The NI changes are going to cost my organisation £1000 per employee

[flashbac]

The NI changes are going to cost my organisation on average £1000 per employee, The lowering of the threshold alone is going to cost around £600 extra per employee.

We are heavily regulated with fixed income. We're a not for profit. Our customers expectations are increasing. We are now most likely going to have to somehow reduce our headcount now, and payrises for April are going to be off the table.

Just shaking my head really. Our employees don't deserve this. Hard to see how this isn't a tax on jobs.

The lowering of the threshold also means employers have to pay for more workers, because part time salaries are now dragged into it.

A lot of people reading this won't care. All I can say is this NI increase will also affect you. just think about Local authorities, childcare providers and other services. Do you think it won't affect your Councils services/tax bills, to give one example?

(I'm not a Tory bot btw, before anyone starts accusing me of being one. I voted Remain, don't support the Tories at all, can't stand Boris and his cronies.)

Why do you think I'd be the first to complain?

The ad hominem attacks in so many of these posts suggest the points being made are BS.

Sorry - screenshot didn't paste like it suggested and I can't edit it to add.

Well it’s quite simple. The threshold has dropped from £9,100 to £5000. So every single employee immediately costs 15% of £4,100 more. That’s £615. Not £210. And for someone on the average UK salary of £35k, there’s also another 1.2% on £25,900. So that’s another £310. So the average employee now costs just under £1k more.

Thank you @Tryingtokeepgoing my maths isn’t working this morning - good job I don’t rely on being able to count in my work.

No, it's the 'please provide evidence for your claim' and 'so you don't have evidence then'. I'm not being prosecuted in a court of law, and this way of speaking to people is straight out of the MN condescension playbook. I'm am not willing to engage positively with these sorts of responses.

We're a charity, but the cost is small for us, but it really hits those with lots of lower paid staff rather than less higher ones. Surely a higher rate on jobs paying over say £50k would suit their aims better. Still I don't think you can tax your way to growth and I fear stagnation.

You may welcome tax rises, I'm guessing Labour still have mileage with various people to keep hiking taxes, even if the markets do not and we'll pay more on debt.

But surely you don't welcome redundancies or lower pay? Are you employed?

Because that's what any reasonable person would do.

Hardly an ad hominem to call you reasonable is it.

@mrshoho yes we were and I'd rather keep that in for my employees than cut that and hire more people if that makes sense. You're right, the other option is not increasing salaries as much.

The threshold dropping has a big impact too.

Apologies if this has been answered but what are the salaries of the employees in respect of whom the extra £1,000 each arises?

Not the case. Ignoring the increase in employment allowance, a £1,000 increase in e'ers NI kicks in at around £42,000 of gross earnings.

The way I see if that Labour is destroying the few things left that were working fine. They really are either clueless o with a very hard left agenda. The easy to manipulate people can’t even comprehend the damage Labour budget is doing to the country.

Yet everyone also kicked off when it was suspected a further freeze of the tax thresholds was in the offing – which didn't materialise. There is no winning budget here.

Do not get me started on this. Our parish is so badly run with the people who actually benefit the parish being sacked in favour of paper pushers.

I know the figures for our parish and it's outrageous how much piss taking is going on and how few in our parish are aware that a quarter of the money the parish tax raises is being pissed up the wall.

Yes. And I've been made redundant several times as I work in a sector with little job security. I've learned to be resilient and have savings to fall back on. Like many people I also have several 'side-hustles' on the go. (Most o this happened under the Tories btw - under the last Labour government my sector was paid far better than it is now, although to be fair was still pretty insecure). Private individuals and businesses don't operate in the same ways, but there are some similarities for sure.

Businesses, on the whole, care about profits and not people. I've experienced that first hand. So I do think there's quite a lot of disingenuity in some of the hand-wringing on this thread tbh.

Fair enough. Some of us see it differently and not 'aggy'. Like, if you decide to go onto a forum and post an opinion on a topic as serious as this one, then why bother if you're not going to back it up. Why not just go and talk about movies or something,

This is what really gets me.

It's supposed to be a labour budget.

But the people it's fucking over are not the ones that make any sense whatsoever.

It's a middle class pleasing budget to virtue signal.

Not one that makes things better for the working poor or those on benefits.

And yet you've said it's fair and 'just business' for non-profits like Nuffield Health to shoulder more of the burden than a tech company like Sage making half a billion a year.

The employer NI annual exemption allowance is being increased to offset this for smaller businesses...if this doesn't apply to your situation then yes you will pay more.

The money should have come from everyone paying an increased % tax! As a nation, people/workers in this country are taxed significantly less than other comparable (European) countries.

I did back it up. I had read an article on the BBC which included a government statement on the issue that I'd replied about. If the actual government has not released the actual details people are looking for yet, then no further evidence can be provided no matter who asks for it.

So, you think unfair dismissal should be a right for employers? Why can't they just dismiss people fairly? Or, get better at hiring to avoid "bad hires"?

There's going to be a process for easier dismissal in the first six months anyway.

I totally agree with Labour on this one.

I'm struggling to understand why people don't think it should come from tech companies making huge profits. They are effectively the ones replacing people's jobs in order to make these profits and take the money that used to be taxed from those jobs out of the system, so why aren't they the ones being made to put it back into the system.

Doesn't seem like Labour have any interest in working people when they're just going to continue to allow this to happen.

We need to move away from tax payers topping up low wage earners with income support and universal credit etc. Businesses do rely on staff and should pay for those they need and value accordingly BUT that will cost and everyone will pay more one way or another to achieve this.

I said it's fair for business to shoulder the burden of tax increases, but that maybe in the case of non-profits and charities this needs to be reviewed.

It may help you to still think favourably of Labour if redundancy and/or lower pay occur for you, but it's not going to help when it applies to many.

'Hand-wringing' doesn't really stack up when Labour's budget is affecting the markets as it is. And even if you are fine with being made redundant if that does go up it is highly problematic. Lower pay hits people too.