|
Post by Reviewer on Oct 31, 2024 20:20:00 GMT
Might have been a good idea to make public services exempt from the NI increase?
|
|
Goban
New Member
Posts: 320
|
Post by Goban on Oct 31, 2024 20:28:39 GMT
The increased NI payed by NHS staff will be payed directly back into the NHS apparently. According to radio 4
|
|
Chopsen
Junior Member
Posts: 2,681
Member is Online
|
Post by Chopsen on Oct 31, 2024 20:28:39 GMT
Yeah, but.... Then has a load of follow on questions. Why even have NHS providers (or even *any* public bodies) pay employer NI in the first place. Also what about weird little entities on the side lines that provide a lot of NHS services, but also have income from other sources? Also what if you're, say, a cleaning company that is subcontracted by NHS organisations to clean NHS properties. How do you work out what they do? It's just another fudge, on a house of cards of fudges that represents our tax system and everything that is wrong with it. It was a political decision to put it in employer NI instead of any other form of employment taxes. It was done because it won't show up on payslips, the vague bullshit lie about "we won't tax working people" that Labour pinned their messaging on. The govt have stated publicly that they will protect NHS providers from this, but having given absolutely no indication of how that would work. It's almost like they haven't really considered it as a problem. STEALTH TAXES ARE ALWAYS STUPID. More fun reading if anybody's nerdy enough to care: www.nhsconfed.org/publications/autumn-budget-2024-what-you-need-know
|
|
Chopsen
Junior Member
Posts: 2,681
Member is Online
|
Post by Chopsen on Oct 31, 2024 20:29:45 GMT
The increased NI payed by NHS staff will be payed directly back into the NHS apparently. According to radio 4 This is the line that the government are taking with the press.
With the actual NHS tho: utter silence. No indication on how this will work, as per link above.
|
|
Goban
New Member
Posts: 320
|
Post by Goban on Oct 31, 2024 20:31:20 GMT
It would be fairly easy to implement for most directly employed staff.
|
|
Chopsen
Junior Member
Posts: 2,681
Member is Online
|
Post by Chopsen on Oct 31, 2024 20:32:51 GMT
It would be fairly easy to implement for most directly employed staff.
Not really, because of all the reason above. Treasury and your local tax office have no idea what people who work for the NHS are actually on. And how would you actually implement that?
|
|
Goban
New Member
Posts: 320
|
Post by Goban on Oct 31, 2024 20:33:00 GMT
Sub contractors, GPs and non directky employed staff would be out with this of course.
|
|
Chopsen
Junior Member
Posts: 2,681
Member is Online
|
Post by Chopsen on Oct 31, 2024 20:36:27 GMT
Again, coming back to the 6% pay rise.
That is the same problem. The government went "we're going to give everybody a 6% pay rise" and had absolutely no idea how to implement it. What they've actually ended up doing is just throwing a chunk of change to providers to address it, but it completely failed to consider other costs providers might have seen which also come out of the same budget (fuel/energy/rent/indemnity/drugs/equipment/toilet paper/oxygen cylinders/paint/pens/anything else) which have also gone up.
Payment flows within the NHS are complicated.
|
|
Goban
New Member
Posts: 320
|
Post by Goban on Oct 31, 2024 20:36:44 GMT
Cleaners are payed through sub contractors, Virgin health etc, so should quite rightly be paying more as they are for profit companies. It's really not that difficult.
|
|
Chopsen
Junior Member
Posts: 2,681
Member is Online
|
Post by Chopsen on Oct 31, 2024 20:38:27 GMT
Sub contractors, GPs and non directky employed staff would be out with this of course. Who are "directly employed" here?
Everybody who works for the NHS is employed by some body in the NHS that is working to a budget that is set.
Hospitals are independent legal entities (trusts, usually). *EVERYBODY* in the NHS is a subcontractor to somebody. Even commissioning bodies like ICBs are currently making people redundant to cut costs, and their remaining staff being more expensive is not going to help
|
|
Chopsen
Junior Member
Posts: 2,681
Member is Online
|
Post by Chopsen on Oct 31, 2024 20:38:50 GMT
Cleaners are payed through sub contractors, Virgin health etc, so should quite rightly be paying more as they are for profit companies. It's really not that difficult.
It's a lot more complicated than that.
|
|
Goban
New Member
Posts: 320
|
Post by Goban on Oct 31, 2024 20:39:25 GMT
Again, if it's being framed out to profit making companies they wouldn't benefit. As with any increases to tax on private companies, there will be a knock on effect to service costs to retain profit. Another reason why this shit should never have been subbed out.
|
|
Goban
New Member
Posts: 320
|
Post by Goban on Oct 31, 2024 20:44:51 GMT
Yeah, fair play, it's complicated. But the HMRC know who is paying Tax, trusts are not for profit management tools, as are most of the other examples. There are bound to be a few problems, but broadly speaking it's something that can be worked out.
|
|
Chopsen
Junior Member
Posts: 2,681
Member is Online
|
Post by Chopsen on Oct 31, 2024 20:46:33 GMT
Again, if it's being framed out to profit making companies they wouldn't benefit. As with any increases to tax on private companies, there will be a knock on effect to service costs to retain profit. Another reason why this shit should never have been subbed out.
I was not talking about profit making companies.
At this point I'm just repeating a point you're not getting, either wilfully or you're not engaging for other reasons. I get the feeling you're shadow boxing a bit with those evil profit making guys like Virgin and assuming I'm fighting their corner? NHS Confederation (the link I gave above) represents all NHS providers. Including the "non-profit" ones: yer normal NHS trusts and the like. I'm not talking about problems that exclusively affect those that extract profit.
Everybody who provides an NHS service runs to budget. They all are providing that service on a contract. They have financial targets and limits defined in those contracts. The funding is not related to staff pay. The treasury are saying one thing to the press and are stonewalling the NHS as a whole on the same issue. I don't think I can make it clearer than that.
|
|
Goban
New Member
Posts: 320
|
Post by Goban on Oct 31, 2024 20:52:28 GMT
No, I understand all that.
I just don't think that because it's not been made clear yet to the NHS, that it will be a problem. It may be, but I'm not moving to that conclusion, yet.
|
|
Chopsen
Junior Member
Posts: 2,681
Member is Online
|
Post by Chopsen on Oct 31, 2024 20:56:58 GMT
You have a lot more faith in this process than I do.
|
|
Goban
New Member
Posts: 320
|
Post by Goban on Oct 31, 2024 20:57:51 GMT
I just think it would be beyond fucking stupid if they hadn't factored that on to their calculations. As much as I like to be sceptical, I really don't think they are. I hope the fuck not, otherwise we are well and truly screwed.
|
|
|
Post by thorbz on Oct 31, 2024 21:09:01 GMT
Just imagine being a gutter press numpty who'd shilled for austerity, Brexit and the Liz Truss insider trading shitshow, and going " this is really bad ". Until the client media is absolutely destroyed, this country is basically ungovernable.
|
|
|
Post by knighty on Oct 31, 2024 21:55:19 GMT
Yeah I would just like to believe it’s been factored in and the details just haven’t been filtered down to all groups (including all other ministers potentially) just yet - it’s only been a day!
|
|
Chopsen
Junior Member
Posts: 2,681
Member is Online
|
Post by Chopsen on Oct 31, 2024 22:47:37 GMT
I'm sure it *can* be solved. We've put man on the moon and invented the bouncy castle. We are truly astounding in our inventiveness and adaptability.
My elaboration is a bit of a side show in just how needlessly complicated this is compared to what could have been.
The point I initially jumped in on and elaborated on was monkey's post about they could have just put this on PAYE and be done with it and the same result would have been the case and it would saved a *lot* of hassle. Several hours of many expensive people's time is now being wasted on working out how to fudge this so it works. And although from a uninvolved bystander this should seem simple, it isn't. This will take likely months of horse trading and phone calls and meetings and emails involving some very expensive people spending hours of their time to sort something out that might sort of cover it maybe. Been there, got the t-shirt, same bullshit different government.
It's just all needlessly complicated. People ask for efficiency in the public sector, and then are happy with this? It's nuts.
People will eventually end up with the same take home pay as they would have either way. This isn't some cunning ruse to make The Man pay for this. Ironically the usual Bad Guys will be fine. Deliveroo and Uber and them lot do everything they can to employ people off payroll so these kinds of taxes will never affect them. The Amazons and Twitters of the world will similarly do the same or have the investor sentiment they can go to "soz, less profit from the UK because the government, don't blame us" and people will still throw money at them because they're a global company and this is just one tax jurisdiction among many. The exploiters who take the piss will still take the piss.
Those who run small business restricted to the UK, not so great. Pubs, restaurants, smaller independent trades and service industry in price sensitive industries that rely on discretionary spend when everybody's wages are stagnant and they're cutting back on disposable income: this is going to hurt.
Megacorps aren't going to notice.
|
|
|
Post by Nitrous on Nov 1, 2024 0:24:42 GMT
Can't say I like this national insurance contributions increase. Not only has the percentage gone up but the threshold for the maximum amount an employee can earn before NI contributions has to be paid has been lowered.
Mike Ashley will have found a way to get around this problem.
As for it's effect on wage increases being lower it can't get any lower for those earning the minimum already.
|
|
|
Post by knighty on Nov 1, 2024 3:14:09 GMT
Well, quite. And it seems a bit of a fudge to say it will really harm the NHS while saying ‘megacorps won’t notice’. And sticking a load of carve outs for public sector in there would surely also involve lots of expensive peoples time in working out exactly how it’s to be done?
If I’m on minimum wage I’d rather it was my employers problem than mine directly in my paypacket.
|
|
mcmonkeyplc
Junior Member
General Martok Qapla!
Posts: 3,082
|
Post by mcmonkeyplc on Nov 1, 2024 8:43:35 GMT
Everything you said is why the NHS is ripe for some serious reform...and also why the tax system needs reform.
|
|
mcmonkeyplc
Junior Member
General Martok Qapla!
Posts: 3,082
|
Post by mcmonkeyplc on Nov 1, 2024 8:46:43 GMT
If I’m on minimum wage I’d rather it was my employers problem than mine directly in my paypacket. This is exactly what the problem is, "it's not my problem it's yours so I'm fine". It will be your problem, you're not fine and you shouldn't be fine cause taxes need to go up to pay for half decent services. BUT NO! I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR ANYTHING! This isn't a dig knighty it's a general gripe I have. People appear to have forgotten: "There is no such thing as a free lunch".
|
|
Frog
Full Member
Posts: 7,279
Member is Online
|
Post by Frog on Nov 1, 2024 9:03:58 GMT
I don't think anyone on minimum wage is fine, it's not enough to live on and they shouldn't be having any additional money taken from them.
|
|
minimatt
Junior Member
hyper mediocrity
Posts: 1,684
|
Post by minimatt on Nov 1, 2024 9:18:46 GMT
on the subject of the minimum wage, I was struck by the interviews with "business owners" about how the increase would affect their costs
they had no embarrassment whatsoever about paying their staff the absolute bare legal minimum and how they'd pay them even less if they could. That's not a business to be proud of my man, and you can take that page about how you value your staff down from your website
employer's NI will increase costs sure, but businesses aren't viable without an educated workforce, without a health system to keep them productive after whatever drudge work you assign them has destroyed their joints, without a legal system which largely keeps your business safe, without infrastructure to transport your goods
|
|
|
Post by knighty on Nov 1, 2024 9:30:20 GMT
If I’m on minimum wage I’d rather it was my employers problem than mine directly in my paypacket. This is exactly what the problem is, "it's not my problem it's yours so I'm fine". It will be your problem, you're not fine and you shouldn't be fine cause taxes need to go up to pay for half decent services. BUT NO! I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR ANYTHING! This isn't a dig knighty it's a general gripe I have. People appear to have forgotten: "There is no such thing as a free lunch". Quite rightly it should fall on the employers paying pisstake wages than those on said pisstake wages. I’m very much for more tax. Just let’s not take it out the pocket of the bloke earning min wage.
|
|
|
Post by drhickman1983 on Nov 1, 2024 9:34:01 GMT
I'm sure it *can* be solved. We've put man on the moon and invented the bouncy castle. Sorry for the aside and off-topic comment but now I'm just picturing people using the bouncy castle to get to the moon.
|
|
X201
Full Member
Posts: 5,112
|
Post by X201 on Nov 1, 2024 9:34:21 GMT
Yet again this morning on the radio, a business owner moaning about NI and minimum wage increase, in an attempt to not seem like the governor of a Victorian workhouse actually added "... I'm glad for my staff that they get a pay rise, they deserve one"
Lost count of the number of business owners I've heard in recent days who have a bee in their bonnet, but have accidentally outed themselves on national TV and radio as people who only pay the lowest wages they can legally get away with.
|
|
askew
Full Member
Posts: 6,803
|
Post by askew on Nov 1, 2024 9:37:15 GMT
How else will they maximise shareholder value? It’s what they were born to do.
|
|