Letters: What is the Chancellor trying to achieve?

Zero-sum game

Sir: Though troubled by the impact of Budget measures on employers and economic growth, I am more baffled by the regressive nature of those measures on the most vulnerable sectors – retail, hospitality, social care and students (‘Tax, spend, borrow’, 2 November). While the employer of a full-time employee earning £50,000 a year will see a cost increase of 2 per cent, the comparable increases for a full-time adult, a half-time adult and a 16-hour-a-week student on the minimum wage are 10.4 per cent, 13.1 per cent and a staggering 23.2 per cent respectively – and retail and hospitality are also hit by a major reduction in business rates relief.

The doubling of the employment allowance for the smallest employers is welcome, but fiscal drag reduces the availability from employers with up to 54 full-time staff on the minimum wage to up to 35, which will rule out even the smallest care homes. Care homes are especially vulnerable since required staffing ratios prevent them from reducing employee numbers. What is the Chancellor trying to achieve with this focus?

James Archer

Dover, Kent

Hitting the buffers

Sir: Charles Moore used the introduction of safe access zones at abortion facilities in England and Wales to decry the lack of protection for British Jews experiencing anti-Semitism (Notes, 2 November). My daughter was part of the campaign for these zones in Scotland, where she encountered testimonies from patients and staff at hospitals and clinics, all of which detailed at least a feeling of unease or prejudice because of protests taking place outside. In the worst cases, patients were harassed, shouted at and traumatised by protestors.