It's entirely understandable that a champion for those who can't speak for themselves gets passionate about hundreds of thousands of the poorest being targeted by the government in this way.
Because those of us with a pension pot of over £1m are the ones who are really suffering
A bit like the defence of the 4% of us who pay IHT. I really appreciate you trying to justify me not getting taxed more, but I think I could manage a few more quid for people who are really struggling thanks
I think I already have somebody ready to stick up for me.
brightondome.org
I understand him being passionate about this ill thought decision but I’ve seen him behave in a similar manner in his TV programme when discussing ISA interest rates, holiday insurance, life cover, TV licences for OAPs, etc.
though they ees complicated, it's pretty astonishing how we subsidise middle to upper income pensions. seems like they're ruling out all the pension options.
The £1,073,000 lifetime allowance has already been abolished (6 April 2024).
It's believed they are working on a way to give public sector workers some form of exemption from the charge, because public sector pensions are so generous (and unfunded, incidentally) that the charge would hit the public sector (the ones with the highest pensions) too hard.
It's not astonishing though. Where is the subsidy? If you are referring to middle income earnings of say £35k to £40k, they get tax relief added to contributions. But this generates faster and greater growth in the pension pot. If the investor is rewarded for this risk and not having access to his money by not paying tax on on the lump sum, then I'd say the income/expenditure for the government broadly balances out from the taxable pension income over the remaining term of the pension.
It currently seems to favour a sector of 650
The government not taking your money is not a subsidy. It simply make pension contributions tax free. The tax is reclaimed on payment. Tax is payed on earnings and it's hard to see how those who pay more tax are being subsidised. I don't see a subsidy here.
She may well be, I am not a psychiatrist. I agree, R4 talking now about NI on employer pension contributions. I'm sure I read something recently about the BoE pension and the rather high employer rate, or am I imagining that?
The beauty of increasing NIC from the government's point of view (at least employer's NIC, which I would presume they are on about) is that it only affects the private sector. Effectively, employer's NIC doesn't affect public sector workers because the government is paying it to itself. So they can hit the private sector without affecting the public sector.
I agree. I think you meant to reply to the post to which I was responding.
Because those of us with a pension pot of over £1m are the ones who are really suffering
A bit like the defence of the 4% of us who pay IHT. I really appreciate you trying to justify me not getting taxed more, but I think I could manage a few more quid for people who are really struggling thanks
I think I already have somebody ready to stick up for me.
i'm refering to the higher rate payers in general getting 40% rebate on contributions. 20% would be fine an incentive to save and most will draw pension under the higher rate so net up 20%. the lump sum being tax free is a direct subsidy, you didnt get tax on contributions then dont pay tax on withdraw, and for public sector had zero risk too.
