From CityAM:
THE GOVERNMENT will hand £1bn to private firms in a bid to tackle rising youth unemployment, Nick Clegg, the deputy Prime Minister, will announce today. Under the “Youth Contract”, firms will be eligible for a subsidy of £2,275 for each employee aged 18 to 24 years old they take on. There will be 160,000 such subsidies – equivalent to half the minimum wage for six months – available over the next three years...
The decision to use wage subsidies to boost employment is something of a U-turn for the coalition, which quickly scrapped £1.3bn of similar payments, instigated by the Labour party, when it came to power.
In a bid to ensure the cash helps those who need it most, the vast majority of subsidies will only be available to employers who take on a young person who has been on jobseeker’s allowance for at least nine months. The government is keen to avoid the mistakes of Labour’s Future Jobs Fund, which was widely criticised for helping employers cut the cost of taking on university graduates they would have hired regardless.
Labour's plan didn't work, this one won't work.
I'm sure employers will, for example, be able to find plenty of graduates who have been on JSA for at least nine months whom "they would have hired regardless". I suppose the significance of 'nine months' is that governments seem to worry more about long-term unemployed than short-term unemployed, so this is a good way of reducing the number of long-term unemployed, albeit at the expense of increasing the number of short-term unemployed.
Stormlight
2 hours ago
11 comments:
I got told off again for shouting at the tellybox by Mrs Lola when this crapppage was 'announced'.
It's not good for me after a heart op to have them spout all this bollocks and cause me excitement and fury. Can I sue them for endangering my health?
To gladden your heart, Wadders:-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/amid-crisis-italy-confronts-a-culture-of-tax-evasion/2011/11/22/gIQAef4JtN_story.html?hpid=z2
L, try sticking to light entertainment.
D, yes, I did read about that, but they say the tax will only raise EUR 3.5 billion a year, i.e. a laughably small amount compared to e.g. Council Tax which raises £25 billion a year.
As somebody else pointed out earlier, if they genuinely think this will work they are acknowledging that the minimum wage is £2,275 too high.
B, the NMW is too high, Employer's NIC is too high, benefits withdrawal+income tax/Ee's NIC is far, far too high, hire and fire reg's are far too onerous, education standards (by contrast) are too low etc etc.
Why didn't they just reduce eers NI for young people or micro businesses - anybody any idea how much eers NI raises and what % £1 billion would reduce it by?
Shiney
Shiney, Er's NI @ 13.8% raises over £50 billion a year, so knocking off £1 billion would reduce the rate all the way down to 13.5%. Big deal.
For the class not eligable, their wage fund will fall by the same amount.
Unearned incomes will be protected.
Truly fuckwits. Hang on. Maybe its deliberate?
RS, yes. The Tories merrily admit that they'll reduce other benefits to pay for the subsidy. Clegg denies it, but hey.
"Shiney, Er's NI @ 13.8% raises over £50 billion a year,"
What about E'er's NI on the age range affected by this scheme?
B, OK, let's say we copy what the Lib Cons have proposed, to reduce Er's NI for selected areas and have a reduction for a particular class of employees as well/instead. At the margin, employers will then choose people from that particular group and not employ or sack people not in that group. Big deal.
Post a Comment