is going to cost me dearly!
|
|
|
|
Post by PetrolEd on Oct 30, 2024 16:14:57 GMT
As an employer and a working man, this is going to cost me dearly! You wouldn't mind too much if you thought the extra contribution would make a difference to your life quality but all that extra income will end up down the pan, wasted on some shite government plan. |
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Oct 30, 2024 16:28:27 GMT
I have just worked out that it will cost me about £600/mth which will definitely concentrate the mind a bit when it comes to wage increases. I hope they all want extra in their pensions instead!
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Oct 30, 2024 17:05:42 GMT
I'm glad they appear to have left BPR relatively alone - the rumoured withdrawal (a constant 'threat' in the run up to budgets for the last 5+ years to be fair to Reeves) would've been particularly detrimental to my employer's income and led to some difficult decisions.
I haven't spent any time working out the effect of the ER NIC changes yet, that's for next years financial budget.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Oct 30, 2024 18:39:48 GMT
I haven't spent any time working out the effect of the ER NIC changes yet, that's for next years financial budget. I have just worked it out for a nursing home client - an additional £138K a year which includes the increase in NMW and a subsequent 6.7% increase in wages across the board because the Councils demand that the nursing homes increase wages in line with a Council rate or they don't get any Council residents. The reduction in the threshold for where er's NI starts (£9,100 down to £5,000) is going to cost £615 per employee before you factor in the additional 1.2% after that. The total equates to about 40% of his profit!! I wonder if Reaves has factored in the resulting reduction in Corporation Tax? |
|
|
|
Post by Martin on Oct 30, 2024 19:35:17 GMT
Probably not!
I’ve got a wage bill of over £250m….i’ll let someone smarter than me work out the impact (mainly NI but minimum wage increase will have a small impact as well), but it’s a lot! And it will mainly be passed onto my customers, who will pass it onto consumers.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Oct 30, 2024 20:06:37 GMT
I'll hazard a guess at about 6,500 staff so that's about £4m from the reduction in the starting level for Er's NI and about £2.3m from the increase in rate from 13.8% to 15%. Ouch!
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin on Oct 30, 2024 20:33:13 GMT
I'll hazard a guess at about 6,500 staff so that's about £4m from the reduction in the starting level for Er's NI and about £2.3m from the increase in rate from 13.8% to 15%. Ouch! Bit more agony than ouch!   |
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Oct 30, 2024 20:52:19 GMT
You wouldn't mind too much if you thought the extra contribution would make a difference to your life quality but all that extra income will end up down the pan, wasted on some shite government plan. This. Always this with taxes. |
|
|
|
Post by Martin on Oct 31, 2024 5:45:40 GMT
First year VED is doubling for cars above 75g per 100km of co2, £40k is still the point where you’re buying a ‘luxury car’, but it has been suggested that may rise in the future, but only for EVs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex on Oct 31, 2024 6:17:32 GMT
First year VED is doubling for cars above 75g per 100km of co2, £40k is still the point where you’re buying a ‘luxury car’, but it has been suggested that may rise in the future, but only for EVs. I noted she also mentioned company car tax will continue to favour EVs to encourage businesses to move away from pure ICE and hybrid cars. Might see many move away from company cars to car allowance instead. |
|
|
|
Post by LandieMark on Oct 31, 2024 7:18:00 GMT
She has also declared DCPUs to be cars, once again after the Tory U turn. Thankfully I don't need to do anything about it until 2029 when the L200 will be worth two parts of fuck all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Oct 31, 2024 10:27:08 GMT
First year VED is doubling for cars above 75g per 100km of co2, £40k is still the point where you’re buying a ‘luxury car’, but it has been suggested that may rise in the future, but only for EVs. Given the state of the roads and the announcement of additional funding to fill in SOME of the potholes when are EVs going to get taxed for road usage? If the encouragement to go EV is successful then there's going to be a funding gap where EV sales take off (or increase mildly!) generating no VED but the roads continue to get worse. |
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Oct 31, 2024 10:39:25 GMT
First year VED is doubling for cars above 75g per 100km of co2, £40k is still the point where you’re buying a ‘luxury car’, but it has been suggested that may rise in the future, but only for EVs. Given the state of the roads and the announcement of additional funding to fill in SOME of the potholes when are EVs going to get taxed for road usage? If the encouragement to go EV is successful then there's going to be a funding gap where EV sales take off (or increase mildly!) generating no VED but the roads continue to get worse. EV's have to start paying road tax from April 2025. I don't know what the first year's VED is going to be but it's coming! |
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Oct 31, 2024 10:46:35 GMT
She has also declared DCPUs to be cars, once again after the Tory U turn. Thankfully I don't need to do anything about it until 2029 when the L200 will be worth two parts of fuck all. This is just as stupid a policy as it was when the Tories binned it. We have countless tradesmen who have DCPUs because they suit their businesses and they are going to be forced to replace them with vans after April 2025. Especially for those who do work at farms, wind farms and in the country, the DCPU gives them 4WD versatility and safety which they won't get from a FWD or RWD Transit.....and they might need two vehicles to go to site instead of one if they need 3 or 4 men on a job. This is the kind of policy dreamed up by someone who doesn't step very far out of the Treasury and by definition has no grasp on real life. I know there are some who use them instead of cars but the majority are used for the purpose they were designed for. |
|
|
|
Post by alf on Oct 31, 2024 10:59:59 GMT
You wouldn't mind too much if you thought the extra contribution would make a difference to your life quality but all that extra income will end up down the pan, wasted on some shite government plan. This. Always this with taxes. Perhaps in some countries it might. But not here - the Anglo Saxon mindset seems to be "I'll only work harder if I might earn more money that way". Which is entirely logical. Give people 100% job security, guaranteed rises, and shitty management and you get what you'd expect. Labour might as well rename itself the "Public Sector Pork Barrel Party". Massive payrises, protected pensions, rebates for the NI increases, and a lot of hiring in one direction. Higher taxes in the other. I thought Sunak's reply speech was excellent. For a party that spent the last few years whining about lies and U-turns, I can't imagine Labour could possibly have lied harder or U-turned more, and he nailed them over and over again on it. The FT and other publications have reported specific quotes they were given about things that definitely wouldn't happen, which now have. The NI increase is clever in that it means little to the man in the street. Tina is FD of a local tech manufacturing SME, with about 150 mostly quite low paid employees I think, her initial reaction is that it takes 2% off their (already not great) pre-tax earnings in one go. The lowering of the threschold is going to hit small businesses really hard. |
|
).
