Job redundancy or reduced hours?

[TOPGUN749]

I have heard of companies,especially smaller ones wanting to reduce staff due to the £2600 a year extra costs for each worker in April. It’s either 10% of the workers to go,or reduced hours from 40 to 36 in one company,to maintain the wages bill at current rates.
The minimum wage rise of £1601 a year,plus the national insurance rise of £1,032 on a 40 hour week , seems to be just too much for some bosses to take.

Wonder just how much unemployment will rise due to the Labour chancellor’s plan?

[TIGHTCHOKE]

Starmer and Reeves have a LOT to ANSWER FOR.

[smokingdragon]

So they are also reducing director bonuses and shareholder dividends?

 

[millrace]

The problem is to government "small" buisness is 50 to 100 employees not the vast majority of small 10 and under employees where the boss and his wife are 2 of them! Therefore all these changes and costs fall to those who can least make it up.

There is no incentive for anyone to currently run an actual small buisness...its getting impossible to meet all the regs/ policy etc and maintain any form of solvency 

[Dougy]

Isn't this what they were told would happen 

We know it was but they don't, won't listen because of the 22 billion black hole the previous left. 

Seems to be the excuse for the whole lot. 🤔 

[Poor Shot]

If the company I worked for had problems paying an additional £2600 per year for a staff member I would be more concerned about the overall viability of the business and ongoing job security. 

Very roughly, for a business with 50 people that's only £130k per year which isn't insignificant but that business would need to be making more than £1 million per year just to keep the staff wages paid and probably closer to £3 million to keep the business afloat. As a percentage of that, £130k is small change.   

I'm sure ultra small businesses with low staff numbers and turnover are exempt anyway. 

This just seems to be a selection of moderately wealthy people making noises because they are going to be slightly less wealthy than they already are/ dividends are down a touch/ next range rover order is going to be delayed/ only 2 weeks skiing in the alps next Christmas instead of 4 and so on.

 I'm anti-tax and anti-big government and believe that the government should focus entirely on reducing spending and driving growth through tax incentivisation rather than screwing people but the people voted for this current labor party who made little attempt to hide the fact that they are big tax, big public spending socialists. Anyone who didn't vote at all also can't cry foul.  

Edited January 3 by Poor Shot

[oldypigeonpopper]

Hello, My Son only employs 3 with his business and no intention to take on another unless he can find someone who can be a good employee and so for this has not been the case, The 3 have been with him since he started up, As we go into 2025 a lot of Companies and Small businesses will be assessing the extra cost and maybe making people redundant or early retirement

[Dougy]

Poor shot, 

Every company needs to make profits to continue. Its not as you say with every company, tongue in cheek holidays in the Alps.  So the staff ask for a 5% pay rise, and a company is already at a 130k loss from previous years profits. What is the finance department going to suggest

Ultimately like every other pay increases its passed on down the line to the consumers, who funnily enough ask for more money because there outgoing expenditure has increased. So on and so on. 

But it doesn't matter because Starmers going to make everything better. 

[steve1066]

12 minutes ago, Poor Shot said:

If the company I worked for had problems paying an additional £2600 per year for a staff member I would be more concerned about the overall viability of the business and ongoing job security. 

Very roughly, for a business with 50 people that's only £130k per year which isn't insignificant but that business would need to be making more than £1 million per year just to keep the staff wages paid and probably closer to £3 million to keep the business afloat. As a percentage of that, £130k is small change.   

I'm sure ultra small businesses with low staff numbers and turnover are exempt anyway. 

This just seems to be a selection of moderately wealthy people making noises because they are going to be slightly less wealthy than they already are/ dividends are down a touch/ next range rover order is going to be delayed/ only 2 weeks skiing in the alps next Christmas instead of 4 and so on.

 I'm anti-tax and anti-big government and believe that the government should focus entirely on reducing spending and driving growth through tax incentivisation rather than screwing people but the people voted for this current labor party who made little attempt to hide the fact that they are big tax, big public spending socialists. Anyone who didn't vote at all also can't cry foul.  

Some very good points poor shot

[JohnfromUK]

11 minutes ago, Poor Shot said:

I'm anti-tax and anti-big government and believe that the government should focus entirely on reducing spending and driving growth through tax incentivisation rather than screwing people but the people voted for this current labor party who made little attempt to hide the fact that they are big tax, big public spending socialists. Anyone who didn't vote at all also can't cry foul.

I did not vote for them and whilst you are right in that they "made little attempt to hide the fact that they are big tax, big public spending socialists", they also promised to create the conditions for "Growth".  In fact they have have done just the reverse of that.

It is a pretty solid fact that unemployment "rises under Labour".  So in general does inflation (though that does often 'lag' into the following administration because it takes time to work through as it is based on 'year on year' figures to take out seasonal price cycles).

The role of Government is not to take money from the private businesses and individuals to spend as they see fit, but to "create the legislative framework and environment to enable them to prosper and build wealth for all".

It is notable that the Civil Service is hugely bloated, inefficient and growing.  This Gov't spend our money creating 'Quangos' and 'red tape' to conduct studies and prepare reports over a period of several years and produces nothing of any real value - it just inflates the public sector spending still further and achieves nothing.

https://www.gbnews.com/politics/keir-starmer-smothering-britain-red-tape-labour-quango

[oldypigeonpopper]

1 hour ago, Poor Shot said:

If the company I worked for had problems paying an additional £2600 per year for a staff member I would be more concerned about the overall viability of the business and ongoing job security. 

Very roughly, for a business with 50 people that's only £130k per year which isn't insignificant but that business would need to be making more than £1 million per year just to keep the staff wages paid and probably closer to £3 million to keep the business afloat. As a percentage of that, £130k is small change.   

I'm sure ultra small businesses with low staff numbers and turnover are exempt anyway. 

This just seems to be a selection of moderately wealthy people making noises because they are going to be slightly less wealthy than they already are/ dividends are down a touch/ next range rover order is going to be delayed/ only 2 weeks skiing in the alps next Christmas instead of 4 and so on.

 I'm anti-tax and anti-big government and believe that the government should focus entirely on reducing spending and driving growth through tax incentivisation rather than screwing people but the people voted for this current labor party who made little attempt to hide the fact that they are big tax, big public spending socialists. Anyone who didn't vote at all also can't cry foul.  

Hello, I think a lot of Labour voters eg the younger generation most had no idea of what a Labour Government means and did little research to understand, Having said this Labour do voice their proposals before an election but very few make it once in power, The days of Labour looking after what i describe as good hard working people and families and pensioners who saved to get a decent retirement are long gone, I do not think we shall see much happening until after April but being an Optimist i just hope the smaller businesses can cope as they are the main stay of UK life

Edited January 3 by oldypigeonpopper

[Poor Shot]

14 minutes ago, Dougy said:

Poor shot, 

Every company needs to make profits to continue. Its not as you say with every company, tongue in cheek holidays in the Alps.  So the staff ask for a 5% pay rise, and a company is already at a 130k loss from previous years profits. What is the finance department going to suggest

Ultimately like every other pay increases its passed on down the line to the consumers, who funnily enough ask for more money because there outgoing expenditure has increased. So on and so on. 

But it doesn't matter because Starmers going to make everything better. 

I'm well aware that businesses exist only to make profit, it's how they work. 

I'm also well aware that should a minor rise in taxes and wages amounting to around £2600 per year per employee result in the business becoming insolvent, not viable etc then they were only a minor blip away from oblivion anyway. 

4 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I did not vote for them and whilst you are right in that they "made little attempt to hide the fact that they are big tax, big public spending socialists", they also promised to create the conditions for "Growth".  In fact they have have done just the reverse of that.

It is a pretty solid fact that unemployment "rises under Labour".  So in general does inflation (though that does often 'lag' into the following administration because it takes time to work through as it is based on 'year on year' figures to take out seasonal price cycles).

The role of Government is not to take money from the private businesses and individuals to spend as they see fit, but to "create the legislative framework and environment to enable them to prosper and build wealth for all".

It is notable that the Civil Service is hugely bloated, inefficient and growing.  This Gov't spend our money creating 'Quangos' and 'red tape' to conduct studies and prepare reports over a period of several years and produces nothing of any real value - it just inflates the public sector spending still further and achieves nothing.

https://www.gbnews.com/politics/keir-starmer-smothering-britain-red-tape-labour-quango

Exactly correct. 

It's also fairly safe to assume that this will never change regardless of who gets in at the next election and will only continue to grow and become more bloated requiring even more taxes to pay for.

I'm eagerly waiting on what Elon Musk will do with the US government and his DOGE (department of government efficiency). Being on of the richest beings on the planet, he likely has little interest in a long term career in politics and hopefully he's just trying to do what he says he's going do and drain the swamp. Albeit with a little vested interest of lowering red tape and protections on the side. 

It would take someone who has no interest in retaining a pay packet to tackle the civil service as the civil service are quite good at getting rid of ministers who seek to make changes to the status quo. Anyone who currently does have the wealth and skillset to do such a thing will either have placed themselves as far away from that **** show as possible or will also be sucking from the public teat in one way or another. 

1 minute ago, oldypigeonpopper said:

Hello, I think a lot of Labour voters eg the younger generation most had no idea of what a Labour Government means and did little research to understand, Having said this Labour do voice their proposals before an election but very few make it once in power, The days of Labour looking after what i describe as good hard working people and families and pensioners who saved to get a decent retirement are long gone

A lot of young people vote with their heart and not their head. 

They see a party thats going to represent what they stand for, equality and other woke stuff and get onboard forgetting that the government they have just voted actually has to do more than ensure that trans people are adequately represented on toilet signs and actually has run the country. 

That being said, a lot of people (myself included) will have found themselves politically homeless at the last GE. Not being able to vote for the conservatives following their last term which consisted of corruption and backstabbing or labour for obvious reasons. Lets not even mention the lib dems who seem to have picked the worst aspects of the other two parties.

I voted for Reform, not because I think Farage is the lord and savior or the party was the antidote to all the countries problems but because a large part of what they pledged within their manifesto spoke to what I want from a government. I didn't want a government that was going to tackle the worlds issues, pledge huge sums of money to gaza and ukraine, spend huge amounts of time blaming the last government for political point scoring. I just wanted a party that was going to get on with running the country and while reform may not have been able to do this in their first term, the other two have had years and many attempts to prove that they can't do it. 

[oldypigeonpopper]

2 minutes ago, Poor Shot said:

I'm well aware that businesses exist only to make profit, it's how they work. 

I'm also well aware that should a minor rise in taxes and wages amounting to around £2600 per year per employee result in the business becoming insolvent, not viable etc then they were only a minor blip away from oblivion anyway. 

Exactly correct. 

It's also fairly safe to assume that this will never change regardless of who gets in at the next election and will only continue to grow and become more bloated requiring even more taxes to pay for.

I'm eagerly waiting on what Elon Musk will do with the US government and his DOGE (department of government efficiency). Being on of the richest beings on the planet, he likely has little interest in a long term career in politics and hopefully he's just trying to do what he says he's going do and drain the swamp. Albeit with a little vested interest of lowering red tape and protections on the side. 

It would take someone who has no interest in retaining a pay packet to tackle the civil service as the civil service are quite good at getting rid of ministers who seek to make changes to the status quo. Anyone who currently does have the wealth and skillset to do such a thing will either have placed themselves as far away from that **** show as possible or will also be sucking from the public teat in one way or another. 

A lot of young people vote with their heart and not their head. 

They see a party thats going to represent what they stand for, equality and other woke stuff and get onboard forgetting that the government they have just voted actually has to do more than ensure that trans people are adequately represented on toilet signs and actually has run the country. 

That being said, a lot of people (myself included) will have found themselves politically homeless at the last GE. Not being able to vote for the conservatives following their last term which consisted of corruption and backstabbing or labour for obvious reasons. Lets not even mention the lib dems who seem to have picked the worst aspects of the other two parties.

I voted for Reform, not because I think Farage is the lord and savior or the party was the antidote to all the countries problems but because a large part of what they pledged within their manifesto spoke to what I want from a government. I didn't want a government that was going to tackle the worlds issues, pledge huge sums of money to gaza and ukraine, spend huge amounts of time blaming the last government for political point scoring. I just wanted a party that was going to get on with running the country and while reform may not have been able to do this in their first term, the other two have had years and many attempts to prove that they can't do it. 

Hello, Well said Poor Shot, absolutely spot on 👍

[JohnfromUK]

6 minutes ago, Poor Shot said:

I'm eagerly waiting on what Elon Musk will do with the US government and his DOGE (department of government efficiency). Being on of the richest beings on the planet, he likely has little interest in a long term career in politics and hopefully he's just trying to do what he says he's going do and drain the swamp. Albeit with a little vested interest of lowering red tape and protections on the side. 

It will be very interesting.  Personally, I can't see it lasting.  Both like to be 'centre stage' and I see a clash sooner or later, but we will see.  Neither of them need of money - it's about the 'ego trip' and there isn't room for two at the top ......... watch this space, but Musk (as non USA born) is excluded from 'top slot'.

Over here what Gov't should be creating to get 'growth' to happen includes;

• A flexible and dynamic workforce free from restrictive and outdated working practices
• A trained and well educated workforce with a wide choice of education and training for the skills industry needs (clue - not social sciences and pen pushers)
• A healthy workforce with quick returns to 'work healthy' status following illness and injury
• A flexible framework of legislation allowing us to compete internationally
• Low taxation allowing industry to re-invest rather than having it confiscated and encouraging inward investment from overseas
• Encouraging savings (including for pensions) to provide the capital industry needs to invest
• Redressing the balance between benefits and paid employment such that everyone is better of working than on benefits

Unfortunately, the present Gov't seem to be failing on almost all counts

[Yellow Bear]

2 hours ago, JohnfromUK said:

Over here what Gov't should be creating to get 'growth' to happen includes;

• A flexible and dynamic workforce free from restrictive and outdated working practices
• A trained and well educated workforce with a wide choice of education and training for the skills industry needs (clue - not social sciences and pen pushers)
• A healthy workforce with quick returns to 'work healthy' status following illness and injury
• A flexible framework of legislation allowing us to compete internationally
• Low taxation allowing industry to re-invest rather than having it confiscated and encouraging inward investment from overseas
• Encouraging savings (including for pensions) to provide the capital industry needs to invest
• Redressing the balance between benefits and paid employment such that everyone is better of working than on benefits

Unfortunately, the present Gov't seem to be failing on almost all counts

I fully agree but they are not just failing, they are doing the exact opposite.

[JohnfromUK]

5 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

I fully agree but they are not just failing, they are doing the exact opposite.

They would rather 'steal' it from those who have it rather than tackling the idea of hard work to make it (and create the conditions in which it can be made).

[Bigbob]

A lot of the older tradesmen at my work took reduced hours either took a friday or a monday off to get a long weekend , The greedy ones took the monday so they could work Saturday till noon on overtime 

[EnfieldLock]

6 hours ago, Poor Shot said:

 I'm sure ultra small businesses with low staff numbers and turnover are exempt anyway.

According to what I found with a 'net search, they aren't exempt.  They can offset some of the cost, but only up to a total of £5,000 - and that's per business, not per employee.
"Small businesses can use the Employment Allowance and exemptions for allowable expenses to reduce their National Insurance (NI) contributions.  This allows eligible employers to reduce their annual NI liability by up to £5,000 for the 2024/25 tax year. The allowance is per business, not per employee. To be eligible, a business must be registered as an employer; have employees;  have had an NI liability of less than £100,000 in the previous tax year."

Five grand, to me, is a lot of money - but I suspect that, to many small businesses, that reduction in their overall costs will be just a drop in a bucket.

[TOPGUN749]

13 hours ago, EnfieldLock said:

According to what I found with a 'net search, they aren't exempt.  They can offset some of the cost, but only up to a total of £5,000 - and that's per business, not per employee.
"Small businesses can use the Employment Allowance and exemptions for allowable expenses to reduce their National Insurance (NI) contributions.  This allows eligible employers to reduce their annual NI liability by up to £5,000 for the 2024/25 tax year. The allowance is per business, not per employee. To be eligible, a business must be registered as an employer; have employees;  have had an NI liability of less than £100,000 in the previous tax year."

Five grand, to me, is a lot of money - but I suspect that, to many small businesses, that reduction in their overall costs will be just a drop in a bucket.

I understand the threshold for small businesses is rising from £5000 to £10,500 a year,which means they’re exempt from paying National Insurance if their total National Insurance stays below that figure.This allows them approximately 3-4 workers doing a total of around 140 hours a week between them.Possibly a few more if part timers!

[EnfieldLock]

3 hours ago, TOPGUN749 said:

I understand the threshold for small businesses is rising from £5000 to £10,500 a year,which means they’re exempt from paying National Insurance if their total National Insurance stays below that figure.This allows them approximately 3-4 workers doing a total of around 140 hours a week between them.Possibly a few more if part timers!

That seems like a pretty good reason for a very small business to stay very small;  so much for Reeves and her promise of setting the economy for growth.

[Vince Green]

23 hours ago, Dougy said:

Isn't this what they were told would happen 

We know it was but they don't, won't listen because of the 22 billion black hole the previous left. 

Seems to be the excuse for the whole lot. 🤔 

Exactly right! Within hours of this being announced the pundits were predicting that it would just result in job losses. Simple economics

The tragic fact is that Starmer and Reeves (etc) are so nieve, so unaware of how the real world works that they thought this was a good idea.

Same with the landlords

Same with the farmers and inheritance tax

[oldypigeonpopper]

Hello, I always think it would be good to see a replacement Employee when someone retires like it happened when i started working in 1965, 

[JohnfromUK]

23 hours ago, Dougy said:

because of the 22 billion black hole the previous left. 

This idea of a 'black hole' is a complete fallacy.  There was a hole, but it was known, documented, understood and in the full light of day.  The idea that it was a hidden 'black hole' unknown to anyone is an outright lie .

There was a big deficit - ALL parties knew that, it was one of the topics in the election canvassing, debates and manifestos and the previous administration Chancellor had been clear on that and had put (at least some) measures in place (mainly freezing tax thresholds etc.) to address that.  The economy was showing signs of (admittedly modest) recovery and growth starting.  Inflation. was getting back to the B of E target.  The B of E was predicting a gradual easing of interest rates and growth growing steadily (if slowly).  The general picture was one of 'past the worst and on the upward slope again'.  There were even some signs that the Rwanda scheme was having a bit of a discouraging effect on illegal immigration, and other countries were looking with interest and considering similar ideas.

The so called 'Black Hole' was entirely of Starmer and Reeves making by splashing out money on the public sector, railways and loads of extra 'quangos' studying this, that and the other.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

John, please stop being so sensible, there is an AGENDA, they, the Labour government are blaming anything and everyone while they stuff this country further down the toilet.

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, TIGHTCHOKE said:

John, please stop being so sensible, there is an AGENDA, they, the Labour government are blaming anything and everyone while they stuff this country further down the toilet.

Can't help myself - I was brought up to be sensible and use my common sense.  An attitude that has served me reasonably well for approaching 70 years now!  🤣