Just want to deal with one. The proposal to cut time period before can claim Unfair Dismissal from 2 years to 0.
I have rather a lot of experience in relation to this. And:-
1. It would stop the thousands of cases where people try to shoehorn in some sort of Discrimination because they have less than 2 years' service; and
2. Is it really so terrible that Employers will lose the right to break contracts without good reason for 2 years? Name another contract where people have this sort of time period to break contracts?
Do you think that they boxed themselves in with their general election manifesto?
I think the Press are trying to box them in by pretending they said different things than what they actually did.
The current Govt's manifesto was quite bleak. It wasn't promising the earth
They promised not to increase income tax, NI, and VAT, on the working man. Yet they are struggling to define the working man. They seem to be considering freezing the income tax allowances for a further two years, which would obviously not be consistent with the above pledge, and not raise any money for years, as the Tories had already frozen them until 2028. Also the measures that raise the most money, are those that most of us pay. The press are making a big deal about the possible 2% increase on employers NI contributions, I dont believe this would break the promise, and in reality, probably not cause much damage to small businesses. Do you think that they would have been better undoing the Tories reduction in NI? This could have easily funded the Winter Fuel Allowance, for more people, and the general public whinge less about funding the NHS. There would have been a good pitch on raising more money to reduce waiting lists, and NHS improvements, as well as funding the state pension.
I think the Press are trying to box them in by pretending they said different things than what they actually did.
The current Govt's manifesto was quite bleak. It wasn't promising the earth
They promised not to increase income tax, NI, and VAT, on the working man. Yet they are struggling to define the working man. They seem to be considering freezing the income tax allowances for a further two years, which would obviously not be consistent with the above pledge, and not raise any money for years, as the Tories had already frozen them until 2028. Also the measures that raise the most money, are those that most of us pay. The press are making a big deal about the possible 2% increase on employers NI contributions, I dont believe this would break the promise, and in reality, probably not cause much damage to small businesses. Do you think that they would have been better undoing the Tories reduction in NI? This could have easily funded the Winter Fuel Allowance, for more people, and the general public whinge less about funding the NHS. There would have been a good pitch on raising more money to reduce waiting lists, and NHS improvements, as well as funding the state pension.
Disagree. With pretty much all of that.
1. Defining the working man? Depends how technical people want to be. I have an overly-simplistic view. One that I suspect is shared by the vast majority of the electorate. Where "working men" are employees. Both male and female. It is true to say that a wider definition could include various employers. But no-one seriously thought Labour meant those people. Which is (of course) why all the Right Wing Press did not mention it before the election. Because they didn't either
2. Freezing the income tax allowances for a further 2 years? As you rightly say, these were already frozen til 2028. By the last Govt. At least Labour appear to be only freezing it for their own Govt. Not the next one. In any event "freezing" is not "increasing". Extra Revenue has to come from somewhere-it is naive for anyone to think that if there are promises not to do A, B, C and D that there are not going to be increases in the other bits.
3. The likely 2% increase on employers NI? Agree doesn't break the promise-however much the Mail etc claim otherwise. Part of me think small employers (perhaps those that employ less than 25 people) should have been spared this
4. The NI bit? I think it is high time that NI was abolished. It is income tax. Pretending it is something else. All Govts should be honest. Call it what it is. Winter Fuel Allowance? Don't agree. Allowances should be directed to need. Not just an age. And people will always whinge about NHS funding. Wanting (as you would say) both the penny and the bun
5. Money alone doesn't reduce waiting lists. Need the medical staff and the hospital capacity. In any event, think it is easily achievable to make it less awful. While fiscally impossible to make it good. Funding the state pension? No Govt in the UK has ever done this. They should. Trouble is, every Party knows that the public would refuse to vote for anyone that did
Newspapers are in the business of selling newspapers. Something that they are not very good at. And are generally going bankrupt. But not as quickly as the UK would if anyone ever implemented their ideas
I think the Press are trying to box them in by pretending they said different things than what they actually did.
The current Govt's manifesto was quite bleak. It wasn't promising the earth
They promised not to increase income tax, NI, and VAT, on the working man. Yet they are struggling to define the working man. They seem to be considering freezing the income tax allowances for a further two years, which would obviously not be consistent with the above pledge, and not raise any money for years, as the Tories had already frozen them until 2028. Also the measures that raise the most money, are those that most of us pay. The press are making a big deal about the possible 2% increase on employers NI contributions, I dont believe this would break the promise, and in reality, probably not cause much damage to small businesses. Do you think that they would have been better undoing the Tories reduction in NI? This could have easily funded the Winter Fuel Allowance, for more people, and the general public whinge less about funding the NHS. There would have been a good pitch on raising more money to reduce waiting lists, and NHS improvements, as well as funding the state pension.
Disagree. With pretty much all of that.
Quelle surprise.
1. Defining the working man? Depends how technical people want to be. I have an overly-simplistic view. One that I suspect is shared by the vast majority of the electorate. Where "working men" are employees. Both male and female. It is true to say that a wider definition could include various employers. But no-one seriously thought Labour meant those people. Which is (of course) why all the Right Wing Press did not mention it before the election. Because they didn't either
The Labour Party have sent a wide range of Ministers etc for interviews who have had differing definitions, or have refused to define a working man. One particular area of confusion is a one man band that owns say a cafe, or a corner shop, that spends many hours working in them every week. Are they a working man or a business owner?
3. Freezing the income tax allowances for a further 2 years? As you rightly say, these were already frozen til 2028. By the last Govt. At least Labour appear to be only freezing it for their own Govt. Not the next one. In any event "freezing" is not "increasing". Extra Revenue has to come from somewhere-it is naive for anyone to think that if there are promises not to do A, B, C and D that there are not going to be increases in the other bits.
Although this measure surely breaks their promise. Because the income tax of working men will increase during this parliament.
4. The likely 2% increase on employers NI? Agree doesn't break the promise-however much the Mail etc claim otherwise. Part of me think small employers (perhaps those that employ less than 25 people) should have been spared this
Maybe, but that would just dilute the proceeds too much.
5. The NI bit? I think it is high time that NI was abolished. It is income tax. Pretending it is something else. All Govts should be honest. Call it what it is. Winter Fuel Allowance? Don't agree. Allowances should be directed to need. Not just an age. And people will always whinge about NHS funding. Wanting (as you would say) both the penny and the bun
Abolishing NI just creates a bigger hole. A hole that would surely have to be filled by increasing other taxes. As it is used to mostly fund the NHS, and state pension, I really dont see the point. The Labour Party have been battered over the Winter Fuel Allowance. They might have been better funding some of the borderline cases. Nobody is happy with over 7 million on NHS waiting lists
6. Money alone doesn't reduce waiting lists. Need the medical staff and the hospital capacity. In any event, think it is easily achievable to make it less awful. While fiscally impossible to make it good. Funding the state pension? No Govt in the UK has ever done this. They should. Trouble is, every Party knows that the public would refuse to vote for anyone that did
In the longer term. In the shorter term they could pay to use the private sector.
Newspapers are in the business of selling newspapers. Something that they are not very good at. And are generally going bankrupt. But not as quickly as the UK would if anyone ever implemented their ideas
Let's look at some of the points you raise. Because they are genuinely interesting. And involve factual answers that no politician would ever dare answer.
1. Your "one man band" owning a cafe. The reality is that, in some senses, he is a business owner. And in some senses a worker. Something the Labour Party are jumping through hoops to try and avoid saying He could choose to pay himself as an employee. But, for the most part, he will not. Why? On advice. Simply because profits on a properly set up business are taxed at a lower rate than employees. Tax + Employee NI + Employer NI being much higher than taxation on Company profits, dividends etc. For tax purposes, he is rather better off not being a worker. So he chooses not to be. Not saying that should be the case. Just that it is.
3. You are looking at what you think the wording should say. Not what it does say. This freeze is going to continue until a Party gets elected expressly saying that it will not. I'm not saying that is "fair"-just that it is perfectly legal
5. I'm not making myself sufficiently clear. Where people are currently paying (say) 20% Income Tax + 8% Employee NI Contributions, that is misleading. It should just (at that level) be 28% Tax. The extra paperwork is meaningless-except for politicians to claim 1 or other of those 2 taxes is going up or down. The big lie is that NI is supposed to fund the good stuff-Pensions, the NHS etc. It never has. And it never will.
Let's look at some of the points you raise. Because they are genuinely interesting. And involve factual answers that no politician would ever dare answer.
1. Your "one man band" owning a cafe. The reality is that, in some senses, he is a business owner. And in some senses a worker. Something the Labour Party are jumping through hoops to try and avoid saying He could choose to pay himself as an employee. But, for the most part, he will not. Why? On advice. Simply because profits on a properly set up business are taxed at a lower rate than employees. Tax + Employee NI + Employer NI being much higher than taxation on Company profits, dividends etc. For tax purposes, he is rather better off not being a worker. So he chooses not to be. Not saying that should be the case. Just that it is.
Whatever the case it is likely that he will face an increased NI bill for any employees he may have.
3. You are looking at what you think the wording should say. Not what it does say. This freeze is going to continue until a Party gets elected expressly saying that it will not. I'm not saying that is "fair"-just that it is perfectly legal
No, what aI am saying is that despite Labours manifesto promises, the tax bill for working people will increase during this parliament, as a result of the extended freeze.
6. I'm not making myself sufficiently clear. Where people are currently paying (say) 20% Income Tax + 8% Employee NI Contributions, that is misleading. It should just (at that level) be 28% Tax. The extra paperwork is meaningless-except for politicians to claim 1 or other of those 2 taxes is going up or down. The big lie is that NI is supposed to fund the good stuff-Pensions, the NHS etc. It never has. And it never will.
I would agree with that. The Tories just created a bigger hole by reducing it. I was just making the point that reducing NI was pointless, if the last, or the current government intend increasing other taxes that the majority of us pay, in order to fill the hole. I think that Labour could have undone the reduction.
"Starmer humiliated as pollster warns plummeting popularity is 'really worrying' for Labour"
This seems pretty standard for the early days of an incoming Government.
For me, tough financial decisions NEED to be made, & the sooner the better. And it could certainly be worse, imagine where we'd be if Dolly Dewdrop were still PM....
Just wanted to make a quick point on the Budget. A political point. But not 1 in favour of any political party.
You may have heard today that the Chancellor has claimed that, within 2 years, revenue from taxes will exceed "day to day spending".
Now-that is clearly a step forward. But it is not quite the step forward you might think. Because a Government's "day to day spending" isn't what you or I think of as "day to day spending".
It does not include the National Debt (over £2,500,000,000,000.00. It does not include interest payments on that £2.5 Trillion.
Imagine telling your bank. I'm earning fractionally more than I am spending. As long as you don't count the £250,000 Mortgage, the £100,000 unsecured debt, or the interest payments...
Comments
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/other/streeting-fiance-s-100-000-labour-hq-job-sparks-new-cronyism-row-for-starmer/ar-AA1sJUO3?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=7c0d9b72e1f747898f16611d6d1efcd4&ei=45#fullscreen
I think the Press are trying to box them in by pretending they said different things than what they actually did.
The current Govt's manifesto was quite bleak. It wasn't promising the earth
Yet they are struggling to define the working man.
They seem to be considering freezing the income tax allowances for a further two years, which would obviously not be consistent with the above pledge, and not raise any money for years, as the Tories had already frozen them until 2028.
Also the measures that raise the most money, are those that most of us pay.
The press are making a big deal about the possible 2% increase on employers NI contributions, I dont believe this would break the promise, and in reality, probably not cause much damage to small businesses.
Do you think that they would have been better undoing the Tories reduction in NI?
This could have easily funded the Winter Fuel Allowance, for more people, and the general public whinge less about funding the NHS.
There would have been a good pitch on raising more money to reduce waiting lists, and NHS improvements, as well as funding the state pension.
1. Defining the working man? Depends how technical people want to be. I have an overly-simplistic view. One that I suspect is shared by the vast majority of the electorate. Where "working men" are employees. Both male and female. It is true to say that a wider definition could include various employers. But no-one seriously thought Labour meant those people. Which is (of course) why all the Right Wing Press did not mention it before the election. Because they didn't either
2. Freezing the income tax allowances for a further 2 years? As you rightly say, these were already frozen til 2028. By the last Govt. At least Labour appear to be only freezing it for their own Govt. Not the next one. In any event "freezing" is not "increasing". Extra Revenue has to come from somewhere-it is naive for anyone to think that if there are promises not to do A, B, C and D that there are not going to be increases in the other bits.
3. The likely 2% increase on employers NI? Agree doesn't break the promise-however much the Mail etc claim otherwise. Part of me think small employers (perhaps those that employ less than 25 people) should have been spared this
4. The NI bit? I think it is high time that NI was abolished. It is income tax. Pretending it is something else. All Govts should be honest. Call it what it is. Winter Fuel Allowance? Don't agree. Allowances should be directed to need. Not just an age. And people will always whinge about NHS funding. Wanting (as you would say) both the penny and the bun
5. Money alone doesn't reduce waiting lists. Need the medical staff and the hospital capacity. In any event, think it is easily achievable to make it less awful. While fiscally impossible to make it good. Funding the state pension? No Govt in the UK has ever done this. They should. Trouble is, every Party knows that the public would refuse to vote for anyone that did
Newspapers are in the business of selling newspapers. Something that they are not very good at. And are generally going bankrupt. But not as quickly as the UK would if anyone ever implemented their ideas
1. Your "one man band" owning a cafe. The reality is that, in some senses, he is a business owner. And in some senses a worker. Something the Labour Party are jumping through hoops to try and avoid saying
He could choose to pay himself as an employee. But, for the most part, he will not. Why? On advice. Simply because profits on a properly set up business are taxed at a lower rate than employees. Tax + Employee NI + Employer NI being much higher than taxation on Company profits, dividends etc. For tax purposes, he is rather better off not being a worker. So he chooses not to be. Not saying that should be the case. Just that it is.
3. You are looking at what you think the wording should say. Not what it does say. This freeze is going to continue until a Party gets elected expressly saying that it will not. I'm not saying that is "fair"-just that it is perfectly legal
5. I'm not making myself sufficiently clear. Where people are currently paying (say) 20% Income Tax + 8% Employee NI Contributions, that is misleading. It should just (at that level) be 28% Tax. The extra paperwork is meaningless-except for politicians to claim 1 or other of those 2 taxes is going up or down. The big lie is that NI is supposed to fund the good stuff-Pensions, the NHS etc. It never has. And it never will.
The Tories just created a bigger hole by reducing it.
I was just making the point that reducing NI was pointless, if the last, or the current government intend increasing other taxes that the majority of us pay, in order to fill the hole.
I think that Labour could have undone the reduction.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/starmer-humiliated-as-pollster-warns-plummeting-popularity-is-really-worrying-for-labour/ar-AA1tb80u?ocid=msedgntp&pc=NMTS&cvid=051b580341554beaa2e8dc303b5d58b9&ei=60#fullscreen
This seems pretty standard for the early days of an incoming Government.
For me, tough financial decisions NEED to be made, & the sooner the better. And it could certainly be worse, imagine where we'd be if Dolly Dewdrop were still PM....
You may have heard today that the Chancellor has claimed that, within 2 years, revenue from taxes will exceed "day to day spending".
Now-that is clearly a step forward. But it is not quite the step forward you might think. Because a Government's "day to day spending" isn't what you or I think of as "day to day spending".
It does not include the National Debt (over £2,500,000,000,000.00. It does not include interest payments on that £2.5 Trillion.
Imagine telling your bank. I'm earning fractionally more than I am spending. As long as you don't count the £250,000 Mortgage, the £100,000 unsecured debt, or the interest payments...