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.)

Or put that towards to 20% VAT rise for private schools?

I appreciate what people say about national insurance increasing costs for employers. However I think for too long employers have relied on paying rock bottom. Then tax credits/ universal credit would pick up the slack. That money has to come from somewhere. I work for the LA (full time) and get a small amount of UC. Lots of people do, bin lorry drivers with an HGV licence working 38 hours a week gross pay is just under 25k. The loaders 23k. Aviva is a massive employer locally. normal salary in call centre of 23.5k 37.5 hours a week. The vast majority of jobs I see locally advertised are a kick in the arse above min wage. I don’t think people can live off these salaries if they have families to support.

Can’t afford to buy a house, stuck in an expensive rental, claiming housing element of UC. The employer benefits from cheap labour, the landlord benefits from his asset being paid for by someone else. The state is forking out. The answer to me, long term, would be social housing and lots of it, reduce the cost of housing and make life more affordable for many. If you cut housing costs lots of people wouldn’t need to claim UC. It is fair that employers pay their share too.

Or a bit less for their fat cat bosses on their 6 figure salaries.

They said they werent going to increase taxes on working people. The reality is that they have and are increasing taxes on working people. They have been disengenuous (or dim) to have said otherwise. The problem was they made a pledge in the election that they couldn't possibly keep.

Frankly typical of any politician. If they would be honest with the electorate rather than using semantics I think the public would have more respect. They haven't been straight with people.

@Branananmakes sense! DPs is a vet practice so very easy to get a big company to buy it (then whack up prices) - vets will never not make money given peoples love for pets…
Really sorry you’re in this situation - it’s shit

No it doesn't, the NHS is exempt from this rise

Yeah. We own the property so hopefully at least will be able to sell that for development.

How many staff do you have? There are about 15 on our payroll and it's going to cost us around £9,000 extra overall. The extra NI and the lowering of the threshold was slightly counteracted by the increased employment allowance.

We'll be OK though - we can absorb it. There are many organisations that can't and many that shouldn't have to (i.e. providing ancillary services to the NHS, charities, hospices, care providers, etc).

Genuinely interested in knowing where people thought the money to fix the country was going to come from? i feel like people are surprised but the money had to come from somewhere or just see services further run into the ground

I said upthread, I presumed the money would come from taxing the very rich and large corporations. I also wouldn't have been adverse to increasing income tax across the board.

What I didn't vote for was the decimation of food security and small businesses.

Also, I dont believe I will personally see any improvements in public services or the NHS in at least the next 10 years.

The 70s called and want your tax advice back. Those tax rates led to capital flight and a brain drain.

They could have taken this money from the wealthiest but are too scared of the Mail and Murdoch to do this

Amd if they'd done that, this thread would have been full of how everyone with any money and all the big businesses were leaving the country.

I've worked in the charity sector for 30 years. We had all this weeping and wailing when the nmw was introduced- that really hit hard as charities and their supporters are generally more than happy to pay and treat their staff like shit to ensure that every possible penny goes toward whatever good cause they serve.

So now charities will have to make some hard choices and maybe some of the crappy ones will go to the wall. Tough cheese. If people really support the cause then they'll have dig a little deeper into their pockets - or we'll have to do without. Maybe public services can pick up some of the slack if they're not quite so cash strapped?

I don't really base my political opinions on what people on mumsnet say, half of them are bots and trolls as it is.

The Tories knew they were going to lose this election and effectively poisoned the chalice by reducing taxes coming up to the change over in April this year (NI went from 10% to 8%). The books were in deficit and the Tories made them more so. What is Labour supposed to do, really? At the very least they needed to reverse the NI change but that would also have been unpopular, exactly as the Tories intended it to be. So they are taxing in a different part of the chain. The Tories have killed off so much of our local amenities here- we lost libraries- our museum, there were council sell off of historical assets just to try balancing the books. These things are so easy to lose but so hard to bring back, but it's hard to see in the abstract. The loss of the sure start centres is a big one.

There's always a silver lining!!

Sure they will. I spent the last (and most lucrative) decade of my career as a contractor. There are plenty of very skilled and excellent people working short term.

What a fucking spiteful pig ignorant comment.

Edit: Unless it was in jest.

The idea is that you can employ them for 2 months to ensure they aren't useless, then employ them fully.

I was with the NHS for 20 years. My husband works a specialist NHS role with a team (an amazing team) of staff he's required to manage (he does an actual job though - a very busy, heavily pressured job - managing is just an add on). I can emphatically say that the NHS IS absolutely top heavy with management. There is also an issue with staff for whom skills have staled, and they're just biding their time to pension.

In terms of the budget, I'm a bit fed up of hearing people say the money has to come from somewhere - there WERE other options. Another concern is how reliant Rachel Reeves appears to be on the advice of third party institutions (who are often wrong in their predictions). Disappointing too that Labour has canned the planned change to child benefit (ie the plan to make fairer the high income threshold for single income households).

I want to give Labour a chance, but this budget misses the mark on several levels.

Oh and yet you're engaging with the discussion in parts?

Well they put it in and then they get it straight back so it doesn't cost the government anything. It does mean that the increase into the NHS need to take this into account as actually some of it will go straight out again

Yep.

And your point is?