Connected in a way to the Union rumblings I mentioned
earlier. Exhibit A, March 31st: Labour's plans to increase national insurance next year will have an impact on jobs. Exhibit B, April 5th: Nat Insurance rise "will not cost jobs". Opposing opinions indeed...but they're
both from Alistair Darling. Gordy must have slapped him for not lying last week.
"
Brown's election deceit: asking the public to look at the advantages of the borrowing, and not contemplate the flip side to the debt coin". Nelson Fraser
asks if Labour is really saying (but not saying) that more unemployment is
a price worth paying?
4 comments:
There's a real whiff of hypocrisy about the companies who have sided against the increase in National Insurance. These companies use tax avoidance measures to reduce their Corporation Tax, pay huge bonuses to their chief executives, pension committments and then bleat about increases in NI being responsible for job losses.
Certainly a whiff but it's not hypocrisy: they say it's a tax against jobs, i.e. new employment. They just forget to mention the losses at other end of the scale.
That said the rise in NI will probaly cause far more unemployment!
P.S. Hope the trip went well.
Trip was good thanks. With the job losses I think Government cuts will cause more jobs, particularly in the private sector because new projects will be cut first. 50% of all employees in the U.K are now employed in the I.T sector or science related jobs.
What the big companies, those who have complained about the NI rise, won't do is create jobs or fill vacancies - that's negative job creation not additional unemployment.
Post a Comment