Employers' national insurance rise ‘straw that breaks camels back', Lords told
A rise in employer national insurance could be the 'straw that breaks the camel's back' for businesses, a former head of the spending watchdog has said.
Crossbench peer Lord Morse, former head of the National Audit Office, warned that 'not all big businesses have equally broad shoulders' as he said the Government had not considered the 'differential damage' of the move.
Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced a hike to employer national insurance contributions (NIC) in the autumn budget, with the aim of raising around £25 billion a year.
Lord Morse told peers: 'Employer national insurance has no direct relationship to that employer's profitability, and thus to that employer's ability to pay more tax.
'If an employer happens to be in an industry that habitually has payroll costs of a relatively high proportion of its total expenditure, it will necessarily attract a higher cost from the increase in employer national insurance, that if it had that same turnover and spent a lower percentage of its outgoing costs on payroll, but, for example, a higher amount on technology, data and other non-labour costs.
'If a business has a very substantial turnover, but relatively low margins, such as a lot of the major construction contractors…that its ability to pay more national insurance may be much less than it would be in another more profitable sector.
'Not all big businesses have equally broad shoulders. I know that's a popular government expression, and some big businesses may find the additional NIC charge very much more damaging than others. It may even be the final straw that breaks the camel's back, in some cases.
'Different industries form larger or smaller proportions of economic activity in different areas of the UK, and they tend to be concentrated.
'If a high proportion of local business activity happens to be in a high payroll model of business this means that the local economy is likely to be disproportionately impacted, and we are hearing examples of that in Northern Ireland, but it's not just there.
'It's not rocket science. I'm saying I must admit, but I'm not sure that HM Government has considered these points of differential damage, if not, they should do so.'
The debate on Monday evening was called by DUP peer Lord Morrow who said the Government had not given thought to the 'disproportionately negative impact' removal of agricultural property relief and increases to employer national insurance would have on Northern Ireland.
He told peers: 'The Government's plans are detrimental in many ways, but not least the reality that many businesses will be simply unable to absorb the increased cost of national insurance contributions or the inflation-busting wage increases, but the bill still has to be paid, and this will be shifted onto the consumer, who will have to contend with higher prices amidst an extremely difficult time for many families across Northern Ireland.
'In Northern Ireland, the rise in the rate of national insurance contributions from 13.8% to 15% will hit our agricultural sector hard.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
2 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Prosecutors tell judge government plans to deport Abrego Garcia to a country that's not El Salvador
Federal prosecutors told a judge on Thursday that the government plans to initiate removal proceedings against Kilmar Abrego Garcia and to deport him to a country that is not El Salvador upon his release from a Tennessee jail. But the prosecutors also said that they would comply with all court orders and that their plans are not imminent. Attorneys for Abrego Garcia earlier asked a federal judge in Maryland to order his return to that state when he is released from jail in Tennessee, an arrangement that would prevent likely attempts by immigration officials to quickly deport Abrego Garcia. The Maryland construction worker became a flashpoint over President Donald Trump's immigration policies after he was mistakenly deported to his native El Salvador in March. He's been in jail in Tennessee since he was returned to the U.S. on June 7 to face federal charges of human smuggling. U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Holmes in Nashville has ruled that Abrego Garcia has a right to be released while awaiting trial. But she decided Wednesday to keep him in custody for at least a few more days over concerns that U.S. immigration officials would swiftly try to deport him again. Abrego Garcia's attorneys in Maryland, where his wife is suing the Trump administration over his March deportation, have offered up a possible solution. They've asked the federal judge overseeing the lawsuit to direct the government to bring him to Maryland while he awaits trial in Tennessee. 'If this Court does not act swiftly, then the Government is likely to whisk Abrego Garcia away to some place far from Maryland,' Abrego Garcia's attorneys wrote in their request to U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Greenbelt. Abrego Garcia lived in Maryland, just outside Washington, with his American wife and children for more than a decade. His deportation violated a U.S. immigration judge's order in 2019 that barred his expulsion to his native country. The judge had found that Abrego Garcia faced a credible threat from gangs who had terrorized him and his family. The Trump administration described its violation of the immigration judge's 2019 order as an administrative error. Trump and other officials doubled down on claims Abrego Garcia was in the MS-13 gang, an accusation that Abrego Garcia denies. Abrego Garcia pleaded not guilty on June 13 to smuggling charges that his attorneys have characterized as an attempt to justify his mistaken expulsion to a notorious prison in El Salvador. Those charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop for speeding in Tennessee, during which Abrego Garcia was driving a vehicle with nine passengers without luggage. Holmes, the magistrate judge in Tennessee, wrote in a ruling on Sunday that federal prosecutors failed to show that Abrego Garcia was a flight risk or a danger to the community. During a court hearing on Wednesday, Holmes set specific conditions for his release that included Abrego Garcia living with his brother, a U.S. citizen, in Maryland. But she held off on releasing him over concerns that prosecutors can't prevent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from deporting him. Holmes expressed doubts about her own power to require anything more than prosecutors using their best efforts to secure the cooperation of ICE. 'I have no reservations about my ability to direct the local U.S. Attorney's office,' the judge said. 'I don't think I have any authority over ICE.' Acting U.S. Attorney Rob McGuire told the judge he would do 'the best I can' to secure the cooperation of ICE. But the prosecutor noted, 'That's a separate agency with separate leadership and separate directions. I will coordinate, but I can't tell them what to do.'
Bloomberg
2 hours ago
- Bloomberg
Residents Clash With Sao Paulo Plan to Transform Favela
A major plan to revamp Campos Eliseos in central Sao Paulo has led to clashes between the government and residents who say they're being forcibly removed from the neighborhood's Favela do Moinho, where many have lived for decades. The $970 million initiative includes consolidating government buildings in the neighborhood and removing the notorious drug-use area known as Cracolandia in an effort to spur new investment. While the government housing company claims residents agreed to voluntarily relocate and that it is offering them financial aid to find new homes in and around the area, tensions remain. Many locals are skeptical about whether this latest attempt to transform the neighborhood will succeed where previous efforts have failed, or just displace existing inhabitants, Carolina Pulice reports. Today on CityLab:
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump's Controlling Stake in U.S. Steel Is Indefensible Socialist Nonsense
U.S. Steel isn't just getting nationalized. It's getting…personalized? President Donald Trump will personally control the so-called "golden share" that his administration has forced U.S. Steel to accept as part of the terms of a deal that will see the previously private company get acquired by Japan-based Nippon Steel. It's an utterly absurd arrangement—one that will leave the federal government with a controlling share of U.S. Steel even after Trump leaves office—that gives Trump the power to block future attempts by U.S. Steel to relocate its headquarters or make changes to its production facilities. Documents filed this week with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) spell out the specifics of the deal. Trump must provide "written consent" before U.S. Steel will be allowed to change its name, relocate its headquarters, reduce or alter any planned capital investments, "close, idle, or sell" its existing plants, or attempt to acquire any part of a competing business. In short: Whatever decisions are made by U.S. Steel's executives and shareholders (or by Nippon, which will own U.S. Steel) will require approval from Trump, his appointees, or his successors. The terms spelled out in the SEC documents extend well beyond government meddling in the future of a private business. The deal also means that the same federal government charged with regulating other steel companies operating in the United States now owns a controlling share in a direct competitor. That's a massive conflict of interest, on top of the other gross implications here. This is socialism of the particularly stupid variety, like something ripped from the pages of Atlas Shrugged. No surprise, then, that The New Republic is a fan: "This leftish maneuver—one might even call it socialist—represents a promising new experiment in regulatory policy," writes Timothy Noah. As he points out, the idea of using these "golden shares" to effectively take over private business has gained some traction on the political left in recent years. The Roosevelt Institute, for example, has advocated for using them to force car companies to build more electric vehicles and to artificially hike wages. The Trump administration's handling of the U.S. Steel/Nippon deal will only open the door to more arrangements like this—giving future presidents a precedent for forcing their way into the board rooms of private companies. For anyone to the right of hardened socialists, this arrangement should be completely indefensible. That being said, I do look forward with a sort of grim amusement to the rhetorical gymnastics that many Republicans will no doubt deploy to not only defend this deal but to insist that Trump's takeover of U.S. Steel is actually a brilliant exercise of executive power. When that happens—and it will—keep in mind how conservatives and Republicans reacted to the Obama administration's partial takeover of General Motors a decade ago. "If congressional Republicans do not object to this arrangement, the GOP position is simple," writes Jim Geraghty at National Review. "The U.S. government owning shares in private companies and directing a company's decisions is socialism, communism, economic foolishness, and arguably a form of economic fascism. But that's only when a Democratic president does it. When a Republican president does it, it's perfectly fine." Trump's takeover of U.S. Steel is socialist nonsense that violates every principle of limited government and represents an unrestrained view of executive power. It should be universally opposed by Congress and the public, and it ought to be reversed as soon as possible. The post Trump's Controlling Stake in U.S. Steel Is Indefensible Socialist Nonsense appeared first on
