OK, all of that was a long way round to get to my point. Which is this: If the OBR is using such conservative modelling and is expecting growth rates of 1-1.5% then in the real world, growth rates of 1.5-2% are much more likely.* Which means two things:
1. overall we're all be better off
2. the chancellor will have more money to play with in the second half of this parliament.
Except there's a step missing. It actually matters whether or not Reeves buys into the OBRs here, because the hidden assumption is that Reeves is making the kinds of public investments that's likely to lead to higher than the predicted growth rates. This is by no means clear (charitably - the poster goes on to list the types of investment needed, and Reeves isn't near that).
The issue is that the UKs economy is very close to capacity, so growth is going to come via higher productivity - either from productivity growth or shifting people away from low productivity sectors, and it's hard to see how this turns around in 2/3 years (wrt more headroom in the latter part of this Parliament).
OK, all of that was a long way round to get to my point. Which is this: If the OBR is using such conservative modelling and is expecting growth rates of 1-1.5% then in the real world, growth rates of 1.5-2% are much more likely.* Which means two things:
1. overall we're all be better off
2. the chancellor will have more money to play with in the second half of this parliament.
Except there's a step missing. It actually matters whether or not Reeves buys into the OBRs here, because the hidden assumption is that Reeves is making the kinds of public investments that's likely to lead to higher than the predicted growth rates. This is by no means clear (charitably - the poster goes on to list the types of investment needed, and Reeves isn't near that).
The issue is that the UKs economy is very close to capacity, so growth is going to come via higher productivity - either from productivity growth or shifting people away from low productivity sectors, and it's hard to see how this turns around in 2/3 years (wrt more headroom in the latter part of this Parliament).
I don't agree with all of the analysis there. Even if you accept the premise that Reeves is not do as much as she could, it doesn't change the fact that the OBR model is likely given a low estimate of future growth.
More to follow. There's a few experts who's analysis I am still waiting for but this point jumped out for me.
the hidden assumption is that Reeves is making the kinds of public investments that's likely to lead to higher than the predicted growth rates. This is by no means clear (charitably - the poster goes on to list the types of investment needed, and Reeves isn't near that).
The issue is that the UKs economy is very close to capacity, so growth is going to come via higher productivity - either from productivity growth or shifting people away from low productivity sectors, and it's hard to see how this turns around in 2/3 years (wrt more headroom in the latter part of this Parliament).
Sorry I couldn't find/read the post referred to. What are the sorts of investment needed? Is there economic consensus on this?
I believe the UK infamously suffers from "low productivity" though I'm not sure whether there is agreement on why. I imagine it is due to being heavy on the sorts of service job for which it is difficult to make an individual more productive through capital investment. Is that what "shifting people away from low productivity sectors" refers to? What are the higher productivity sectors they might be moved towards?
The whole thing is fuss about relatively little, for reasons which are all over the Xittersphere. With the £1m agricultural exemption and the personal IHT threshold, in luding the residency factor, very few small farms will be affected. It's just all part of the usual rhetoric.
The whole thing is fuss about relatively little, for reasons which are all over the Xittersphere. With the £1m agricultural exemption and the personal IHT threshold, in luding the residency factor, very few small farms will be affected. It's just all part of the usual rhetoric.
Yeah, someone was on the radio lamenting that 50% of farms would be affected, which presumably means the 50% least valuable will not, and that must surely include most family farms and crofts.
I think there is a threshold before it kicks in and yes, smaller farms and crofts may well fall within that. We'll see how it pans put.
Likewise with those business people interviewed so far who've been saying they won't be able to expand or take on new staff etc.
Of course, the more right-wing media will over-egg and promote these views but I don't sense an upsurge in acclaim for the budget across the business community.
But again, We'll see. I hope @alienfromzog is right and this represents a smart move on the Chancellor's part but we'll have to wait and see.
I think there is a threshold before it kicks in and yes, smaller farms and crofts may well fall within that. We'll see how it pans put.
Likewise with those business people interviewed so far who've been saying they won't be able to expand or take on new staff etc.
Of course, the more right-wing media will over-egg and promote these views but I don't sense an upsurge in acclaim for the budget across the business community.
But again, We'll see. I hope @alienfromzog is right and this represents a smart move on the Chancellor's part but we'll have to wait and see.
I was quite anxious about the Inheritance Tax changes on farms when I heard about them. To make a living, one needs quire a lot of land hence the very real risk of owning land worth millions but have an annual income of only tens of thousands.
I think there is a threshold before it kicks in and yes, smaller farms and crofts may well fall within that. We'll see how it pans put.
Likewise with those business people interviewed so far who've been saying they won't be able to expand or take on new staff etc.
Of course, the more right-wing media will over-egg and promote these views but I don't sense an upsurge in acclaim for the budget across the business community.
But again, We'll see. I hope @alienfromzog is right and this represents a smart move on the Chancellor's part but we'll have to wait and see.
I was quite anxious about the Inheritance Tax changes on farms when I heard about them. To make a living, one needs quire a lot of land hence the very real risk of owning land worth millions but have an annual income of only tens of thousands.
Tbh the farmers round me are screaming blue murder and agricultural commentators are saying this will pull in anyone with more than 100 acres (and making the pint that these days 2 tractors and a combine is your million quid before you even look at acreage.
The average English farm (crofts being thin on the ground south of the border) is 88ha, which is 170 acres, ish.
Anyway, Twitter these days not letting you read threads without being a member, my first question would be what percentage of that 87% of inherited agricultural property is a farm, as opposed to an orchard or a paddock?
Meanwhile, other than passing on the general sense of flaming pitchforks and slurry wagons being readied round here, I’m continuing to reserve judgement until next week.
And while, yes, replacing 2 brand new tractors and a combine might well cost £1M, that's not their accounting value and nobody is buying that much new equipment in one go unless it's part of a much larger operation or they have a huge amount of cash to splash.
Oh, you mean like the Tories did over their whole 14 years of government? That will be a "no". Spending money they couldn't account for is, and always has been, a Tory thing. Now they have been nailed for it by the Office of Budget Responsibility. This will be on their list of charges against them for a very long time.
The Office of Budget Responsibility is rergarded as a joke. They always get their forcasts very wrong.
Regarded as a joke by whom?
By people who point out that they are always wromg.
NB...Nothing in that budget to help growth in the Private sector
I think there is a threshold before it kicks in and yes, smaller farms and crofts may well fall within that. We'll see how it pans put.
Likewise with those business people interviewed so far who've been saying they won't be able to expand or take on new staff etc.
Of course, the more right-wing media will over-egg and promote these views but I don't sense an upsurge in acclaim for the budget across the business community.
But again, We'll see. I hope @alienfromzog is right and this represents a smart move on the Chancellor's part but we'll have to wait and see.
I was quite anxious about the Inheritance Tax changes on farms when I heard about them. To make a living, one needs quire a lot of land hence the very real risk of owning land worth millions but have an annual income of only tens of thousands.
Tbh the farmers round me are screaming blue murder and agricultural commentators are saying this will pull in anyone with more than 100 acres (and making the pint that these days 2 tractors and a combine is your million quid before you even look at acreage.
The average value is being pulled up by large agri-businesses, if you look at settled claims:
73% of claims were under £1m (and the farmhouse would be separate).
(Further, there's evidence if you compare agricultural yields with interest rates that agricultural land is probably over valued due to its use as an inheritance tax shield).
I think there is a threshold before it kicks in and yes, smaller farms and crofts may well fall within that. We'll see how it pans put.
Likewise with those business people interviewed so far who've been saying they won't be able to expand or take on new staff etc.
Of course, the more right-wing media will over-egg and promote these views but I don't sense an upsurge in acclaim for the budget across the business community.
But again, We'll see. I hope @alienfromzog is right and this represents a smart move on the Chancellor's part but we'll have to wait and see.
I was quite anxious about the Inheritance Tax changes on farms when I heard about them. To make a living, one needs quire a lot of land hence the very real risk of owning land worth millions but have an annual income of only tens of thousands.
Tbh the farmers round me are screaming blue murder and agricultural commentators are saying this will pull in anyone with more than 100 acres (and making the pint that these days 2 tractors and a combine is your million quid before you even look at acreage.
The average value is being pulled up by large agri-businesses, if you look at settled claims:
73% of claims were under £1m (and the farmhouse would be separate).
(Further, there's evidence if you compare agricultural yields with interest rates that agricultural land is probably over valued due to its use as an inheritance tax shield).
That last part is a good point. Because if that's true (and it probably is) then in the long term this will reduce the value of farming land, making farming cheaper. So that's a real positive for farmers!
Wealth is created by the private sector. A strong private sector is vital to pay for the public sector.
No. If wealth is created by creating jobs, public sector jobs create wealth in just the same way as private sector jobs do. A shopkeeper doesn't care if their customer is public sector or private sector: their money spends just the same.
Money of course is created by the government.
(The reason you want a balance between private and public sector spending in your economy is not directly to do with creating wealth.)
That said, raising the lowest tax band, and thus cutting the tax paid by the poorest, is a very effective way of putting more money in the pockets of some of the poorest people in the country with the resulting high bang-for-buck boost in the economy.
It is well known that money in the pockets of poorer people has a multiplier of significantly greater than 1 (because you give people money, and they spend it, mostly in local places that in turn generates other economic activity). The corollary is that removing money from the pockets of poorer people also has a multiplier of greater than 1, but with the sign that you don't want.
By contrast, putting extra money in the pockets of the comfortably-off tends to have a lower multiplier, because it tends to generate saving rather than spending.
Not increasing the threshold for the basic rate of tax is an unfortunate choice, because it looks like economic shrinkage with a large multiplier.
It is well known that money in the pockets of poorer people has a multiplier of significantly greater than 1 (because you give people money, and they spend it, mostly in local places that in turn generates other economic activity). The corollary is that removing money from the pockets of poorer people also has a multiplier of greater than 1, but with the sign that you don't want.
This is undoubtedly true. And a fact that has been ignored by the government for the past 14 years, it's one of many reasons why they kept failing to meet their own forecasts and targets.
Not increasing the threshold for the basic rate of tax is an unfortunate choice, because it looks like economic shrinkage with a large multiplier.
Changing tax thresholds is a very inefficient way of putting money in the pockets of poorer people. I apologise that this is just rough but I'm remembering back to around ~2012 when Osborne boasted about increasing the personal allowance - a policy that he took from the LibDems and claimed as his own. Anyway from memory, it cost around £11bn to put £1bn in the pockets of the lowest decile of income earners.
And public services and government funded infrastructure provide the environment in which the private sector can operate.
Standard response.
Because it's true.
The theory is true. In practice it fails. The bloated civil service needs to go back to pre covid levels
So, how do private sector businesses operate without public services and infrastructure? Who builds and maintains the roads and railways that their staff use to get to work, or they use to ship their goods? Who provides the education for their staff? Who keeps the crooks at bay (which includes not just police and criminal justice, but also maintenance of standards so businesses can have some certainty that they're getting what they pay for)? Who provides health services for workers and business owners?
Maybe you think businesses should pay for these themselves? Should they pay a proportion of their profits to run services that benefit their businesses? How is that different from pay tax for public services?
What I don't understand is how @KarlLB's comments are dismissed as a 'standard response' whereas @Telford's own comments don't apparently fall into that category when they tend to promote a standard line adopted by The Daily Mail and GBNews.
How is one view 'standard' and the other not?
Equally, the OBR is airily dismissed even though what it is currently saying accords with Telford's view.
And somewhere there are 'people' out there who know more about economics than economists or about running public services than people who run public services ...
What I don't understand is how @KarlLB's comments are dismissed as a 'standard response' whereas @Telford's own comments don't apparently fall into that category when they tend to promote a standard line adopted by The Daily Mail and GBNews.
How is one view 'standard' and the other not?
Equally, the OBR is airily dismissed even though what it is currently saying accords with Telford's view.
And somewhere there are 'people' out there who know more about economics than economists or about running public services than people who run public services ...
We see that over the period 2016-2020 the civil service increased by over 40,000. That might be down, one imagines, to Brexit, as that's the period between the referendum and actual withdrawal.
Then we get into Covid, and see just under a 50,000 increase from 2020 to 2022. However, the upward trend from 2016 had shown no sign of abating, so your estimate for extra recruitment to deal with Covid must range between 50,000, if the trend would otherwise have suddenly levelled, about 30,000 if it had carried on at its previous rate, or less than that if the increase had accelerated anyway following actual withdrawal from the EU.
I'm struggling to see where @Telford 's 100,000 come from.
I'm struggling to see where @Telford 's 100,000 come from.
I'd bet it's from the arse of a GB News presenter. JRM would be my guess.
The way some people talk you'd imagine there are 100,000 men in pinstripe suits and bowler hats recruited for Covid now turning up at Whitehall every day and doing nothing.
A trainee hairstylist who attends college for 1 day a week and works for the remaining 32 hours is classed as an apprentice.
Paid the Minimum Wage their combined salary (£10,649.6) and NI before the Budget came to £11,863.45. With the rise in the MW for apprentices from £6.40 to £7.55 (21.2%) and the increase in NI from 13.8% to 15% the cost of employing and training that apprentice is going to be £13,697.68 - is an increase of 15.46%.
How many businesses are going to be able to either absorb or pass on that kind of increase?
A trainee hairstylist who attends college for 1 day a week and works for the remaining 32 hours is classed as an apprentice.
Paid the Minimum Wage their combined salary (£10,649.6) and NI before the Budget came to £11,863.45. With the rise in the MW for apprentices from £6.40 to £7.55 (21.2%) and the increase in NI from 13.8% to 15% the cost of employing and training that apprentice is going to be £13,697.68 - is an increase of 15.46%.
How many businesses are going to be able to either absorb or pass on that kind of increase?
A lot will depend on the value of the work the apprentice is doing and what proportion of staff are apprentices, no?
A trainee hairstylist who attends college for 1 day a week and works for the remaining 32 hours is classed as an apprentice.
Paid the Minimum Wage their combined salary (£10,649.6) and NI before the Budget came to £11,863.45. With the rise in the MW for apprentices from £6.40 to £7.55 (21.2%) and the increase in NI from 13.8% to 15% the cost of employing and training that apprentice is going to be £13,697.68 - is an increase of 15.46%.
How many businesses are going to be able to either absorb or pass on that kind of increase?
A lot will depend on the value of the work the apprentice is doing and what proportion of staff are apprentices, no?
I'm not sure these figures are right:
Apprentices’ NI
Since the 5th April 2016 there has been a new National Insurance rate available for apprentices under 25. If you employ an apprentice under the age of 25, you may no longer have to pay employer Class 1 National Insurance contributions on their earnings up to the new Apprentice Upper Secondary Threshold.
The rate of Class 1 secondary NICs for certain apprentices under age 25 will be zero up to the new ‘Apprentice Upper Secondary Threshold’ (AUST) which, for the tax year starting 6 April 2016, will be the same as the Upper Earnings Limit (UEL). Class 1 secondary NICs will however continue to be payable on all earnings above this threshold. The basic rules and calculations of National Insurance including how Class 1 NICs are assessed will not be changed.
As far as I can see from that - and I'm sure someone can correct me if I'm misunderstanding something - the employer is and will continue to pay no NI at all for this apprentice.
.. and meanwhile we've moved on to 'why is the benefits bills so high?' (because the majority of benefits to people of working age go to the working poor) and 'why can't we train our own X any longer?'. If you like your house prices high then you are going to have to get used to wages rising.
If you don’t know what they were doing, how can you know they are not needed.
E.g. A building has 5 pillars, there is an earthquake, then there are 10 pillars put up - people say let’s go back to five pillars, but how many pillars you need now may be related to how much damage the earthquake did and whether it’s permanent.
Like people keep bitching that we have lots more sick people than we used to have.
After a pandemic of an illness that we know cause long term health issues for a subsection of those infected. Maybe, we just have more sick people now because shit happened. The way you have more amputees in the population after a war, there isn’t a sudden uptick in people pretending to have one leg, it’s just there are more people with one leg.
A trainee hairstylist who attends college for 1 day a week and works for the remaining 32 hours is classed as an apprentice.
Paid the Minimum Wage their combined salary (£10,649.6) and NI before the Budget came to £11,863.45. With the rise in the MW for apprentices from £6.40 to £7.55 (21.2%) and the increase in NI from 13.8% to 15% the cost of employing and training that apprentice is going to be £13,697.68 - is an increase of 15.46%.
How many businesses are going to be able to either absorb or pass on that kind of increase?
I am not an expert on hairdressers. But it seems to me that if the salon doesn't employ an apprentice, they are still going to have to employ someone to do the work done by apprentices which, as far as I can see, includes the initial shampooing. If not done by apprentices, should fully qualified hairdressers be doing the basic tasks themselves? Surely that would also have a cost?
And public services and government funded infrastructure provide the environment in which the private sector can operate.
Standard response.
Because it's true.
The theory is true. In practice it fails. The bloated civil service needs to go back to pre covid levels
Which functions do you want it to cease performing?
About 100,000 were recruited to deal with the effects of Covid. They are no longer needed.
What functions do you think those people are performing and why do you think those functions are no longer required?
I have no idea what they were doing. All I know is that they should not be needed any more,
Your second sentence is contradicted by your first.
Perhaps you could help me. Do you know why we still need the financial burden all these extra people ?
We don't even know how many extra people there are, as you will see if you read my earlier reply. We don't know what they are doing. Neither of us therefore knows whether we still need them.
You are still acting as if 100K people were recruited for Covid and aren't needed now but are still employed. You have provided evidence for not one of those assertions.
And public services and government funded infrastructure provide the environment in which the private sector can operate.
Standard response.
Because it's true.
The theory is true. In practice it fails. The bloated civil service needs to go back to pre covid levels
Which functions do you want it to cease performing?
About 100,000 were recruited to deal with the effects of Covid. They are no longer needed.
What functions do you think those people are performing and why do you think those functions are no longer required?
I have no idea what they were doing. All I know is that they should not be needed any more,
Your second sentence is contradicted by your first.
Perhaps you could help me. Do you know why we still need the financial burden all these extra people ?
Are there any extra people? Until someone comes up with evidence of any civil servants who are not doing something useful then the question "Do you know why we still need the financial burden all these extra people ? " is meaningless. There were 10s of thousands of people employed to help manage the pandemic - on track and trace, coordinating vaccination etc - but, the majority of those positions were with the private sector contracted to run those services rather than directly employed by the government, or moved temporarily from other roles within government.
And public services and government funded infrastructure provide the environment in which the private sector can operate.
Standard response.
Because it's true.
The theory is true. In practice it fails. The bloated civil service needs to go back to pre covid levels
Which functions do you want it to cease performing?
About 100,000 were recruited to deal with the effects of Covid. They are no longer needed.
What functions do you think those people are performing and why do you think those functions are no longer required?
I have no idea what they were doing. All I know is that they should not be needed any more,
Your second sentence is contradicted by your first.
Perhaps you could help me. Do you know why we still need the financial burden all these extra people ?
Are there any extra people? Until someone comes up with evidence of any civil servants who are not doing something useful then the question "Do you know why we still need the financial burden all these extra people ? " is meaningless. There were 10s of thousands of people employed to help manage the pandemic - on track and trace, coordinating vaccination etc - but, the majority of those positions were with the private sector contracted to run those services rather than directly employed by the government, or moved temporarily from other roles within government.
I got my information from Sir Jacob Rees Mogg and he should know that the problem exists
Comments
Except there's a step missing. It actually matters whether or not Reeves buys into the OBRs here, because the hidden assumption is that Reeves is making the kinds of public investments that's likely to lead to higher than the predicted growth rates. This is by no means clear (charitably - the poster goes on to list the types of investment needed, and Reeves isn't near that).
The issue is that the UKs economy is very close to capacity, so growth is going to come via higher productivity - either from productivity growth or shifting people away from low productivity sectors, and it's hard to see how this turns around in 2/3 years (wrt more headroom in the latter part of this Parliament).
I don't agree with all of the analysis there. Even if you accept the premise that Reeves is not do as much as she could, it doesn't change the fact that the OBR model is likely given a low estimate of future growth.
More to follow. There's a few experts who's analysis I am still waiting for but this point jumped out for me.
Sorry I couldn't find/read the post referred to. What are the sorts of investment needed? Is there economic consensus on this?
I believe the UK infamously suffers from "low productivity" though I'm not sure whether there is agreement on why. I imagine it is due to being heavy on the sorts of service job for which it is difficult to make an individual more productive through capital investment. Is that what "shifting people away from low productivity sectors" refers to? What are the higher productivity sectors they might be moved towards?
Do, the peasants are revolting?
Or the family-run farms most likely. I can understand the unrest, but can understand why Reeves wanted to close some loopholes.
Collateral damage?
Yeah, someone was on the radio lamenting that 50% of farms would be affected, which presumably means the 50% least valuable will not, and that must surely include most family farms and crofts.
Likewise with those business people interviewed so far who've been saying they won't be able to expand or take on new staff etc.
Of course, the more right-wing media will over-egg and promote these views but I don't sense an upsurge in acclaim for the budget across the business community.
But again, We'll see. I hope @alienfromzog is right and this represents a smart move on the Chancellor's part but we'll have to wait and see.
I was quite anxious about the Inheritance Tax changes on farms when I heard about them. To make a living, one needs quire a lot of land hence the very real risk of owning land worth millions but have an annual income of only tens of thousands.
However, analysis suggests that this has been carefully looked at:
https://x.com/DanNeidle/status/1851956384167776598?t=1BDyhveL2tViXnQEuq88Bg&s=19 "That's why, if we look at the stats, 87% of inherited agricultural property used less than £1m of APR and so will remain completely exempt."
Hmm, remember my ‘hot take’ rule?
Tbh the farmers round me are screaming blue murder and agricultural commentators are saying this will pull in anyone with more than 100 acres (and making the pint that these days 2 tractors and a combine is your million quid before you even look at acreage.
The average English farm (crofts being thin on the ground south of the border) is 88ha, which is 170 acres, ish.
Anyway, Twitter these days not letting you read threads without being a member, my first question would be what percentage of that 87% of inherited agricultural property is a farm, as opposed to an orchard or a paddock?
Meanwhile, other than passing on the general sense of flaming pitchforks and slurry wagons being readied round here, I’m continuing to reserve judgement until next week.
And while, yes, replacing 2 brand new tractors and a combine might well cost £1M, that's not their accounting value and nobody is buying that much new equipment in one go unless it's part of a much larger operation or they have a huge amount of cash to splash.
By people who point out that they are always wromg.
NB...Nothing in that budget to help growth in the Private sector
The average value is being pulled up by large agri-businesses, if you look at settled claims:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/agricultural-property-relief-and-business-property-relief-reforms/summary-of-reforms-to-agricultural-property-relief-and-business-property-relief
73% of claims were under £1m (and the farmhouse would be separate).
(Further, there's evidence if you compare agricultural yields with interest rates that agricultural land is probably over valued due to its use as an inheritance tax shield).
That last part is a good point. Because if that's true (and it probably is) then in the long term this will reduce the value of farming land, making farming cheaper. So that's a real positive for farmers!
Wealth is created by the private sector. A strong private sector is vital to pay for the public sector.
And public services and government funded infrastructure provide the environment in which the private sector can operate.
Money of course is created by the government.
(The reason you want a balance between private and public sector spending in your economy is not directly to do with creating wealth.)
It is well known that money in the pockets of poorer people has a multiplier of significantly greater than 1 (because you give people money, and they spend it, mostly in local places that in turn generates other economic activity). The corollary is that removing money from the pockets of poorer people also has a multiplier of greater than 1, but with the sign that you don't want.
By contrast, putting extra money in the pockets of the comfortably-off tends to have a lower multiplier, because it tends to generate saving rather than spending.
Not increasing the threshold for the basic rate of tax is an unfortunate choice, because it looks like economic shrinkage with a large multiplier.
Standard response.
The theory is true. In practice it fails. The bloated civil service needs to go back to pre covid levels
This is undoubtedly true. And a fact that has been ignored by the government for the past 14 years, it's one of many reasons why they kept failing to meet their own forecasts and targets.
Changing tax thresholds is a very inefficient way of putting money in the pockets of poorer people. I apologise that this is just rough but I'm remembering back to around ~2012 when Osborne boasted about increasing the personal allowance - a policy that he took from the LibDems and claimed as his own. Anyway from memory, it cost around £11bn to put £1bn in the pockets of the lowest decile of income earners.
AFZ
Which functions do you want it to cease performing?
You mean pre-Brexit. Brexit requires huge amounts of additional bureaucracy, which in turn means more civil servants.
Maybe you think businesses should pay for these themselves? Should they pay a proportion of their profits to run services that benefit their businesses? How is that different from pay tax for public services?
He's been told this already but keeps repeating this distortion.
How is one view 'standard' and the other not?
Equally, the OBR is airily dismissed even though what it is currently saying accords with Telford's view.
And somewhere there are 'people' out there who know more about economics than economists or about running public services than people who run public services ...
And so it goes on. And on. And on.
Standard populism.
What functions do you think those people are performing and why do you think those functions are no longer required?
We see that over the period 2016-2020 the civil service increased by over 40,000. That might be down, one imagines, to Brexit, as that's the period between the referendum and actual withdrawal.
Then we get into Covid, and see just under a 50,000 increase from 2020 to 2022. However, the upward trend from 2016 had shown no sign of abating, so your estimate for extra recruitment to deal with Covid must range between 50,000, if the trend would otherwise have suddenly levelled, about 30,000 if it had carried on at its previous rate, or less than that if the increase had accelerated anyway following actual withdrawal from the EU.
I'm struggling to see where @Telford 's 100,000 come from.
I'd bet it's from the arse of a GB News presenter. JRM would be my guess.
The way some people talk you'd imagine there are 100,000 men in pinstripe suits and bowler hats recruited for Covid now turning up at Whitehall every day and doing nothing.
It like when people say the most money ever is being, taxed, raised, borrowed, spent - with no reference to inflation.
A trainee hairstylist who attends college for 1 day a week and works for the remaining 32 hours is classed as an apprentice.
Paid the Minimum Wage their combined salary (£10,649.6) and NI before the Budget came to £11,863.45. With the rise in the MW for apprentices from £6.40 to £7.55 (21.2%) and the increase in NI from 13.8% to 15% the cost of employing and training that apprentice is going to be £13,697.68 - is an increase of 15.46%.
How many businesses are going to be able to either absorb or pass on that kind of increase?
A lot will depend on the value of the work the apprentice is doing and what proportion of staff are apprentices, no?
I'm not sure these figures are right:
https://www.burgisbullock.com/national-living-wage-new-apprentice-ni-rates-and-employment-allowance/
According to https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rates-and-allowances-national-insurance-contributions/rates-and-allowances-national-insurance-contributions the AUST is £4,189 a month - same as the UEL (as the previous quote said).
This page: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-insurance-contributions-for-under-25s-employer-guide/paying-employer-national-insurance-contributions-for-apprentices-under-25 says the same thing
As far as I can see from that - and I'm sure someone can correct me if I'm misunderstanding something - the employer is and will continue to pay no NI at all for this apprentice.
I have no idea what they were doing. All I know is that they should not be needed any more,
E.g. A building has 5 pillars, there is an earthquake, then there are 10 pillars put up - people say let’s go back to five pillars, but how many pillars you need now may be related to how much damage the earthquake did and whether it’s permanent.
After a pandemic of an illness that we know cause long term health issues for a subsection of those infected. Maybe, we just have more sick people now because shit happened. The way you have more amputees in the population after a war, there isn’t a sudden uptick in people pretending to have one leg, it’s just there are more people with one leg.
Your second sentence is contradicted by your first.
I am not an expert on hairdressers. But it seems to me that if the salon doesn't employ an apprentice, they are still going to have to employ someone to do the work done by apprentices which, as far as I can see, includes the initial shampooing. If not done by apprentices, should fully qualified hairdressers be doing the basic tasks themselves? Surely that would also have a cost?
We don't even know how many extra people there are, as you will see if you read my earlier reply. We don't know what they are doing. Neither of us therefore knows whether we still need them.
You are still acting as if 100K people were recruited for Covid and aren't needed now but are still employed. You have provided evidence for not one of those assertions.
As above, a large number of them are associated with taking back competencies from the EU post Brexit.