UK Spring Budget to Include 2% Cut in National Insurance Payroll Tax, Saving Average Worker ਴50 ($1,140) per Year

The UK Spring Budget will include a 2% cut to national insurance payroll tax.
This reduction is expected to save the average worker $1,140 per year when combined with the identical cut announced in November.
UK Spring Budget to Include 2% Cut in National Insurance Payroll Tax, Saving Average Worker ਴50 ($1,140) per Year

The UK Spring Budget, presented by Jeremy Hunt on Wednesday, will include a 2 percentage point cut to national insurance payroll tax. This reduction is expected to save the average worker ਴50 ($1,140) per year when combined with the identical cut announced in November. The chancellor has been looking for ways to offer a tax cut on the scale of that announced last year as a way to boost their poll ratings before an election.



Confidence

100%

No Doubts Found At Time Of Publication

Sources

73%

  • Unique Points
    • Jeremy Hunt is to cut national insurance by 2p in his budget on Wednesday.
    • The UK chancellor is preparing to announce the second big cut to employment taxes in a year, after his decision to cut national insurance rates by 2p at last year's autumn statement.
    • Wednesday's move should save the average earner £450 a year, which combined with last year's cut will add up to £900.
    • Hunt and Sunak have spent the last few weeks looking for ways to offer a tax cut on the scale of that announced last year as a way to boost their poll ratings in their last budget before an election.
    • Sunak had urged Hunt to focus on reducing income tax instead, which is more costly to cut but better understood by most voters.
    • Since last year's national insurance cut, the party's poll deficit has widened by one point from 19 points to 20.
    • Treasury officials said that any personal tax cuts should be focused on working people.
    • Sunak also appears to have been persuaded by the fact that unlike income tax, which is partly devolved in Scotland, national insurance is a UK-wide tax.
    • The prime minister told reporters in Scotland last Friday: 'I want to make life easier for people.'
    • Conservative whips have been told to prepare to rush through emergency legislation after the budget.
    • Sunak promised to reduce income tax rates when he was chancellor, but this was reversed by Hunt in his first autumn statement in 2022 as the government scrambled to undo the damage done by Kwasi Kwarteng's 'mini budget' a few months earlier.
    • While a cut in national insurance would on its own save workers hundreds of pounds a year, the effect of the tax cut would be outweighed by Treasury's decision to freeze salary thresholds for both national insurance and income tax in cash terms.
    • Calculations by Resolution Foundation show that only those paid between £27,000 and £59,000 a year will be better off as a result of both the autumn statement and Wednesday's budget.
    • Those paid over £61,834 will lose almost £54,382 a year.
    • Government sources say forecasts provided by Office for Budget Responsibility last month provided chancellor with about £13bn to spend before breaking his promise to have debt falling as percentage of economic output in five years time.
    • Hunt is expected to announce a series of revenue-raising measures on Wednesday, including limiting tax breaks for non-doms, introducing a levy on vaping products and increasing taxes on short term holiday lets.
    • Calculations by Labour suggest these measures could cumulatively raise an additional £5bn.
    • The chancellor has also been considering reducing the forecasts for public spending after the election. The forecasts set after autumn statement assumed departmental budgets would rise 1% above inflation each year during next parliament, but Hunt has been looking at bringing that down to 0.75%. Such a move would raise between £5bn and £6bn a year.
    • Economists have warned such it would also mean cutting the budgets of unprotected departments, including justice, local government and Home Office by about 20% over course parliament.
  • Accuracy
    • Government sources say forecasts provided by Office for Budget Responsibility last month provided chancellor with about £13 billion to spend before breaking his promise to have debt falling as percentage of economic output in five years time.
    • Calculations by Labour suggest these measures could cumulatively raise an additional £5 billion.
    • The chancellor has also been considering reducing the forecasts for public spending after the election. The forecasts set after autumn statement assumed departmental budgets would rise 1% above inflation each year during next parliament, but Hunt has been looking at bringing that down to 0.75%. Such a move would raise between £5 billion and £6 billion a year.
  • Deception (50%)
    The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that Jeremy Hunt will cut national insurance by 2p in his budget on Wednesday but fails to mention the fact that this was already announced last year and has been included as a pre-election giveaway. This creates the impression that Hunt is making a new announcement when he is not actually doing anything new. Secondly, it states that the UK chancellor will save an average earner £450 per year with this cut but fails to mention that this amount includes last year's cut of 2p which means it has already been accounted for in previous calculations. This creates the impression that Hunt is offering a new and significant tax reduction when he is not actually doing anything new. Thirdly, the article states that Treasury officials have said any personal tax cuts should be focused on working people but fails to mention that this contradicts Sunak's earlier statement where he urged Hunt to focus on reducing income tax instead of national insurance which would benefit more voters. This creates the impression that Hunt is making a decision based solely on what will benefit him politically rather than what is best for the country. Finally, it states that only those paid between £27,000 and £59,000 per year will be better off as a result of both cuts but fails to mention that this amount includes the freeze in thresholds which means many people who are currently paying more tax will not see any benefit from these cuts. This creates the impression that Hunt is offering a significant tax reduction when he is not actually doing anything new.
    • The article states 'Jeremy Hunt to cut national insurance by 2p in budget' but fails to mention this was already announced last year and has been included as a pre-election giveaway. This creates the impression that Hunt is making a new announcement when he is not actually doing anything new.
    • The article states 'Treasury officials said any personal tax cuts should be focused on working people.' but fails to mention that this contradicts Sunak's earlier statement where he urged Hunt to focus on reducing income tax instead of national insurance which would benefit more voters. This creates the impression that Hunt is making a decision based solely on what will benefit him politically rather than what is best for the country.
    • The article states 'UK chancellor will save an average earner £450 per year with this cut' but fails to mention that this amount includes last year's cut of 2p which means it has already been accounted for in previous calculations. This creates the impression that Hunt is offering a new and significant tax reduction when he is not actually doing anything new.
    • The article states 'Only those paid between £27,000 and £59,000 per year will be better off as a result of both cuts' but fails to mention that this amount includes the freeze in thresholds which means many people who are currently paying more tax will not see any benefit from these cuts. This creates the impression that Hunt is offering a significant tax reduction when he is not actually doing anything new.
  • Fallacies (100%)
    None Found At Time Of Publication
  • Bias (85%)
    The article is biased towards the Conservative Party and their decision to cut national insurance. The author uses language that portrays the move as a pre-election giveaway for voters, rather than an economic policy decision. Additionally, the author mentions Rishi Sunak's previous promise to reduce income tax rates but does not mention any similar promises made by other political parties or leaders.
    • “I’m very conscious that, whilst the SNP is making life harder for hard-working people by putting their taxes up, I want to make life easier for people.”
      • Jeremy Hunt and the prime minister, Rishi Sunak, have spent the last few weeks looking for ways to offer a tax cut on the scale of that announced last year as a way to boost their poll ratings in their last budget before an election.
        • The UK chancellor is preparing to announce the second big cut to employment taxes in a year
        • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
          Kiran Stacey has a financial tie to Rishi Sunak as she is an employee of the Treasury. This could compromise her ability to report on national insurance cuts and other topics related to public spending.
          • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
            Kiran Stacey has conflicts of interest on the topics of national insurance cut, budget, election and public spending cuts. The author is a member of the Treasury officials which may compromise their ability to act objectively and impartially.

            75%

            • Unique Points
              • . The UK Spring Budget will be presented by Jeremy Hunt.
              • National insurance payroll tax is set to be cut by 2 percentage points in the budget.
              • . Senior Conservatives have signaled that Prime Minister Rishi Sunak plans to fight the general election on a promise of future income tax breaks.
            • Accuracy
              No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
            • Deception (50%)
              The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Hunt will present the national insurance reduction as a £900 benefit to the average worker when combined with the identical cut he announced to payroll tax in November. However, this statement is misleading because it implies that workers are receiving an additional £1875 ($2346) per year which they are not. In reality, Hunt's announcement of a national insurance reduction will only benefit those who earn more than the current threshold and therefore receive no tax on their earnings above that amount.
              • The author states that Hunt's announcement of a national insurance reduction will only benefit those who earn more than the current threshold and therefore receive no tax on their earnings above that amount. This is true, but it does not mention that this cut was already announced in November 2023.
              • The author claims that Hunt will present the national insurance reduction as a £900 benefit to the average worker when combined with the identical cut he announced to payroll tax in November. However, this statement is misleading because it implies that workers are receiving an additional £1875 ($2346) per year which they are not.
            • Fallacies (85%)
              The article contains two fallacies: Appeal to Authority and Inflammatory Rhetoric.
              • > The Treasury declined to comment. <br> Hunt will present the national insurance reduction as a £900 ($1,140) benefit to the average worker when combined with the identical cut he announced to the payroll tax in his last fiscal statement in November, according to a person familiar with the matter, who requested anonymity discussing decisions that haven't yet been announced. <br> The scale of the cut was earlier reportedBloomberg Terminal by the Times.
              • The article uses inflammatory rhetoric when it states 'Hunt will present the national insurance reduction as a £900 ($1,140) benefit to the average worker' which is not entirely accurate and could be seen as misleading.
            • Bias (75%)
              The author uses language that dehumanizes the working class by referring to them as 'payroll tax'. The use of this term is biased and implies a negative connotation towards those who pay taxes. Additionally, the author mentions future income tax breaks which could be seen as an attempt to appeal to voters rather than providing concrete solutions for workers.
              • the identical cut he announced in November
                • The UK's national insurance payroll tax
                • Site Conflicts Of Interest (100%)
                  None Found At Time Of Publication
                • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                  Alex Wickham has conflicts of interest on the topics of UK Spring Budget, Jeremy Hunt, National Insurance payroll tax and Rishi Sunak. He is a member of the Conservative Party which may influence his reporting on these topics.

                  73%

                  • Unique Points
                    • Jeremy Hunt will cut national insurance by a further two percentage points for 27 million workers in a move worth £450 on average.
                    • The chancellor has been looking at ways to offer a tax cut on the scale of that announced last year as a way to boost their poll ratings in their last budget before an election.
                  • Accuracy
                    • The chancellor has been looking at further public spending cuts after the election as one way to pay for the tax reduction, despite economists warnings that such a move would cause public services to buckle.
                    • Since last year✧s national insurance cut, the party's poll deficit has widened by one point from 19 points to 20.
                  • Deception (50%)
                    The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title implies that national insurance will be cut by two percentage points when in fact it has already been cut by two percentage points and this budget only cuts it further by one percent point.
                    • The chancellor will make national insurance the central measure in his spring budget after deciding against cutting income tax.
                    • Jeremy Hunt will use his budget on Wednesday to cut national insurance by a further two percentage points for 27 million workers
                  • Fallacies (100%)
                    None Found At Time Of Publication
                  • Bias (85%)
                    The author uses language that dehumanizes the working class by referring to them as '27 million workers'. This is an example of ideological bias.
                    • ]Jeremy Hunt will use his budget on Wednesday to cut national insurance by a further two percentage points for 27 million workers in a move worth £450 on average.
                    • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                      Steven Swinford has a conflict of interest on the topic of national insurance as he is reporting for The Times which is owned by News Corp. News Corp also owns several companies in the media and entertainment industry that could be affected by changes to national insurance.
                      • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                        Steven Swinford has a conflict of interest on the topics of Jeremy Hunt, national insurance, budget and tax cut as he is an author for The Times which may have financial ties to companies or industries that are affected by these topics.