Rachel Reeves has provided retail bosses with a ready-made excuse for when things go wrong

It’s not just British farmers who are hacked off by the latest Budget – some of the biggest names in retail have now joined forces to send one of those angry, multi-signature letters to the chancellor, scolding her for the imminent tax hikes coming their way.

Represented by the British Retail Consortium (BRC) trade body, practically everyone who is anyone has signed it – including Sainsbury’s CEO Simon Roberts, John Lewis’s Nish Kankiwala and Currys boss Alex Baldock. It also includes the UK heads of international chains, like Aldi, Lidl and Amazon.

So what is their problem, exactly? Beyond expressing their “significant concerns” about the long-term impact on their industry, they also highlight how such increases will have a knock-on effect on regular people.

“The sheer scale of new costs and the speed with which they occur create a cumulative burden that will make job losses inevitable, and higher prices a certainty,” it reads. (Translation: when the s*** hits the fan – as it inevitably will – we’re going to deny all responsibility and blame you, Rachel Reeves.)

Still, for the most part, they are playing nice. They have requested a meeting and a “phasing in” process for the lower threshold at which employer national insurance contributions (NICs) kick in, signalling they are somewhat open to compromise.

Less realistic, however, is their demand to delay the implementation of packaging levies and faster action to improve business rates. I’m not saying it’s not a problem – because it is. But multiple governments have been promising to sort out business rates, which are linked to property values, without doing much to address the situation to the obvious detriment of Britain’s high streets.

As for their other asks? They’re probably out of luck there, too. Britain’s new government can’t afford to give ground on its “tough choices” through fear that it will create the perception of weakness – particularly when there may be more of them coming. Perhaps the best they can hope for at their meeting (which I suspect they will get) are some vague promises to look at helping the sector when the fiscal situation improves – if, indeed, it does.

So just how many jobs are at risk? That’s a tough question. As a retail analyst put it to me: “If you’re in the business you have a number of choices: you can cut investment, you can cut jobs or you can raise prices. At the moment, we don’t know which way people are going to go and how those three will interact with each other.”

Cutting jobs would appear to be the easiest of those options, given Britain’s much-vaunted “flexible” labour market that makes firing people considerably easier than it is in much of Europe. True, cutting jobs is disruptive and costly and there’s a danger that if you axe too many you both damage your business and have to rehire (difficult, time-consuming and expensive).

But here’s something that may have been missed in the tumult: many companies have been hoarding workers, a consequence of the tight labour market and the high level of employment Britain has lately enjoyed. So it might be even easier – from a business perspective – to cut than it looks.

This may be less true of retail than other sectors. There isn’t much scope for carrying extra fat in this competitive, low-margin industry. But remember; the increase in employer NICs is not just a problem for retailers – they’re just being more vocal about it because they’re going to get hit hardest.

At this point, a note of caution is due. There is nothing struggling CEOs like better than ready-made excuses for when they’re being mean – and the increase those NICs and other business tax increases provide them with just that.

Some CEOs may already have their PR departments working on their announcements: “We deeply regret the necessity of making these cuts, but we had no choice in the wake of the government’s decision to increase employer national insurance contributions…etc.” What will go unsaid is: “My bonus has been less than stellar and there’s nothing the shareholders like better than cost-cutting.”

But regardless of whether their motivations are born of cynicism or a genuine need to address a sudden, sharp increase in the cost burden – or a mixture of the two – it doesn’t change the fact that the hammer is coming down. Quite soon. And the pain will be considerable.

The government has a stated ambition of securing an 80 per cent employment rate. It is currently focused on those labelled as “economically inactive” – a particularly unpleasant official term we ought to get rid of. It is especially intent on bullying the sick and disabled, many of whom cannot work.

That is going to change. And Labour may have to kiss any hopes of hitting its ambitious target goodbye...