I happened upon this after reading a suggestion that Starmer is a Pabloite.
I had no idea who Pablo was, or of his political ideology. Quite interesting.
I wonder what Labour will settle on as their definition of “working people” where it comes to tax rises.
First they said anyone who earns over £100,000 isnt a working person (which is ironic given that the cabinet earn more that this)
Then it was anyone with rental income / share income isnt a working person
Kier said this week working people are:
“those people who work hard and are anxious about whether they can make ends meet, and know that should something happen to them and their family they can’t write a cheque to get out of the problem”.
Seems to me that the closer we get to this budget, the narrower the definition is getting. Soon it will only be those paying basic rate
A lot of wordsmithing and avoiding the (repeated) question going on. Buckle up everyone not on the basic rate wage, it’s going to be a rough one
“No increase of tax in payslips for working people” today
Good luck if you are self employed
What about us poor dods out of eork!
Bstds
That’s squeasy for you too wright. 
Very few potential employers place much importance on literacy, Phil. 
Shssh.
She thinks I’m trying really hard
Strap in - the budget is off and running
We are all going to wishing for Saints levels of penetration in an hours time
13 minutes in and fuck all said - except they have found another 13Bn for compensation schemes
well that sucked
With the minimum wage rises and changes to ers NI - the cost of someone at that level has gone up 9.25%
That is going to fuck so many small businesses particularly in the hospitality trade
The minimum wage rise will also affect pay grade scales for large employers, so i guess they’ll have to up most wage scales.
NI is quite a jump. will cost us a few bob.
The NI alone will cost us £160k - that banding move is fucking sneaky - basically every single worker doing more than 20 hours a week will cost their employer an additional £600 pa just on that without taking into account the rate rise
Everyone puts up their prices to cover the costs.
People will buy less.
Repeat
Ummm read the detail, but there are plenty of ways to reduce the impact if as a business owner you stop and think about it.
If it’s a problem companies need to think if they are actually well run and if not how long will they remain in business, but you need to congratulate them for surviving so far.
Most comments I’ve seen elsewhere have been more hysterical knee jerk reactions tbf.
The first that springs to mind is put prices up
The second is reduce planned wages rises
What these changes have done is disproportionately affect smaller businesses that have many minimum wage workers - the % increase in the cost of there employees is much greater that those businesses who have a similar number of high paid worker eg hedge funds
1 Like
Yes, but tgat is what elites want
At the end of Capitalism defend against all up and comers
But didn’t the changes allow smaller employers to take on (4?) more employees on the living wage?
The other thing I’ve seen companies talking about, those who are really bothered about their workers, is reducing shareholder dividends - ok that will really piss off selfish business owners and maybe for larger firms institutional shareholders, but what’s better a reduced profit to allow a company to still develop and grow or short term gain and fuck the workers? I suspect your firm falls into that category.
My firms view is nothing changes. If we continue to grow then no change. Any impact will be absorbed by reduced Partner dividends. Doing the right thing profitably is something the right wing press seems very much against,