Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

Tax Cut For Firms Which Take On Jobless Under-25S

Recommended Posts

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2507050/Tax-cut-firms-jobless-25s-Osborne-examines-plan-tackle-1million-unemployed-young-people.html

Firms could be offered a tax cut if they hire unemployed young people.

Chancellor George Osborne is considering a plan which would mean national insurance was not pay for jobless under-25s given work.

While the total number of people out of work has fallen in the last year, the number of unemployed young people has remained stubbornly high at almost 1million.

Mr Osborne is expected to use next month’s Autumn Statement to unveil measures to get more people in their teens and twenties into work.

And when the tax cut runs out it's back on the dole?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are those of us unemployed in our 30's supposed to do? Afterall, we're the ones who have suffered most from housing bubble fraud and uncontrolled mass immigration.

It's ok for the government to be ageist then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are those of us unemployed in our 30's supposed to do? Afterall, we're the ones who have suffered most from housing bubble fraud and uncontrolled mass immigration.

It's ok for the government to be ageist then?

Lie about your age?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it true over 65s or something dont pay NI, employee or employer? So effectively its cheaper to hire them?

I know thats how it is in the US. Under 65s are discriminated against as the govt pays over 65s medical costs for them, rather than the employer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it true over 65s or something dont pay NI, employee or employer? So effectively its cheaper to hire them?

I know thats how it is in the US. Under 65s are discriminated against as the govt pays over 65s medical costs for them, rather than the employer.

People who are over state pension age don't pay personal NI contributions, but employers still pay employers' NI so there isn't an advantage to hiring older workers in the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who are over state pension age don't pay personal NI contributions, but employers still pay employers' NI so there isn't an advantage to hiring older workers in the UK.

Employers just shuffle their Zero Hour Contract Holders to minimise costs instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who are over state pension age don't pay personal NI contributions, but employers still pay employers' NI so there isn't an advantage to hiring older workers in the UK.

except they will be more motivated by more take home pay.

+ over 65s are not facing the monumental house prices, faced by the young.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whack another 20 pages on the tax code and create a few more perverse incentives (e.g. discrimination against 25 year old job applicants).

A future government is one day going to have to slash and burn its way through mountains of this Brown-Osborne junk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a daft idea since it will just result in jobs churn. Employers will just continually cycle through the unemployed for their unskilled positions.

A targeted tax break for those taken on who had been unemployed for 2+ years might have worked since that's a small enough number that employee churning would not be possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should offer tax cuts and exemptions to under 25s, with greater discounts to those under 21, and even greater discounts to those under 18.

It's not fair to charge them higher rate of NI than any generation before them and offer reduced real terms benefits, and in some cases exclude the from claiming entirely, for example, working tax credits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should offer tax cuts and exemptions to under 25s, with greater discounts to those under 21, and even greater discounts to those under 18.

It's not fair to charge them higher rate of NI than any generation before them and offer reduced real terms benefits, and in some cases exclude the from claiming entirely, for example, working tax credits.

So employers are being encouraged to recruit younger workers in favour of older workers? Just one small problem with that:

Discrimination: your rights

1. Types of discrimination

It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of:

  • age

...

These are called 'protected characteristics'.

...

You're protected from discrimination in these situations:

  • at work

...

3. Discrimination at work

The law protects you against discrimination at work, including:

...

  • recruitment

...

So even if they bring in the tax cut, it would be illegal for employers to take it into account.

Edited by (Blizzard)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So employers are being encouraged to recruit younger workers in favour of older workers? Just one small problem with that:

Discrimination: your rights

Our society has huge amounts of age discrimination built into it, mostly in favour of old people and against younger people. It's so prevalent that people don't even see it anymore. For example, people aged 60 and over get free public transport everywhere in London, a freebie that would cost a younger person £3k a year. Why? 60 is not the retirement age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Our society has huge amounts of age discrimination built into it, mostly in favour of old people and against younger people. It's so prevalent that people don't even see it anymore. For example, people aged 60 and over get free public transport everywhere in London, a freebie that would cost a younger person £3k a year. Why? 60 is not the retirement age.

I couldn't agree more, but I was just raising a practical point.

As I understand it, the kind of discrimination they are suggesting is currently illegal.

Of course, this should also apply to the 18-20 minimum wage so presumably there's some kind of loophole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a daft idea since it will just result in jobs churn. Employers will just continually cycle through the unemployed for their unskilled positions.

A targeted tax break for those taken on who had been unemployed for 2+ years might have worked since that's a small enough number that employee churning would not be possible.

It would incentivise employers to churn for unskilled positions but this wouldn't happen with skilled positions.

I have been thinking of taking someone on recently. Reduction in costs is more likely to make this happen than less.

Once I take someone on and train them, I am not going to churn them after 5 years, because by then they will be adding value to the business, but for the first 12 months they will be practically useless and a drain on my resources.

I'd like to be able to think of more ways in which the government can incentivise businesses to take people on, but stop businesses simply using them as a method of profiteering. This is always a challenge, because whatever schemes are invented, big business always seem to find a route to manipulate them outside of there intended purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whatever schemes are invented, big business always seem to find a route to manipulate them outside of there intended purpose.

The best way to avoid unintended consequences is to make the tax and benefit systems as simple as possible. If the government wants to increase the demand for labour it should reduce employers' NI for all workers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So employers are being encouraged to recruit younger workers in favour of older workers? Just one small problem with that:

Discrimination: your rights

So even if they bring in the tax cut, it would be illegal for employers to take it into account.

Yes, but difficult to prove it. Quite a lot of employers discriminate based on age already anyway!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   218 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.