Put those two figures together that I’ve now talked about, and we come to a total increase in costs for the NHS as a result of Rachel Reeves increasing employers’ national insurance contributions of £3.3 billion.
OK. So public services – without an increase in their budget – are going to be buggered by the NI rise.
And, erm, so is the much larger private sector. But no worries from Spud about that of course….
Just a thought: If the private sector becomes a minority which can’t be far off then is it fascist to discriminate economically against that minority.
Is Spud implicitly acknowledging that employers NI eventually get paid by employees and customers, something that can’t happen in the public sector?
Or does he thinks that evil capitalists will accept lower profits and small business owners will be happy to accept a lower level of profit?
This particular £20bn is to enable Ms Reeves to take tough decisions and help put the nhs back on its feet. It must be true, the bbc says so. Maybe £3.3bn extra spending is bigger than £20bn extra revenue in spudonomics?
Presumably the money already committed to pay for all those public sector pay increases will have to be raised from somewhere else.
And on top of that there’s the sacred, unknown and unknowable £22bn black hole which simply must be filled and therefore justifies removing winter fuel allowances etc.
I have it on reliable authority that the stupidity of Labour ministers is not the usual sort of stupidity, it’s a rare and unusual ignorance of the sort that makes walking and breathing simultaneously somewhat of a trial. They don’t even wet their fingers before they wave them in the air when deciding which policy the civil serpents put before them…
Hasn’t Reeves stated that the public sector would be exempted the rise in employers NI (or it will be covered by central gov)?
@Addolff -Yes. I think a refund rather than an exemption. I’d be very surprised if this wasn’t a fiddle too far, though and that legions of business owners will be able to find a basis for saying that their human rights are being infringed or some such.
Team TTK are sliding ever further along the laughter curve.
Dear BiND
Indeed he is, and has made an entire video, available on Youtube, making exactly, and solely this point.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_nLnuvsVFH0
And don’t forget, commenting is possible!
Murphy always supports tax rises that don’t affect him.
It will be interesting to see what he says if Reeves scraps or limits the tax free pension lump sum.
Martin Scorsese of Ely, ie Murphy’s son who does the “professional” videos, who is definitely, unquestionably, not an actual or hypothetical employee, works through a personal services company I believe so may be able to avoid employment tax on his fees from Murphy’s LLP and be unaffected by an employer’s NICs rise. Yes, I know, IR35 could apply.
But anyway, there’s no such thing as tax avoidance strategies in the Murphy family!
Nooo, the content of the videos is produced by Tax Research LLP t/a Funding The Future, while the production of the videos about contracting out being bad are contracted out to Elidir Productions LLP. And are neither are a device to get out of paying Employer NICs when you effectively employ yourself, or to get round rules about grant funding to individuals.
Bridget Phillipson declines to say whether a small business owner was a ‘working person’
4.23 million people are self-employed, so more than three-quarters of the 5.51m small business owners are working and have no-one else working for them.
While a few of the others may have retired and rely on their children (or someone else) to carry on the business, the overwhelming majority of small business owners whom I know and have employees are also working in the business, so I reckon that over 90% of small business owners are working people. Labour are trying to talk their way out of having the media show them up as liars
@John
to take tough decisions and help put the nhs back on its feet
the tough decision would be to quietly shoot it before it attempts to raise its ugly head and replace it with something that delivers better patient outcomes for the eye watering large number of people employed and money spent.
If extra taxation costs the NHS £1 billion per year, then by diverting that billion raised in taxes back into the NHS, the government can claim to have increased NHS funding by £1 billion.
Similarly, if extra taxation costs some other public service money, then that’s a great way to move the money to a different service without being seen to make cuts.
And, of course, the extra money raised from the private sector is a wonderful bonus – which is why it doesn’t really matter if there’s no net tax revenue increase.
Fuck’em all, I’m calling it a day, they can find another mug to help the balance if payments.
@NN,
Thanks but 30 seconds of his condescending tone had me wanting to throw my keyboard at the screen. The subtitles aren’t much better, they look like were done by someone who is colour blind for a bet.