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.)

Yes but people just need to pay taxes for services to work. I can't understand how people have come to think they shouldn't have to.

I'm a bit bored with having to explain how businesses work to people who are so woefully ill informed.

Could you tell us how you've worked out this cost please.

Don't you think an income tax rise would have been fairer and more effective? I do.

Well the money is not coming from here. Losses of jobs and business confidence isn't going to result in more tax.

It's not unusual, pretty much every charity and non-profit is going to suffer in the same way,

Ha ha.

I hope that you are still laughing when there is no private sector to pay taxes to pay for your public sector wages and pensions.

Good luck. I am rich enough to be able to leave the country when that happens, I hope that you are too.

What is frustrating is that these increased contributions are taken to throw more money at public services such as the NHS. Pouring more money into the NHS, without reform, is like lighting a fire under a bag of £50 notes.

Hence why they're not the ones who have the money to bail the Country out. Just expect us to do it for them.

Unfortunately it's not going to happen.

Every time I read a whinging post about the increases in NI to raise tax moneyh I have a read about one of the many 'I called an ambulance and was told there were none' or 'what happens if you go to A and E seriously ill' threads and see why this is necessary.
Helps to give a bit of perspective.
Basically, we are all going to the dogs as a result of the economy being trashed since 2008. And it's not just here it's other countries too so we can't just blame it on 'the government' - although we do seem particularly incompetent compared to our european peers it's not like they have escaped completely unscathed.

So you'd have preferred a wealth tax of some sort? And stayed in the country to pay it 🤣

Yes, exactly.

I hope that they are still laughing when there is no private sector to pay taxes to pay for their public sector wages and pensions.

If you're an SME, you're not affected by the NI rise. NI thresholds have been frozen so that over a million SMEs will see no increase in the tax they currently pay, and over 800,000 people will continue to pay no tax for the next year. If you're a larger employer, you should have the resilience to absorb a 1.5% increase in National Insurance.

Where do people think this money should come from? The country is patently broken and costs money to fix, yet people moan if individual taxes go up and moan if taxes on business go up. This budget actually seems pretty fair in its attempt to tax those who can most afford it. That's what Labour governments do.

That’s fine but they specifically said there would be no increase in taxes on working people. I can only guess why they chose not to say anything right before an election. And also a lot of the decisions they have taken since forming government have cost billions. I have no issue with investment in services, but they should have been upfront about their plans in the first place.

I do.

I do think this budget was more about optics rather than tackling underlying issues though.

And I do think the people most negatively effected will, ironically, be the ones with minimum wage jobs or on benefits.

That would have been the most sensible approach yes.

One issue is the cost of debt which is going up due to the budget

What are you talking about (but then I am not suprised that people who think like you don't make any sense)?

I would have preferred a budget that encouraged enterprise and didn't punish the people who pay your public sector wages and pensions.

Oh dear... Same old debate, clearly ignorance is at play here... Or perhaps ostrich syndrome? Or just hard die Tory....

Large employer, like Nuffield health that employees 16,000 people and makes no profit?

Or large employer, like sage software who employ 11,000 people and make half a billion in profit.

The bar is so low for understanding of how an economy works in this Country that people can't see why one can easily afford it and the other can't.

The markets see the problem though, and that's the only opinion that matters.

Yep.

The OP must be on a salary of around £70K for the employer to be paying £1000 extra a year in NI contributions. It's hard to imagine that everyone in charities/not for profits is on that kind of money tbh. I'm in the private sector, in an SME, and the cost to the employer won't be anything like that per employee.

Fully agree with this. Two years seems a lot but there's a lot of middle ground between this and day one.

We've had two people of the kind you describe in the 15 years I've been with my current employer.

Both were great on paper and in interviews but difficult, upset all other staff, were impossible to manage, rude and aggressive.

It was hard enough to get rid of them under current rules.

I think six months to a year would be much fairer all round.

It really is a budget to remove all benefits of effort for those in lower paid jobs. No point stepping up, working hard and taking on extra responsibility because you'll now be on about 3p an hour more than the new starts.

No point putting in a pension which will only ever be modest because you won't qualify for anything and will be worse off.

Really my husband would be better to drop to part time (he does have a serious back problem and has had major surgery but still works a physical manufacturing job) and give up his supervisor responsibilities which are now paid at 13p an hour more than minimum wage. We'd then qualify for universal credit.

On other threads other people said 'well he just has to ask for more '. Fine. That might work. They'd keep him over the new starts as he can make things the others can't. But if the young lads go he'll be doing all the heavy lifting on his own (literally) and that will cripple him.

I don't see it as a budget for working people.

How much are you paying your employees that a 1.2% increase is going to result in £1000 per employee. Even allowing for the shift in threshold (which amounts to £210 per employee) you’d need to be paying strong wages across the board to reach £1,000 per head.

I think politics should be left out of this forum.
Anyway, Labour voters have what they screamed for.
👍

Nail on the head.

I think for a couple of reasons they've realised they need to raise more money than they thought but they want to keep a veneer of keeping their manifesto pledges. As such they've introduced a messy hodge podge of changes which will be more harmful in the long run rather than just grasping the nettle of adding a penny to all the income tax thresholds.