ChatterBank2 mins ago
Leap In Unemployment Rate Raises Question Of Labour Own Goal
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by webbo3. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I dont need to go back to the 70s why should I or anyone else, we are were we are 2024/25 the world and the politics are very different. The cons for 14 years have encouraged people to sit on their backsides and get paid to do so, but if you really want to visit the 70s,in the 70s i remember if you spent longer than 6 weeks on the dole you got kicked off and forced to take any job going. Eh oh
"I dont need to go back to the 70s why should I or anyone else, we are were we are 2024/25 the world and the politics are very different. " - oh dear! I think you should go back to the last real Labour governement because this mob are identical. It got so bad the conditions were created for TGL to fix the nation......TGL is a product of lefty incompentance....Hang on, carry on Labour, as you were!
"The only problem I have with your figures NJ is that I think you are a tad low so the loss to the practise is more."
You could be right, youngmaf. I simply chose a figure on which to perform the calculations.
I've just had a look a the runners and riders and I was wrong - the last time I looked there were 22 staff, now there are in fact 24 staff in addition to the six doctors:
1 Advanced nursing practioner
2 Practice nurses
2 Healhcare assistants
1 Practice Pharmacist (he practice does not have a pharmacy)
That's the end of the medics. In addittion there are:
1 Practice Manager
1 Practice Operations Manager
2 Scanners
2 Secretary/Care co-ordinators
1 Clinical coder
1 Practice medicines co-ordinator
1 Medical Records Administrator
1 Reception Manager
1 Receptionist/Prescriptions clerk
6 Reception Administrators
1 Receptionis/Medical Records Administrator
I've no idea of the going rate for all of these jobs but you could be right that it is more than £25k on average. Amending the staff numbers to 24 and upping the average to £30k, the extra to be found is £20,779. So still about two-thirds of one average salary. I suppose this can simply come out of the practice's "filthy profits". 😀
Well first and formost NJ this debate aside, I'm surprised that you've allowed yourself to be mislead by others.
The ( filthy profit) has nothing at all to do with this post. The filthy profit remark ( I did make) is to be seen on the ( Cop29 Climate Conference) thread, if you care to take the time to read it?
13.47. No one is disputing the fact based chancellors increases. It's the assuming salaries that you have snatched out of mid air, plus you are also assuming that your practice also employ them all full time?
Looking at the list you've supplied I would say most of them don't work fulltime, in fact more than likely 2/3 hours per day, very much on par with how chemists employ their staff, part time. And a lot of them like some shop docs move from practice to practice, but neither you or I know that for sure. If that list is all full time then I would say they are well over staffed. Also if this is the practice that you often complain about not being open or available, then it sure is over staffed.
"It's the assuming salaries that you have snatched out of mid air, plus you are also assuming that your practice also employ them all full time?"
I made an assumption to perform the calculations. I said I had no idea what the correct figure was. Whether they are full or part time is not particularly relevant unless the practice has a relatively large proportion of people on exceptionally low pay.
The details you mention are not particularly important because whatever way you cut it, the practice will have to find the equivalent of between 66% and 75% of its employees' average salary. They cannot increase their prices as some other small businesses may be able to and apart from closing the practice there is really only one way to find that sum.
You dont get paid 25k a year for part time work or 2/3 hours per day so it is very much relevent. To give a true costing of that practice you've selected in which i may add appears to be well over the bog standard practice staffing levels, you would need to know the full costings of all salaries within that practice.
“You dont get paid 25k a year for part time work”
Indeed not. And you don’t get paid £25k for managing a practice with six doctors and 24 other staff.
I don’t think you have grasped my point. I‘m not trying to make a true costing (for which indeed I would need all the individual salary details). I was trying to portray what the new charges mean to a small business by relating it to the average pay of their employees. When you make estimates you have to make assumptions. So long as the business does not have a small proportion of its employees on outrageously high or low pay the average will provide that portrayal sufficiently.
This is what I hope the Chancellor’s advisors should have done but listening to some of the remarks she and others have made it is clear they did not.
I think I’m out of this one now because it is obvious that you do not grasp the principle of “synthetic” costings and will only be satisfied with accurate actual figures. The Treasury does not work like that because it would be impossible. It can only estimate the likely effects of its measures – which is what I’ve done.
In your own words NJ.
Quote. So long as the business does not have a small proportion of its employees on outrageously high or low pay.
This pracice does have the above. At least 10 of the jobs are very part time, maybe only 2/3 hours per day, and maybe only 1 or 2 days a week, ie low pay
Then you have medical staff of those the doctors will be on outrageously high pay. I see your assuming in this case/ practice that the increase in extra costings exaggerated.
"This pracice does have the above. At least 10 of the jobs are very part time, maybe only 2/3 hours per day, and maybe only 1 or 2 days a week, ie low pay"
You don't know that, and neither do I. That’s why we have to make assumptions.
"Then you have medical staff of those the doctors will be on outrageously high pay."
I did not include the doctors in my calculations at all. The other medically trained staff are unlikely to attract “outrageously high pay.”
OK, one last try.
I’ve done an analysis of the salaries of the practice and estimated individual amounts for each of the jobs. As you seem to be intent on claiming that a large number of staff are on low pay, I’ve made eight of the posts very low pay (£8k). Few people work for less than £10k. Sixteen hours per week on minimum wage comes to about that. I’ve made seven more “mid-range” (£10k-£15k) and the medical/managerial staff in the higher range. The total pay bill is £450,000, with an average figure of £18,750. You can see my calculations here:
As you can see, the Employers’ NI bill for the practice increases from £33,175 to £49,500 – an increase of £16,325 or almost 50%. As you may also notice, this is not unadjacent to the earlier figure I calculated using average salaries (which was £17,728). (That’s the thing about using averages; they usually work out about right – well right enough to paint a reasonably accurate picture).
The only difference now we have more detailed information (which I’m sure my GP practice has noticed) is that the additional cost they will face next year equates near enough to the cost of two of the lower paid posts, or perhaps one of those and one of the slightly higher paid.
Of course you can juggle my assumed salaries around a bit. But I hope you now appreciate it will do little to repudiate the overall conclusion – that a GP surgery such as mine will face a hefty increase in costs from next April and, along with other businesses, they will have to find a way to accommodate that.
I don’t appear to be alone in my findings. Here’s a publication from that well known Right Wing organisation, the LibDems:
“The Institute of General Practice Management has estimated that the rise will mean the average GP surgery’s tax bill will go up by around £20,000 a year.” [again, not too far away from my figure]
And a bit more analysis leads me to further conclusions.
The lower paid staff impose a considerably higher percentage of the increased burden on the practice's finances.
Those in the higher pay bracket (£28k to £45k) will "only" cost the practice between 21% and 32% more in NI contributions. Those on £15k will cost 84% more whilst those on £12k will see a 162% increase. The very low paid earning £8k cost the practice nothing at present and from next year they will cost £450 each.
These are all simple sums and they will be carried out up and down the land not only in GP surgeries but in every other business over the next few months. The new goverment seems to labour under the notion that businesses will simply bear these additional costs with no effect on prices (and hence inflation), levels of service or staffing levels. I have news - they won't.
And I forgot to add that if you use the same salary figures as I have, but make the calculation on the average of those figures (£18,750) the extra NI bill comes to £17,539. The difference using the individual salary figures comes to £16,325. So, a £1k difference, but that would not, as you suggested it might, be enough to dispel the overall conclusion. As I said, averages usually work quite well enough so long as you know what you are doing.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
News6 mins ago
Technology6 mins ago
Horror As 'Man Doused In Bleach' In Busy...
News15 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.