
The closing of a local hair salon tells you why Britain is going bust
On Wednesday, Rachel Reeves will stand up in the House and announce her latest plans for saving the country from bankruptcy. Somehow, she will have to produce plausible remedies for a crisis that seems insoluble: how to deal with catastrophic levels of government debt when there are endless demands for more public spending including a brand new commitment to provide more funding for defence.
Having ruled out tax rises that clearly impinge directly on what they call 'working people' – income tax, VAT and employee National Insurance contributions – Labour has made this situation more complicated. But, perversely, they have chosen to make it even worse by pushing many of the most productive contributors to the economy out of business. The Labour Government, by putting supposed ideological solidarity over economic reality, has created the perfect formula for the failure of precisely the business sector which contributes most to national vitality and growth.
Let me offer an illustration in the hope that it might prove instructive to the present and any future Chancellor. A hairdressing salon that I know in a prosperous North London neighbourhood closed for good several weeks ago. It had been at its current location for over thirty years and was so popular that it often took days to get an appointment. After lockdown it recovered well with its loyal customers delighted to return. The emergence of the four day working week meant that Fridays became as busy as Saturdays and the salon was humming.
So what went wrong? The owner was hit simultaneously by the increases in the minimum wage and employer NICS. Added to ever-increasing energy costs (exacerbated by green levies), this burden finally broke them. Even though they were a well-run thriving business, they could not survive.
Sadly all of the junior staff and trainees were laid off. Given the economic climate now, they will struggle to find similar jobs anywhere else so they will not be paying any tax for the indefinite future and will almost certainly have to claim unemployment benefit: a double loss for the Treasury. The salon as a company has gone so it will no longer be paying corporation tax. The senior stylists who have carried on working privately are now self-employed which means they can, perfectly legitimately, claim all their work expenses against tax – so they will pay less income tax than they did under PAYE when they were employees.
You get the picture. The net effect of the Government's measures has been to reduce the tax take for their own coffers and increase unemployment among people starting out in their working lives whose chances are further damaged by the ridiculous stipulation that they must have full rights to secure employment from the day they are hired.
What happened to one hair salon might not seem all that significant to the nation's future. But this pattern is being repeated in small businesses – particularly the ones that provide employment to young people starting out in working life – in countless numbers. Retail shops, building services and hospitality outlets are cutting staff and failing to hire new recruits because the cost of employing them is back breaking. As a result, they are not expanding and developing their businesses as they might have – and so not contributing to the growth of the economy in the significant way that small businesses, with their inherent dynamism and industriousness, once did. Labour, in its supposed determination to support 'working people' has created a doom loop in which fewer people will be joining the workforce and the consequent reduction in tax revenue will make the government even less able to meet the limitless demands of the welfare system as well as pay off its debts.
Needless to say, there have been some obvious winners in the Labour dynamic: public sector employees have had their mouths stuffed with gold not only because Labour is historically inclined to favour the unions which represent them but because they can threaten disruption on a scale that reduces any complaining chorus from the small business sector to an inconsequential squeak. But there is more to it than that, in ideological terms: business generally, and small business in particular, are seen as inherently self-interested enterprises.
Because they have been created, developed and run by private individuals in the hope of making a profit, they must be morally suspect and less worthy of support than the services that the state funds and operates for the general good of society. Carry this to its logical conclusion and it becomes admirable to penalise people who want to profit from other people's need for their services in order to pay for the provision of services dispensed 'fairly' (and without profit) by the government. You know where this ends, don't you? The most innovative, resourceful, determined individuals who might have developed new ways of creating real wealth and employing more people in experimental ways have impossible demands put on them which threaten their survival or, at the very least, make their continued existence as difficult as possible.
They are encumbered with inflexible employment conditions which might possibly be appropriate for huge public sector organisations but are death to experimental emerging enterprises. Their tax arrangements are made so horrendously complicated and difficult to master that expensive accountancy advice becomes essential. I know self-employed sole traders in the creative industries who would like to enlarge their practice but are terrified of crossing the income threshold that would require VAT registration which now involves coping with Making Tax Digital – a peculiarly sadistic form of monitoring which, as HMRC has just discovered in its attempt to introduce it in self-employed income tax, can be susceptible to cyber hacking.
Yes indeed, create a business on your own and try to make it a success – just try. The Government, and its agents in HMRC who can't even be bothered to answer the phone, will make your life as difficult as possible. And the more obstacles they put in the way to prevent you from flourishing and expanding, the more virtuous they will feel even though you and the real wealth that you create are the only things that might have saved them.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
35 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Labour at war over spending plans as Number 10 tries to stem threat from Farage
Sir Keir Starmer is fighting to quell mounting Labour tensions over how to deal with the threat from Nigel Farage, as bitter Whitehall negotiations over the Government's Spending Review go down to the wire. Sources describe 'very unpleasant' exchanges between Rachel Reeves and senior Cabinet ministers, including Home Secretary Yvette Cooper and Local Government Secretary Angela Rayner, as the Chancellor prepares to give the NHS a £30billion boost at the expense of the police and local councils. Preparations for Wednesday's announcement have been held against the backdrop of slamming doors and raised voices, as No 10 and the Treasury work out how to divide a limited pot of public money in a way most likely to arrest the surge in support for Mr Farage's Reform UK. Ms Reeves is expected to set out plans for an extra £113billion in spending on infrastructure projects such as Sizewell C nuclear power plant, and an extra 2.8 per cent real-terms increase in the NHS's £200billion-a-year budget, amounting to an extra £30billion by 2028. But with the economy barely growing, other departments have had to take a hit as a result. A source said: 'It turned nasty between Yvette and Rachel. It was just as bad as that between Rachel and Angela, who walked out during her negotiations. 'Yvette was just passing on the concerns of the police, who said that without more money they would be forced to make stark choices about which crimes they prioritise. 'The anger of the police shows they've been briefed by Cooper on how the negotiations are going, and they're not happy.' Reeves plotting £3bn tax raid on pension By CALUM MUIRHEAD Rachel Reeves is planning a £3billion tax raid on millions of pensions. The new Pension Schemes Bill lays out a blueprint for companies to take out 'surplus' cash from certain schemes. The theory behind the plan is that companies can use the money to invest in their business and that would fuel growth. But experts fear this could lead to a repeat of the Robert Maxwell scandal of the early 1990s, when the late tycoon stole £400 million from his staff pension fund to prop up his companies. The Chancellor, who is desperate to raise tax revenues, would benefit because any 'surpluses' released are taxed at 25 per cent, which could raise almost £3billion over a decade. The bill, tabled in Parliament last week, will affect old-style pension schemes where retirement incomes are linked to people's pay packets, which have around nine million members. A minister said: 'The negotiations over the final settlements are still not sorted for some departments. They're going to carry on fighting it out over the weekend.' Another source added: 'Rachel will stand up and promise things she can't deliver. There will be a lot of guff about how she will deliver security for the country. 'But how can you promise to deliver security when Trump's doing what he's doing on tariffs and Putin is so active?' At the heart of the schism is an ideological divide between the party's Blairites, represented in No 10 by Liz Lloyd, Sir Keir's head of policy delivery, and Morgan McSweeney, the Downing Street chief of staff. Mr McSweeney is desperate to tackle small boats migration while Ms Lloyd is encouraging spending more on the NHS. Rachel Reeves is planning a £3billion tax raid on millions of pensions. The new Pension Schemes Bill lays out a blueprint for companies to take out 'surplus' cash from certain schemes. The theory behind the plan is that companies can use the money to invest in their business and that would fuel growth. But experts fear this could lead to a repeat of the Robert Maxwell scandal of the early 1990s, when the late tycoon stole £400 million from his staff pension fund to prop up his companies. The Chancellor, who is desperate to raise tax revenues, would benefit because any 'surpluses' released are taxed at 25 per cent, which could raise almost £3billion over a decade. The bill, tabled in Parliament last week, will affect old-style pension schemes where retirement incomes are linked to people's pay packets, which have around nine million members.


Daily Mail
35 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Whitehall staff are flouting the Supreme Court ruling on biological sex 'by telling transgender women it's okay to use the female toilets'
Civil servants are flouting the Supreme Court ruling on biological sex, with some declaring it is 'completely the choice' of a man who is transitioning to choose which bathroom they use. A message sent to officials by the LGBT + network in the Department of Transport after the landmark court judgment said staff can decide themselves if they can use 'any appropriate single sex toilets and other facilities'. 'It is assumed that the individual knows which facilities are the best match for their gender identity and expression,' it added. The message, obtained using Freedom of Information requests, was sent to staff on April 22, the week after the Supreme Court ruling that men who change gender are not legally women. It says 'HR have assured us that all current guidance and policies still stand' and gives the example that a recently transitioned man may need to 'build confidence in his new gender expression' and that the bathroom they choose is 'completely his choice'. Members of LGBT+ networks in other government departments also sent messages expressing disappointment with the court ruling, including staff in the Department for Science, Innovation & Technology being told: 'While the judgment itself is outside of our hands, we want to say clearly that we're disappointed by the decision.' A message sent to officials by the LGBT + network in the Department of Transport after the landmark court judgment said staff can decide themselves if they can use 'any appropriate single sex toilets and other facilities' Elliot Keck, of the TaxPayers' Alliance, which compiled the research, said: 'The correspondence demonstrates how out of control staff networks are.' A Government spokesman said: 'Staff networks do not set policy in this space. We will update policy wherever it is necessary.' It comes as another report, by think-tank the Policy Exchange, has found that dozens of organisations question the Supreme Court's ruling on the definition of a woman. Independent MP Rosie Duffield said: 'Government ministers must lead from the top to ensure public bodies comply with the law.'


Daily Mail
35 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Is Angela 'Two Homes' Rayner paying the council tax surcharge on her grace-and-favour second residence?
Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner was last night facing questions over whether she is paying her own council tax surcharge on her second home. 'Two Homes' Rayner moved into her four-bedroom, grace-and-favour residence in Admiralty House in December – four months before her Local Government Department started levying an extra 100 per cent council tax charge on second homes. Official records of MPs' expenses show that when she entered the Government, Ms Rayner designated her Ashton-under-Lyne constituency home as her 'primary residence', and her pre-Admiralty home – a rented London flat – as her second home. That allowed her to claim back the £1,621 council tax bill on the London flat from the taxpayer as one of the housing costs reimbursed by Commons authorities. But if she is still designating Ashton as her primary residence now, the £2,034 council tax bill for Admiralty House doubles to a whopping £4,068 if classed as a second home. And, as a minister living in an official residence, she would have to pay both that and the £3,338 bill for the Ashton house herself – a total of £7,406. Ashton does not attract a second-home premium because she has family members living there permanently, but questions have been raised as to whether or not she is paying the full £7,406. Tory Shadow Minister Richard Holden asked the PM and the Chancellor if they were paying council tax on their Downing St flats as primary residences, and was informed that they were. If she is still designating Ashton as her primary residence now, the £2,034 council tax bill for Admiralty House (pictured) doubles to a whopping £4,068 if classed as a second home But on asking the same of Ms Rayner, he was stonewalled with: 'The Deputy Prime Minister's council tax responsibility is properly discharged.' In a letter to Ms Rayner, Kevin Hollinrake, Shadow Secretary for Housing and Communities, asked if she had evaded the surcharge by 'flipping' her primary residence designation. He said: 'If the minister in charge of council tax has dodged the super-tax by 'flipping', this raises serious concerns about the ethics and integrity of Labour ministers.' She became known as 'Two Homes' Rayner after this newspaper revealed she shuttled between two council properties early in her marriage. When her office was asked if she was paying a bill of £4,068 in London and £3,338 in her constituency, a source said: 'The administration of council tax for Admiralty House is for the Cabinet Office and Westminster Council, as has been the case for successive Secretaries of State.'