Unofficial UKBF Manifesto For SMEs

[Craiglincs]

It really doesnt make sense and Joules brake wind turbines really don't work.
[/QUOTE

I can't post a link or pic.

which had a rotor diameter of 5 meters and a height of 9 meters – produced 3.5 kilowatt of heat at a wind speed of 11 m/s (a strong breeze, Beaufort 6). This is comparable to the heat output of the smallest electric boilers for space heating. From 1993 to 2000,

The Rise of Modern Wind Energy: Wind Power for the World. Pan Stanford Publishing, 2013. See chapter 13 (“Water brake windmills”, Jørgen Krogsgaard) and chapter 16 (“Consigned to Oblivion”, Preben Maegaard). These seem to be the only English language documents

Solar thermal is already providing baseline power in Spain far cheaper and easier than storing in batteries then using that to heat.

Do you have a hot water tank in your house? That stores heat instead of charging a battery to run a hot water heater on demand.

There are solar powered hot water tanks. Generate heat in day,store in tank,tap when you need it.

Norway has water tank heat storage on the grid.

 

[NickGrogan]

Solar thermal is already providing baseline power in Spain far cheaper and easier than storing in batteries then using that to heat.

Do you have a hot water tank in your house? That stores heat instead of charging a battery to run a hot water heater on demand.

There are solar powered hot water tanks. Generate heat in day,store in tank,tap when you need it.

Norway has water tank heat storage on the grid.

a 5m diameter rotor (very small) with the wind blowing at 11m/s (quite windy) will produce about 4kW of electricity.

For perspective, a kettle uses about 3kW, so no not really the same as a sensible boiler.

You could connect a heatpump to the wind turbine and get up to about 16kW of heat, when the weather was right - windy but not to cold.

Add a battery, accept that it won't be that windy all the time, and if you live somewhere windy enough, you might be able to get 6 - 8kW of constant heat, at best.

Solar thermal power in Spain relies on heating molten salt to about 1000C. Firstly we don't have enough sun for that, secondly 1000C molten salt is not like the hot water tank in my house.

Didnt see anything on Norway, although they do like heatpumps and network heating systems, both of which are good ideas.

 

[Newchodge]

Probably back in '94 with pfi when labour last cut red tape. But as the ****** meltdown and the svb collapse showed reducing regulation isn't always a good thing.

Private landlords almost went extinct then thatchers polices have them a resurgence and now they are crying that the very centre left polices to control them is going to reduce the supply of housing(it won't)

What annoys me is we could have had a fantastic rejuvenation of our railways across the country for the cost of HS2 but no we have to get to London 20 mins faster and screw the countryside.

Labour weren't in power in '94. That was John Major. Labour gained power in 1997.

 

[Duke Fame]

I'm sure Keir Starmer understands small businesses.

His dad was a toolmaker, dontchaknow?

He made a tool, that's for sure

 

[Duke Fame]

I think the biggest worry with the new government is the threat of greater employment legislation Which puts is off employing.

Labour’s ‘New Deal for Working People’. The UK has benefited for many years from having relatively liberal labour market rules, especially compared to continental European countries the UK has much lower unemployment than other countries, as the costs of hiring (and perhaps more importantly, firing when things go wrong) is not excessively high. If you make firing people too difficult, businesses will not hire in the first place. My concern is that several Labour policies, such as abolishing zero-hour contracts and providing unfair dismissal, sick pay, and parental leave from ‘day one’, will undo a big advantage for the UK. This is by no means guaranteed, and the policies may ultimately be watered down.

 

[IanSuth]

I think the biggest worry with the new government is the threat of greater employment legislation Which puts is off employing.

Labour’s ‘New Deal for Working People’. The UK has benefited for many years from having relatively liberal labour market rules, especially compared to continental European countries the UK has much lower unemployment than other countries, as the costs of hiring (and perhaps more importantly, firing when things go wrong) is not excessively high. If you make firing people too difficult, businesses will not hire in the first place. My concern is that several Labour policies, such as abolishing zero-hour contracts and providing unfair dismissal, sick pay, and parental leave from ‘day one’, will undo a big advantage for the UK. This is by no means guaranteed, and the policies may ultimately be watered down.

Having dealt over the years recruiting for many multinational companies post Brexit the choice is really inside of Schengen or US, when we were inside the EU we gave a nice halfway house of being able to work throughout all of the EU without some of the excesses (like Italy's redundancy payouts) but now we are outside there is little that makes a multinational positively choose to employ under UK rules so bringing in day 1 rights won't change them.
So really you are talking about UK companies, personally if they can get the NHS sorted to reduce waiting lists and see people I thing that will reduce the sick pay bill to UK plc by far more than it will be increased by any sick pay enhancements i have seen.

As for day 1 rights to unfair dismissal and maternity/paternity rights I think decent companies have little to fear, just ensure your contracts and HR policies are robust and stuck to.

My wife had a job offer rescinded in 1999 when she rang the company she was due to start work for to give them a heads up she had just found she was pregnant - she had no obligation to do so that early in the pregnancy and just thought she was being polite/engaged with a new employer. They didn't care and basically said "as you would not have enhanced maternity pay day 1 you won't be losing anything so the legal bill would be more than you would get form us" a quick check with a solicitor told us that was the case and so luckily she managed to rescind her notice at her employer and is still there 24 years later.

 

[Newchodge]

Having dealt over the years recruiting for many multinational companies post Brexit the choice is really inside of Schengen or US, when we were inside the EU we gave a nice halfway house of being able to work throughout all of the EU without some of the excesses (like Italy's redundancy payouts) but now we are outside there is little that makes a multinational positively choose to employ under UK rules so bringing in day 1 rights won't change them.
So really you are talking about UK companies, personally if they can get the NHS sorted to reduce waiting lists and see people I thing that will reduce the sick pay bill to UK plc by far more than it will be increased by any sick pay enhancements i have seen.

As for day 1 rights to unfair dismissal and maternity/paternity rights I think decent companies have little to fear, just ensure your contracts and HR policies are robust and stuck to.

My wife had a job offer rescinded in 1999 when she rang the company she was due to start work for to give them a heads up she had just found she was pregnant - she had no obligation to do so that early in the pregnancy and just thought she was being polite/engaged with a new employer. They didn't care and basically said "as you would not have enhanced maternity pay day 1 you won't be losing anything so the legal bill would be more than you would get form us" a quick check with a solicitor told us that was the case and so luckily she managed to rescind her notice at her employer and is still there 24 years later.

I agree. A proper employer has nothing to fear from day 1 rights, except the cost of sick pay. Personally I have always believed that SSP should be reclaimable from HMRC, in the same way that SMP is reclaimable.

Poor employers will have problems, but then poor employers always have problems.

It is quite disheartening, the number of large employers who quite happily steal from their employees, when they know better. Small employers who do the same out of ignorance should have access to proper training before they ever start employing anyone.

 

[Duke Fame]

Quite an early test for Labour in that they need to decide whether they want to be Green or have employed people in industry as Tata steel will be needing to make a decision very soon on their blast furnaces.

Making stuff like steel is simply too expensive in the UK due to the govt making it difficult in following it's net zero objectives.

 

[IanSuth]

Quite an early test for Labour in that they need to decide whether they want to be Green or have employed people in industry as Tata steel will be needing to make a decision very soon on their blast furnaces.

Making stuff like steel is simply too expensive in the UK due to the govt making it difficult in following it's net zero objectives.

Well actually there is a simple solution to that (but not cheap)

They subsidise TATA to keep the old blast furnace open until the arc furnace is ready in 2027.

They have also recently found that using old crushed concrete on top of the arc furnace instead of expensive inert material both saves money and recycles the concrete back to cement saving the CO2 that was given off when the cement became concrete.

 

[Duke Fame]

Well actually there is a simple solution to that (but not cheap)

They subsidise TATA to keep the old blast furnace open until the arc furnace is ready in 2027.

They have also recently found that using old crushed concrete on top of the arc furnace instead of expensive inert material both saves money and recycles the concrete back to cement saving the CO2 that was given off when the cement became concrete.

win win

 

[Duke Fame]

I agree. A proper employer has nothing to fear from day 1 rights, except the cost of sick pay. Personally I have always believed that SSP should be reclaimable from HMRC, in the same way that SMP is reclaimable.

Poor employers will have problems, but then poor employers always have problems.

It is quite disheartening, the number of large employers who quite happily steal from their employees, when they know better. Small employers who do the same out of ignorance should have access to proper training before they ever start employing anyone.

I'm not so sure, the way Rayner's paper read was that employers would find it difficult to get rid of employees from the get-go. I'm sure it will be watered down once the civil servants get involved but it looked very naive.

 

[IanSuth]

I'm not so sure, the way Rayner's paper read was that employers would find it difficult to get rid of employees from the get-go. I'm sure it will be watered down once the civil servants get involved but it looked very naive.

It is never hard to get rid of employees if you have a proper performance management policy.

If you don't then being brutal it is your own fault.

It shouldn't ever be easy to get rid of people on a whim, you should have to justify it, "gut feel" is not a replacement for measurement against targets

 

[Newchodge]

I'm not so sure, the way Rayner's paper read was that employers would find it difficult to get rid of employees from the get-go. I'm sure it will be watered down once the civil servants get involved but it looked very naive.

Then you haven't read it properly. Employees will have the right not to be unfairly dismissed, from day 1, instead of having to wait 2 years, although the rules may differ during a probation period. Dismissal for inability to do the job, turning up late every day, redundancy, theft, stabbing the CEO in the back, all the fair reasons will still be fine. I cannot see anything naive about that.

 

[Duke Fame]

Yup no rebate and euro and schengen. How could we join the single market without rejoining? Isn't this just cakeism again?

Nothing wrong with that

 

[Duke Fame]

Then you haven't read it properly. Employees will have the right not to be unfairly dismissed, from day 1, instead of having to wait 2 years, although the rules may differ during a probation period. Dismissal for inability to do the job, turning up late every day, redundancy, theft, stabbing the CEO in the back, all the fair reasons will still be fine. I cannot see anything naive about that.

the 2 year period gives the employer the chance to get rid if need be. I suspect there will be a few perpetual probation period extensions if that is a loophole but it will put people off employing.

I'll have a bet with you, i bet £10 that Labour will leave more unemployment than the 1.4m it inherited (they always do)

 

[Newchodge]

the 2 year period gives the employer the chance to get rid if need be. I suspect there will be a few perpetual probation period extensions if that is a loophole but it will put people off employing.

I'll have a bet with you, i bet £10 that Labour will leave more unemployment than the 1.4m it inherited (they always do)

There will have to be a limit on probation periods. Extensions only if there has been unavoidable absence and, I would suggest, a maximum period of 3 months.

 

[Duke Fame]

There will have to be a limit on probation periods. Extensions only if there has been unavoidable absence and, I would suggest, a maximum period of 3 months.

What if as an employer, you simply aren't convinced after 3 months?

 

[Duke Fame]

It is never hard to get rid of employees if you have a proper performance management policy.

If you don't then being brutal it is your own fault.

It shouldn't ever be easy to get rid of people on a whim, you should have to justify it, "gut feel" is not a replacement for measurement against targets

On here, we are fairly small businesses. I'd say after a year we can be pretty sure how people are fitting in.

 

[Newchodge]

What if as an employer, you simply aren't convinced after 3 months?

Then you decide whether to continue and find out, or not.

What do you do if you get a free trial of software for 2 weeks before you have to decide whether to pay the 5 year subscription?

 

[Duke Fame]

Well actually there is a simple solution to that (but not cheap)

They subsidise TATA to keep the old blast furnace open until the arc furnace is ready in 2027.

They have also recently found that using old crushed concrete on top of the arc furnace instead of expensive inert material both saves money and recycles the concrete back to cement saving the CO2 that was given off when the cement became concrete.

Why not simply take off tarrifs, levys etc

 

[Duke Fame]

Then you decide whether to continue and find out, or not.

What do you do if you get a free trial of software for 2 weeks before you have to decide whether to pay the 5 year subscription?

Most people are very wary of signing up as they don't want to be caught into a subscription they can't get out of, it's a good example.

Ultimately, we will see if unemployment goes up.

 

[Duke Fame]

Labour weren't in power in '94. That was John Major. Labour gained power in 1997.

I suspect it was from '97

 

[Duke Fame]

It is not rocket science.

2024 Business Rates £27bn

2024 Corporation Tax £100bn

Get rid of business rates and add the sum to corporation tax.

Get rid of everyone who is employed collecting business rates - they can fill all the unfilled jobs

Not a bad idea, we can also pass the saved collection rates onto businesses?

 

[Duke Fame]

Business rates are local authority income. Corporation tax is central govrnment income. Giving central government even more control over local authority finance, which is not a Good thing.

Not entirely true, until recently, business rates were enforced and collected locally but passed onto the treasure to distribute. Some local authorities have elected to control their budgets as they keep the majority of the rates.

 

[Duke Fame]

Using a general bit of advice we all give here, the more focussed the 'niche', the more targetted the support!

Which they will target from Westminster??

 

[IanSuth]

Why not simply take off tarrifs, levys etc

Because tata uk still couldn't compete with tata India due to the simple economics of labour and energy costs.

If you added tariffs or rules such as "all uk rail is a strategic assett and thus must use uk materials" then that might work but is protectionist and leads to trade wars (the EU/EEC started as the European coal & steel community for a reason)

 

[IanSuth]

There will have to be a limit on probation periods. Extensions only if there has been unavoidable absence and, I would suggest, a maximum period of 3 months.

Actually probation periods have zero basis in law currently - you are either an employee or you are on a fixed term basis - "subject to a probation period of x months" is just a polite way of saying - "if you aren't working out we will can you after x months as you have no protection anyway - this is a way of giving you an idea of the review timescale"

 

[Newchodge]

Actually probation periods have zero basis in law currently - you are either an employee or you are on a fixed term basis - "subject to a probation period of x months" is just a polite way of saying - "if you aren't working out we will can you after x months as you have no protection anyway - this is a way of giving you an idea of the review timescale"

I know, but if this government introduces day 1 right to claim unfair dismissal, they have said there will be an exemption for probation periods.

 

[Duke Fame]

Because tata uk still couldn't compete with tata India due to the simple economics of labour and energy costs.

If you added tariffs or rules such as "all uk rail is a strategic assett and thus must use uk materials" then that might work but is protectionist and leads to trade wars (the EU/EEC started as the European coal & steel community for a reason)

I disagree with protectionism but shooting ourselves in the foot not good. Remove the cists of energy

 

[SillyBill]

Problem with this country is the people want good services but are in complete denial about the need for taxes to pay for them.

Erm, services were a lot better 10-20 years ago when the government's take of the national cake was significantly smaller than it is now. What gives, why I am paying more of my income proportionally to receipt less?

That tells us two things, GDP/capita growth, inflation adjusted, has been very poor to non-existent for too many years, to fund the infrastructure required for the additional 10M or so net arrivals. Importing GDP units to make our economy bigger is a ruse that politicians should no longer be able to rely on IMO.

And the government isn't spending what they do have very well.

 

[SillyBill]

Drop the £100k tax cliff edge, anything else not interested in, this is the national maximum wage for a lot of successful business owners now. I personally refuse to give 60%+ income to the government so I don't, find another mug to grow your economy if the expectation is to work 3 days for the gov and 2 days for yourself. If they changed pension rules, as they likely will, that will be even less output then. It is the same sort of brainless thinking which has led to the government wondering why so many doctors/consultants now work part time, full time being more the exception than the norm. Most on a high wage/decent pension just simply stop invoicing, retire, or rapidly unwind when they near these tax traps. Socialists will applaud this endeavour, in the real world, economy has no dynanism driven by successful SMEs, and public services collapse.

 

[IanSuth]

Erm, services were a lot better 10-20 years ago when the government's take of the national cake was significantly smaller than it is now. What gives, why I am paying more of my income proportionally to receipt less?

That tells us two things, GDP/capita growth, inflation adjusted, has been very poor to non-existent for too many years, to fund the infrastructure required for the additional 10M or so net arrivals. Importing GDP units to make our economy bigger is a ruse that politicians should no longer be able to rely on IMO.

And the government isn't spending what they do have very well.

Or if services are worse than 20 years ago for a given % tax take you have to look at what else changed

Maybe austerity and outsourcing services has meant a lesser amount spent at the frontline and more being taken as private profit by the providers. Your extra % tax is actually going to Capita/Wipro/Infosys etc

Your £100k "max sensible wage" won't fly either, that is about the top 2% of earnings (i didnt look it up but i know 5% is about £87k and 1% about £160k)

You have to assume any government (especially a labour one) would be looking to make fiscal policies that benefited a lot larger % of the electorate

 

[SillyBill]

You have to assume any government (especially a labour one) would be looking to make fiscal policies that benefited a lot larger % of the electorate

I assume exactly that albeit don't see how it works. Exporting millionaires and billonaires at the rate we are doing (second fastest in the world?) will not benefit the rest of the electorate, stealth taxes will go up on everybody else eventually as the tax take falls increasingly on the middle class.

Given the top 1% already pay 30% of all tax, which is massively up on 20-30 years ago, and they are geographically mobile we are clearly already seeing them move, and IMO it will just speed up. Meanwhile Meloni in Italy is rolling out the red carpet for millionaires and billionaires in Italy and putting the "open for business" sign up, as are the Middle East, I can only speak of anecdotals but I know 3 successful business people that moved during the Tories tenure, I expect it to speed up now, I suspect most will say "good riddance", such will be the new politics now.

 

[Newchodge]

I assume exactly that albeit don't see how it works. Exporting millionaires and billonaires at the rate we are doing (second fastest in the world?) will not benefit the rest of the electorate, stealth taxes will go up on everybody else eventually as the tax take falls increasingly on the middle class.

Given the top 1% already pay 30% of all tax, which is massively up on 20-30 years ago, and they are geographically mobile we are clearly already seeing them move, and IMO it will just speed up. Meanwhile Meloni in Italy is rolling out the red carpet for millionaires and billionaires in Italy and putting the "open for business" sign up, as are the Middle East, I can only speak of anecdotals but I know 3 successful business people that moved during the Tories tenure, I expect it to speed up now, I suspect most will say "good riddance", such will be the new politics now.

The top 1% pay 30% of income tax. In 2022 2023 Sunak's UK income was about £2.2 million. He paid tax of £508,000. https://assets.publishing.service.g...xable_sources_of_income_and_gains_2022_23.pdf

That is a tax rate of 23%. My heart bleeds for the super wealthy paying huge tax rates like that

 

[Newchodge]

I assume exactly that albeit don't see how it works. Exporting millionaires and billonaires at the rate we are doing (second fastest in the world?) will not benefit the rest of the electorate, stealth taxes will go up on everybody else eventually as the tax take falls increasingly on the middle class.

Given the top 1% already pay 30% of all tax, which is massively up on 20-30 years ago, and they are geographically mobile we are clearly already seeing them move, and IMO it will just speed up. Meanwhile Meloni in Italy is rolling out the red carpet for millionaires and billionaires in Italy and putting the "open for business" sign up, as are the Middle East, I can only speak of anecdotals but I know 3 successful business people that moved during the Tories tenure, I expect it to speed up now, I suspect most will say "good riddance", such will be the new politics now.

Millionaires and billionaires living in the UK, paying a pittance in tax, and contributing little to the economy are no loss to anyone.

 

[NickGrogan]

Millionaires and billionaires living in the UK, paying a pittance in tax, and contributing little to the economy are no loss to anyone.

So, anyone paying little tax and contributing little should be encouraged to leave?

Sounds like Nigel Farage

 

[NickGrogan]

The top 1% pay 30% of income tax. In 2022 2023 Sunak's UK income was about £2.2 million. He paid tax of £508,000. https://assets.publishing.service.g...xable_sources_of_income_and_gains_2022_23.pdf

That is a tax rate of 23%. My heart bleeds for the super wealthy paying huge tax rates like that

This means that every year, he's paying more income tax than the average household pays in a lifetime.

Source

Seems fair.

 

[Porky]

Slightly off topic:-

I was looking at buying a villa on a Greek Island and discovered that as long as it was more than £350k or if I invested in a business more than same amount, I could apply for a “Golden visa”. After a further qualifying period I could effectively have duel citizenship and spend as long as I liked in Greece and get taxed at a lower level than the U.K. on income I generate and make from business IN that country. No double taxation. Money made outside of the Greek island not being taxed.

So fair play to the Greek government, to attract investment into the country they will take you as long as you are brining money in to help them advance. Simple/ logical.

Turning now to the U.K., I think in reverse if I was a non Dom here why should I bother investing in property and business here and under labour risk double taxation and get hit on incomes i make outside the U.K. because some lefties in the new government think it a great idea to tax me more because I’m more successful? Frankly I would tell them to go forth and take my investment to a country that values it.

I guess my point here is that the new government need to be careful what they wish for. It might be popular in socialist circles to say, yea, tax the rich, tax them more, tax the schools, tax the non Dom’s yeah, they can afford it but, if we lose that investment what are you left with? A country that has even less paying in and investing in it for growth as those with wealth leave and meanwhile millions more arriving here that don’t have a pot to pee in and net takers from the state purse keep increasing.

Personally, I’m not a fan of taxing anyone more than we already do.

 

[Paul Kelly ICHYB]

60%+

on everything over £100k. If you earn that much you should be able to afford a few grand for good tax/financial advice!

 

[Newchodge]

This means that every year, he's paying more income tax than the average household pays in a lifetime.

Source

Seems fair.

It also means he is earning more in a year (igoring income from trusts etc) than the average person earns in a lifetime.