A national insurance hike to boost social care would be built on a misunderstanding
Boris Johnson and Rishi Sunak have, it is reported, agreed to pay for long term reform of social care by raising national insurance by a penny in the pound for both employers and employees.
The move would raise an estimated £10bn annually.
The government is braced for unease among its backbenchers because the Conservatives promised not to raise income tax or national insurance in their election-winning 2019 manifesto.
It perhaps ought not to be too worried about that. The prime minister can always point to the crisis in social care and the need, more broadly, to repair the public finances after the COVID-19 pandemic.
The chancellor, meanwhile, can point out that one of his predecessors, Gordon Brown, did something similar in his April 2002 budget. Having pledged not to raise income taxes in Labour’s election-winning 2001 manifesto, Mr Brown broke the spirit of that promise, slapping more than 4 million workers with a 1% increase in national insurance.
The risk of breaking an election promise is the least of the problems with this proposal.
For a start, the move will perpetuate the myth that national insurance is some kind of special safety net, hypothecated to pay for pensions, unemployment benefits and other elements of the welfare state such as the NHS.
It is remarkable how many people still believe this when, for many years, national insurance has simply been income tax by another name.
Yes, there is something called the National Insurance Fund, but essentially it is a government accounting wheeze.
The money raised in national insurance contributions is insufficient to pay for the benefits and public services that many people think they do. It just disappears, effectively, into the government’s coffers and is spent in the same way that revenues from income tax, VAT and corporation tax are spent.
Because the UK state pension system is a so-called ‘pay as you go’ system, the national insurance paid by today’s workers pays the pensions of today’s pensioners, not their own.
This misunderstanding of national insurance may be precisely why the government is proposing going to go down this route.
The Treasury risks hurting those worst affected financially by the COVID crisis through any rise in NI contributions
Polling suggests people are happier paying national insurance rather than income tax because they genuinely appear to believe they are getting something, a benefit, for doing so.
It is why chancellors down the years have reached for national insurance as their favoured stealth tax. In 1979, national insurance receipts were equal to half of income tax receipts. This year, according to the Treasury, they will be equal to roughly three-quarters of income tax receipts.
There are also other problems with this proposal.
One is that it exacerbates intergenerational unfairness. Unlike income tax, workers of state pension age do not pay national insurance on their earnings, so the hike will fall entirely on younger workers.
Moreover, because national insurance – unlike income tax – is levied only on earnings, rather than other sources of income, such as interest on savings, the cost of this measure will fall disproportionately on younger people rather than older ones.
In other words, having made sacrifices throughout the pandemic to protect older people, younger people will again be paying through their earnings for a benefit that will benefit older people rather than themselves.
This move, then, may deepen the problems the Conservatives have with younger voters.
An explicit aim of reforming social care is to prevent people having to sell their homes to pay for such care. Younger people, unable to buy a home in the first place, may wonder why they are being asked to pay higher national insurance contributions so that others may keep theirs.
Others will criticise the lack of progressivity in this proposal.
All workers (other than those earning more than £100,000 annually and who do not benefit from the personal allowance) can earn up to £12,570 before they have to start paying income tax. By contrast, national insurance kicks in as soon as a worker has earned £9,568.
Accordingly, a wealthy pensioner living off a generous final salary pension or on income from their savings and dividends will not be paying this proposed hike, but a low-paid worker earning just £184 per week will be.
Another major problem with this proposal is the unwanted consequences it will have. Taxes, by their nature, reduce the activity on which they are levied. It is why chancellors tax smoking heavily.
Because this proposed national insurance will fall on employers, as well as employees, it will make the cost of hiring someone more expensive.
Higher payroll taxes mean fewer people in work and, potentially, lower growth. It is why, in response to Mr Brown’s national insurance hike in 2002, the then-Conservative leader, Iain Duncan-Smith, called the move a “tax on jobs”.
Gordon Brown introduced an extra tier of National Insurance in 2002
So, too, did David Cameron and George Osborne when Mr Brown ordered his chancellor, Alistair Darling, to announce a 1% rise in national insurance in March 2010 to pay for the financial crisis. Mr Darling had wanted to increase VAT instead. Mr Brown’s decision ensured Labour had barely any support from business in that year’s general election.
So, to conclude, what the PM is proposing is a tax increase that will disproportionately hit younger and low-paid workers while making it harder for employers to hire people.
Or, as Nick Macpherson, the former permanent secretary at the Treasury, put it on Twitter: “Rentiers and trustafarians won’t have to pay a penny. And the low paid young will subsidise the wealthy old. Higher spending does require higher taxes. But national insurance is a regressive tax on jobs.”
Quite.
Food inflation has hit its highest level in almost a year and could continue to go up, according to an industry body.
The British Retail Consortium (BRC) reported a 2.6% annual lift in food costs during April – the highest level since May last year and up from a 2.4% rate the previous month.
The body said there was a clear risk of further increases ahead due to rising costs, with the sector facing £7bn of tax increases this year due to the budget last October.
Money latest: Can we hide my wife’s redundancy from mortgage provider?
It warned that shoppers risked paying a higher price – but separate industry figures suggested any immediate blows were being cushioned by the effects of a continuing supermarket price war.
Kantar Worldpanel, which tracks trends and prices, said spending on promotions reached its highest level this year at almost 30% of total sales over the four weeks to 20 April.
It said that price cuts, mainly through loyalty cards, helped people to make the most of the Easter holiday with almost 20% of items sold at respective market leaders Tesco and Sainsbury’s on a price match.
Its measure of wider grocery inflation rose to 3.8%, however.
Wider BRC data showed overall shop price inflation at -0.1% over the 12 months to April, with discounting largely responsible for weaker non-food goods.
But its chief executive, Helen Dickinson, said retailers were “unable to absorb” the surge in costs they were facing.
“The days of shop price deflation look numbered,” she said, as food inflation rose to its highest in 11 months, and non-food deflation eased significantly.
“Everyday essentials including bread, meat, and fish, all increased prices on the month. This comes in the same month retailers face a mountain of new employment costs in the form of higher employer National Insurance Contributions and increased NLW [national living wage],” she added.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Five hacks to beat rising bills
While retail sales growth has proved somewhat resilient this year, it is believed big rises to household bills in April – from things like inflation-busting water, energy and council tax bills – will bite and continue to keep a lid on major purchases.
Also pressing on both consumer and business sentiment is Donald Trump’s trade war – threatening further costs and hits to economic growth ahead.
Read more from Sky News:
UK-US trade talks ‘moving in positive way’, says White House
M&S tells agency workers to stay at home after cyberattack
A further BRC survey, also published on Tuesday, showed more than half of human resources directors expect to reduce hiring due to the government’s planned Employment Rights Bill.
The bill, which proposes protections for millions of workers including guaranteed minimum hours, greater hurdles for sacking new staff and increased sick pay, is currently being debated in parliament.
The BRC said one of the biggest concerns was that guaranteed minimum hours rules would hit part-time roles.
On the outskirts of Ho Chi Minh City, factory workers at Dony Garment have been working overtime for weeks.
Ever since Donald Trump announced a whopping 46% trade tariff on Vietnam, they’ve been preparing for the worst.
They’re rushing through orders to clients in three separate states in America.
Sewing machines buzz with the sound of frantic efforts to do whatever they can before Mr Trump’s big decision day. He may have put his “Liberation Day” tariffs on pause for 90 days, but no one in this factory is taking anything for granted.
Staff have been working overtime
Workers like Do Thi Anh are feeling the pressure.
“I have two children to raise. If the tariffs are too high, the US will buy fewer things. I’ll earn less money and I won’t be able to support my children either. Luckily here our boss has a good vision,” she tells me.
Do Thi Anh
That vision was crafted back in 2021. When COVID struck, they started to look at diversifying their market.
Previously they used to export 40% of their garments to America. Now it’s closer to 20%.
The cheery-looking owner of the firm, Pham Quang Anh, tells me with a resilient smile: “We see it as dangerous to depend on one or two markets. So, we had to lose profit and spend on marketing for other markets.”
You asked, we listened, the Trump 100 podcast is continuing every weekday at 6am
That foresight could pay off in the months to come. But others are in a far more vulnerable state.
Some of Mr Pham’s colleagues in the industry export all their garments to America. If the 46% tariff is enforced, it could destroy their businesses.
Read more from Sky News:
The world and America have changed irreversibly under Trump
Trump’s first 100 days in 100 words
How Trump’s immigration crackdown has changed lives
Doubts US will start making what Vietnam delivers
Down by the Saigon River, young couples watch on as sunset falls between the glimmering skyscrapers that stand as a testament to Vietnam’s miracle growth.
Cuong works in finance
Cuong, an affluent-looking man who works in finance, questions the logic and likelihood that America will start making what Vietnam has spent years developing the labour, skills and supply chains to reliably deliver.
“The United States’ GDP is so high. It’s the largest in the world right now. What’s the point in trying to get jobs from developing countries like Vietnam and other Asian nations? It’s unnecessary,” he tells me.
But the Trump administration claims China is using Vietnam to illegally circumvent tariffs, putting “Made in Vietnam” labels on Chinese products.
There’s no easy way to assess that claim. But market watchers believe Vietnam does need to signal its willingness to crack down on so-called “trans-shipments” if it wants to cut a deal with Washington.
👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈
Vietnam can’t afford to alienate China
The US may also demand a major cutback in Chinese manufacturing in Vietnam.
That will be a much harder deal to strike. Vietnam can’t afford to alienate its big brother.
Luke Treloar, head of strategy at KPMG in Vietnam
Luke Treloar, head of strategy at KPMG in Vietnam, is however cautiously optimistic.
“If Vietnam goes into these trade talks saying we will be a reliable manufacturer of the core products you need and the core products America wants to sell, the outcome could be good,” he says.
But the key question is just how much influence China will have on Vietnamese negotiators.
Anything above 10-20% tariffs would be intensively challenging
This moment is a huge test of Vietnam’s resilience.
Anything like 46% tariffs would be ruinous. Analysts say 10-20% would be survivable. Anything above, intensely challenging.
But this looming threat is also an opportunity for Vietnam to negotiate and grow. Not, though, without some very testing concessions.
Business
UK-US trade talks ‘moving in a very positive way’, says White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt
Trade talks between the UK and the United States are “moving in a very positive way”, according to the White House.
President Donald Trump’s press secretary Karoline Leavitt spoke about the likelihood of the long-discussed agreement during a press briefing.
In Westminster, there are hopes such a deal could soften the impact of the Trump tariffs announced last month.
Leavitt told reporters: “As for the trade talks, I understand they are moving in a very positive way with the UK.
“I don’t want to get ahead of the president or our trade team in how those negotiations are going, but I have heard they have been very positive and productive with the UK.”
She said Mr Trump always “speaks incredibly highly” of the UK.
“He has a good relationship with your prime minister, though they disagree on domestic policy issues,” she added.
“I have witnessed the camaraderie between them first hand in the Oval Office, and there is a deep mutual respect between our two countries that certainly the president upholds.”
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said she was positive about a deal. Pic: AP
Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Pat McFadden gave the UK’s position on the talks when speaking to Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips.
He said there was “a serious level of engagement going on at high levels” to secure a UK-US trade deal.
Mr McFadden is one of the most powerful members of Sir Keir Starmer’s government and a key ally of the prime minister.
Read more:
Deal ‘possible’ but not certain
Chancellor lays out redlines for deal
He was careful to not get ahead of developments, however, saying: “I think an agreement is possible – I don’t think it’s certain, and I don’t want to say it’s certain, but I think it’s possible.”
He went on to say the government wanted an “agreement in the UK’s interests” and not a “hasty deal”, amid fears from critics that Number 10 could acquiesce a deal that lowers food standards, for example, or changes certain taxes in a bid to persuade Donald Trump to lower some of the tariffs that have been placed on British goods.
Mr McFadden’s tone was more cautious than Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ last week.
She had been in the US and, speaking to Sky News business and economics correspondent Gurpreet Narwan, the chancellor said she was “confident” a deal could be done.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
‘We’re confident’, says Reeves
But she sought to play down fears that UK standards could be watered down, both on food and online safety.
“On food standards, we’ve always been really clear that we’re not going to be watering down standards in the UK and similarly, we’ve just passed the Online Safety Act and the safety, particularly of our children, is non-negotiable for the British government,” Ms Reeves said.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway