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.
Typically in the UK a trainee hairstylist works at a salon for 4 days a week and goes into college for 1, so they get paid for 4 eight hour days at the apprentice rate - that is the information from the person who cuts my DiL's hair. Just to check my figures I looked at a large national chain (Toni & Guy) and their trainees average £10,0005 at the moment so they'll definitely be caught by this.
After less than nine months spread across two ministerial offices, one of which has always looked like a made up job, and having been out of office for over two years, his current personal information isn’t likely to be reliable. What’s his source?
OK, so I will not claim any expertise, but I've been reading up on the inheritance tax changes for farm land. My initial instinct when I heard about the policy was that it sounded like a really bad idea. Having read a lot over the last couple of days I have come to the conclusion that it's actually a good policy in the long term.
Firstly, farmers do have a case for special treatment here. Farm land is relatively expensive. Returns on farming are low. Hence farmers need a relatively large amount of land to make a living. Hence a farm with a land value of £1m may only have an annual income in the tens of thousands. A quick Google search will tell you that farming income is something like £100-£400 per acre (net). Arable land is in the range of £11,000 - £17,000 per acre. If you take the averages of those numbers, then a million pounds worth of land might be returning only £17k of income. Lots of variability on those figures (and they are the result of just a Google search, nothing more) but I put them here to illustrate the point: you can see how this is potentially a real issue.
Therefore we really are talking about people with large paper assets who are also cash poor and hence a 40% inheritance tax bill really is a big burden and arguably an unfair one. Especially when farmers have been squeezed in so many ways already. Especially when they genuinely are a vital industry.
So what is happening? Well, currently farm land and buildings are totally exempt from inheritance tax via what's called the agricultural property relief (APR). What Reeves announced was the following:
1. 100% relief from APR will no longer apply about a £1m threshold
2. Above the £1m threshold, APR will mean that inheritance tax will be charged at half the standard rate - 20%
3. This applies on top of the standard tax-free thresholds of up to £1m for couples.
Hence this all gets a little bit complicated.
One other key fact here is that there are very wealthy individuals who own large amounts of farm land and do not farm them. In fact, this is a well-documented intentional tax dodge. A particularly famous individual stated that his reason for buying a farm was to avoid tax.
I have read two different tax experts who say this will not affect family farms. Approximately 87% of farms will remain exempt from inheritance tax. With the effective £2m threshold here, this policy will target very wealthy individuals whilst not impacting family farming.
One other thing I also found is that there's another rule change here which is beneficial. Currently, some land that has a change of usage for environmental reasons becomes taxable as it removes if from APR. This is a disincentive to actions that can benefit the environment.
So why do I think it a good thing in the long term? Again, reading some expert analysis, it is well-established that farm land prices are artificially inflated by the fact that wealthy people buy up large amounts of land to avoid tax. Hence this policy will remove this upward pressure of land prices and thus in the long term make farming cheaper. (I.e. if you're expanding a farm, the amount you need to borrow to buy the extra land you need and therefore your interest costs go down).
It's all in the details.
It's all down to fact that we have a news media who is not interested in informing people and only wants to pursue an agenda. It it probably worth noting here that at least one newspaper editor owns a multimillion pound farm estate.
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.
Typically in the UK a trainee hairstylist works at a salon for 4 days a week and goes into college for 1, so they get paid for 4 eight hour days at the apprentice rate - that is the information from the person who cuts my DiL's hair. Just to check my figures I looked at a large national chain (Toni & Guy) and their trainees average £10,0005 at the moment so they'll definitely be caught by this.
If they're apprentices, the AUST- £4189 per month - applies and no employer contribution is payable at all.
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
'Should' is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
As has been noted, he has been out of ministerial office for a while now. Moreover, his analysis could be wrong or he may not be an entirely reliable voice given his own ideological biases to begin with.
It is entirely reasonable for anyone therefore to ask Mr Rees-Mogg what he is basing that information on. To suggest that he construct an argument to support that position.
Can you point to such information, from him or someone else?
Moreover, as has been noted by others who have the figures, the 100,000 number bears no resemblance to the actual changes in civil service numbers over the years.
It has been noted that round numbers stated by a politician are particularly vulnerable to manipulation for rhetorical purposes.
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
As the spouse of a civil servant the service is not bloated. Like many other places the same work that used to be done by more is done by fewer. There is more pressure in several parts of the service to get things done with even fewer people. Take it from me the idea of a bloated civil service is a myth
The take away is mostly the direct impacts of Brexit (Home Office / Defra), the indirect impacts of Brexit (increase in front line staff at the MoJ / Home Office), and the impact of the centralising tendency of the Tory government (DfE etc).
There are smaller increases (and some abatement) attributable to Covid and an ageing population.
Rejoin the EU and we can get rid of all the civil servants taken on to undertake the additional and wholly unnecessary bureaucracy. (BTW, this will also boost the private sector and enable them to let some unproductive staff go as well.)
Or is the pointless bureaucracy caused by Brexit somehow 'good' pointless bureaucracy?
Rejoin the EU and we can get rid of all the civil servants taken on to undertake the additional and wholly unnecessary bureaucracy. (BTW, this will also boost the private sector and enable them to let some unproductive staff go as well.)
Or is the pointless bureaucracy caused by Brexit somehow 'good' pointless bureaucracy?
A proper referendum, rather than the shambolic glorified opinion poll of 2016. Though, joining the EU is much simpler to define, as there's only one option compared to Leave not defining what version of leaving they were campaigning for.
Rejoin the EU and we can get rid of all the civil servants taken on to undertake the additional and wholly unnecessary bureaucracy. (BTW, this will also boost the private sector and enable them to let some unproductive staff go as well.)
Or is the pointless bureaucracy caused by Brexit somehow 'good' pointless bureaucracy?
As long as we have a referendum.
One to agree to rejoin and one to accept the negotiated terms. I suspect we want some opt outs. We may not get them, but we’ll want them to satisfy the right or they will throw their toys out of the pram.
That, as mentioned so many times on here is what should have happened for the leave referendum. We at least wouldn’t have had the madness brought about by the hard Brexit
Rejoin the EU and we can get rid of all the civil servants taken on to undertake the additional and wholly unnecessary bureaucracy. (BTW, this will also boost the private sector and enable them to let some unproductive staff go as well.)
Or is the pointless bureaucracy caused by Brexit somehow 'good' pointless bureaucracy?
As long as we have a referendum.
One to agree to rejoin and one to accept the negotiated terms. I suspect we want some opt outs. We may not get them, but we’ll want them to satisfy the right or they will throw their toys out of the pram.
That, as mentioned so many times on here is what should have happened for the leave referendum. We at least wouldn’t have had the madness brought about by the hard Brexit
IMO it should have been the case for Brexit and anything else that changes Constitutional arrangements - eg Scottish independence etc. a referendum to give a mandate to negotiate, followed by a referendum on what emerges from negotiations.
The EU isnt going to show any interest to people not asking for it. But there's a big difference between that and a member state saying they would veto a re-accession request from a country that meets or could very quickly meet the Community acquis. If you have proof that a state is intending to veto if a request is made then by all means post that but otherwise it's not some unobtainable 'pipe dream'.
I'm fairly sure one of the conditions would be acceptance of the Euro.
But on the general point, the EU got buggered about incredibly much during the exit negotiations. Since then, Putin has invaded Ukraine, the migrant crisis has worsened, and an alarming number of member states have been voting for the fash. Readmitting the UK is a very long way down the EU's list.
I'm fairly sure one of the conditions would be acceptance of the Euro.
But on the general point, the EU got buggered about incredibly much during the exit negotiations. Since then, Putin has invaded Ukraine, the migrant crisis has worsened, and an alarming number of member states have been voting for the fash. Readmitting the UK is a very long way down the EU's list.
I suspect the Euro would not be part of it as adding the UK economy to the Euro zone is economically complicated. As to the rest, absolutely the EUs focus is rightly elsewhere and there's no chance of rejoin until the UK gets its house in order in terms of the internal politics. However, whilst the Brexit myths of the UKs importance were always damaging, the UK does have a lot to bring to the table. Especially in response to the challenges you highlighted. Thus a friendly UK, acting in good faith, probably would be acceptable to the EU. When interests align, the EU will be open, I think.
Whilst the UK has more to gain than the EU, there is still an upside for the EU. Or rather there would be, with a sane and reasonable UK.
The UK needs to get to that position and then wait for the EU to accept it. I can't see that happening in less than a decade, which is why, paradoxically Starmer is actually correct in trying to 'make the best of Brexit.' There is no other option at the moment.
I'm fairly sure one of the conditions would be acceptance of the Euro.
But on the general point, the EU got buggered about incredibly much during the exit negotiations. Since then, Putin has invaded Ukraine, the migrant crisis has worsened, and an alarming number of member states have been voting for the fash. Readmitting the UK is a very long way down the EU's list.
I suspect the Euro would not be part of it as adding the UK economy to the Euro zone is economically complicated.
I doubt the UK would be able to opt out of much else, and I suspect the EU would view acceptance of things like Schengen as signs of good faith.
The UK needs to get to that position and then wait for the EU to accept it. I can't see that happening in less than a decade, which is why, paradoxically Starmer is actually correct in trying to 'make the best of Brexit.' There is no other option at the moment.
Well, if you believe Anushka Asantha more or less authorised book about his leadership campaign he's been against free movement since at least 2015, so good luck squaring that circle.
I'm fairly sure one of the conditions would be acceptance of the Euro.
But on the general point, the EU got buggered about incredibly much during the exit negotiations. Since then, Putin has invaded Ukraine, the migrant crisis has worsened, and an alarming number of member states have been voting for the fash. Readmitting the UK is a very long way down the EU's list.
I suspect the Euro would not be part of it as adding the UK economy to the Euro zone is economically complicated.
I doubt the UK would be able to opt out of much else, and I suspect the EU would view acceptance of things like Schengen as signs of good faith.
I completely agree. Note my reasoning why a Euro opt-out could be an option is because I think it would be in the wider EUs interest.
Starmer is very unlikely to be the PM that takes the UK back into the EU.
Getting rid of Starmer and replacing him with a pro-Europe Labour leader would be a good step towards fixing this mess and improving the economy which would really help fund public services. He certainly isn't going to do it.
Meanwhile Labour drops like a stone in the Scottish polls (as I pointed out a while ago they were looking surprisingly weak for a party that just won a general election) but now they have really plummeted while the SNP just flatline. So it's not caused by an SNP resurgence but is enough that the SNP could retain power. So thanks I guess for this useless lot, but I'd again much rather they didn't inflict their uselessness upon people who really need them to be so much better.
We would have to promise to work towards accepting the Euro, not actually accept it. That could take a ling time. Especially if it was deliberately held back.
Shengan can equally be held back.
It would take agreement from both the big parties and then agreement from the EU. It won’t happen quickly. It could be quicker than 10 years though.
A proper referendum, rather than the shambolic glorified opinion poll of 2016. Though, joining the EU is much simpler to define, as there's only one option compared to Leave not defining what version of leaving they were campaigning for.
After the last referendum, people were saying that a simple majority was not good enough
I agree. To lose our current independence would surely need a 60% vote in favour of joining
The EU is not champing at the bit to readmit the UK. While we're out and making a hash of sorting things out they can hold us up as a ghastly warning to other nations that may feel like cutting loose.
The EU is not champing at the bit to readmit the UK. While we're out and making a hash of sorting things out they can hold us up as a ghastly warning to other nations that may feel like cutting loose.
The EU is not champing at the bit to readmit the UK. While we're out and making a hash of sorting things out they can hold us up as a ghastly warning to other nations that may feel like cutting loose.
That's certainly been true since 5th July
And was equally true from when we left up to 5th July.
I mean, nice try, but it's just an unsupported jibe isn't it?
The EU is not champing at the bit to readmit the UK. While we're out and making a hash of sorting things out they can hold us up as a ghastly warning to other nations that may feel like cutting loose.
That's certainly been true since 5th July
And was equally true from when we left up to 5th July.
I mean, nice try, but it's just an unsupported jibe isn't it?
An unsupported jibe directed at the governing party? Good God, to know that such a thing could ever happen on a satirical and unrestful website such as this! And to think it comes after such a protracted period of scrupulous fairness and intellectual rigour in the political commentary and opinion concerning the previous governing party… well, I can barely believe it. What have we become?
Comments
Typically in the UK a trainee hairstylist works at a salon for 4 days a week and goes into college for 1, so they get paid for 4 eight hour days at the apprentice rate - that is the information from the person who cuts my DiL's hair. Just to check my figures I looked at a large national chain (Toni & Guy) and their trainees average £10,0005 at the moment so they'll definitely be caught by this.
Firstly, farmers do have a case for special treatment here. Farm land is relatively expensive. Returns on farming are low. Hence farmers need a relatively large amount of land to make a living. Hence a farm with a land value of £1m may only have an annual income in the tens of thousands. A quick Google search will tell you that farming income is something like £100-£400 per acre (net). Arable land is in the range of £11,000 - £17,000 per acre. If you take the averages of those numbers, then a million pounds worth of land might be returning only £17k of income. Lots of variability on those figures (and they are the result of just a Google search, nothing more) but I put them here to illustrate the point: you can see how this is potentially a real issue.
Therefore we really are talking about people with large paper assets who are also cash poor and hence a 40% inheritance tax bill really is a big burden and arguably an unfair one. Especially when farmers have been squeezed in so many ways already. Especially when they genuinely are a vital industry.
So what is happening? Well, currently farm land and buildings are totally exempt from inheritance tax via what's called the agricultural property relief (APR). What Reeves announced was the following:
1. 100% relief from APR will no longer apply about a £1m threshold
2. Above the £1m threshold, APR will mean that inheritance tax will be charged at half the standard rate - 20%
3. This applies on top of the standard tax-free thresholds of up to £1m for couples.
Hence this all gets a little bit complicated.
One other key fact here is that there are very wealthy individuals who own large amounts of farm land and do not farm them. In fact, this is a well-documented intentional tax dodge. A particularly famous individual stated that his reason for buying a farm was to avoid tax.
I have read two different tax experts who say this will not affect family farms. Approximately 87% of farms will remain exempt from inheritance tax. With the effective £2m threshold here, this policy will target very wealthy individuals whilst not impacting family farming.
One other thing I also found is that there's another rule change here which is beneficial. Currently, some land that has a change of usage for environmental reasons becomes taxable as it removes if from APR. This is a disincentive to actions that can benefit the environment.
So why do I think it a good thing in the long term? Again, reading some expert analysis, it is well-established that farm land prices are artificially inflated by the fact that wealthy people buy up large amounts of land to avoid tax. Hence this policy will remove this upward pressure of land prices and thus in the long term make farming cheaper. (I.e. if you're expanding a farm, the amount you need to borrow to buy the extra land you need and therefore your interest costs go down).
It's all in the details.
It's all down to fact that we have a news media who is not interested in informing people and only wants to pursue an agenda. It it probably worth noting here that at least one newspaper editor owns a multimillion pound farm estate.
AFZ
If they're apprentices, the AUST- £4189 per month - applies and no employer contribution is payable at all.
'Should' is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.
As has been noted, he has been out of ministerial office for a while now. Moreover, his analysis could be wrong or he may not be an entirely reliable voice given his own ideological biases to begin with.
It is entirely reasonable for anyone therefore to ask Mr Rees-Mogg what he is basing that information on. To suggest that he construct an argument to support that position.
Can you point to such information, from him or someone else?
Moreover, as has been noted by others who have the figures, the 100,000 number bears no resemblance to the actual changes in civil service numbers over the years.
It has been noted that round numbers stated by a politician are particularly vulnerable to manipulation for rhetorical purposes.
AFZ
@Arethosemyfeet wins:
Congratulations @Arethosemyfeet
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/civil-service-staff-numbers
The take away is mostly the direct impacts of Brexit (Home Office / Defra), the indirect impacts of Brexit (increase in front line staff at the MoJ / Home Office), and the impact of the centralising tendency of the Tory government (DfE etc).
There are smaller increases (and some abatement) attributable to Covid and an ageing population.
Indeed.
Or is the pointless bureaucracy caused by Brexit somehow 'good' pointless bureaucracy?
As long as we have a referendum.
One to agree to rejoin and one to accept the negotiated terms. I suspect we want some opt outs. We may not get them, but we’ll want them to satisfy the right or they will throw their toys out of the pram.
That, as mentioned so many times on here is what should have happened for the leave referendum. We at least wouldn’t have had the madness brought about by the hard Brexit
IMO it should have been the case for Brexit and anything else that changes Constitutional arrangements - eg Scottish independence etc. a referendum to give a mandate to negotiate, followed by a referendum on what emerges from negotiations.
But on the general point, the EU got buggered about incredibly much during the exit negotiations. Since then, Putin has invaded Ukraine, the migrant crisis has worsened, and an alarming number of member states have been voting for the fash. Readmitting the UK is a very long way down the EU's list.
I suspect the Euro would not be part of it as adding the UK economy to the Euro zone is economically complicated. As to the rest, absolutely the EUs focus is rightly elsewhere and there's no chance of rejoin until the UK gets its house in order in terms of the internal politics. However, whilst the Brexit myths of the UKs importance were always damaging, the UK does have a lot to bring to the table. Especially in response to the challenges you highlighted. Thus a friendly UK, acting in good faith, probably would be acceptable to the EU. When interests align, the EU will be open, I think.
Whilst the UK has more to gain than the EU, there is still an upside for the EU. Or rather there would be, with a sane and reasonable UK.
The UK needs to get to that position and then wait for the EU to accept it. I can't see that happening in less than a decade, which is why, paradoxically Starmer is actually correct in trying to 'make the best of Brexit.' There is no other option at the moment.
AFZ
I doubt the UK would be able to opt out of much else, and I suspect the EU would view acceptance of things like Schengen as signs of good faith.
Well, if you believe Anushka Asantha more or less authorised book about his leadership campaign he's been against free movement since at least 2015, so good luck squaring that circle.
I completely agree. Note my reasoning why a Euro opt-out could be an option is because I think it would be in the wider EUs interest.
Starmer is very unlikely to be the PM that takes the UK back into the EU.
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/starmer-brexit-reset-stalling-brussels-worried-3357302
Getting rid of Starmer and replacing him with a pro-Europe Labour leader would be a good step towards fixing this mess and improving the economy which would really help fund public services. He certainly isn't going to do it.
Meanwhile Labour drops like a stone in the Scottish polls (as I pointed out a while ago they were looking surprisingly weak for a party that just won a general election) but now they have really plummeted while the SNP just flatline. So it's not caused by an SNP resurgence but is enough that the SNP could retain power. So thanks I guess for this useless lot, but I'd again much rather they didn't inflict their uselessness upon people who really need them to be so much better.
Shengan can equally be held back.
It would take agreement from both the big parties and then agreement from the EU. It won’t happen quickly. It could be quicker than 10 years though.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-eu-britain-reeves-budget-b2639584.html
I agree. To lose our current independence would surely need a 60% vote in favour of joining
https://x.com/kateferguson4/status/1852809028470030750
It's now being picked up by other newspapers (quoting his statements to the Sun):
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/nov/03/keir-starmer-to-create-team-to-tackle-national-security-threat-of-people-smugglers
But yeah, where he speaks doesn't matter, and push them left, right?
The EU is coming apart at the seams. I don’t think it’ll even exist in 20 years. We’re better off not being part of that train wreck.
Sir Ed Davey would totally disagree with you. He is still hot on rejoining the EU ( PMQs today)
That's certainly been true since 5th July
And was equally true from when we left up to 5th July.
I mean, nice try, but it's just an unsupported jibe isn't it?
An unsupported jibe directed at the governing party? Good God, to know that such a thing could ever happen on a satirical and unrestful website such as this! And to think it comes after such a protracted period of scrupulous fairness and intellectual rigour in the political commentary and opinion concerning the previous governing party… well, I can barely believe it. What have we become?