[Politics] The Labour Government

[Bozza]

Not defending Nandy, never!, but Lewis comes across as aggressive and shouty. I gave up half way through cos he kept repeating himself, just louder. The new Jeremy Kyle?

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.

Some will die this winter because of this polcy.

It's worth getting shouty about.

 

[Bozza]

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.

Playing a few nights in Brighton next year:

Stewart Lee vs The Man-Wulf - Brighton Dome

In this brand new show, Lee shares his stage with a tough-talking werewolf comedian from the dark forests of North America who hates humanity. The Man-Wulf lays down a ferocious comedy challenge to the culturally irrelevant and physically enfeebled Lee. C

brightondome.org

(We're going on the Friday)

 

[timbha]

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.

Some will die this winter because of this polcy.

It's worth getting shouty about.

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.

Shouting rarely makes people listen or understand.

 

[Weststander]

I’ve just seen the chat above regarding pensions. In case anyone thinks it’s rich private pensions matter, R4 reported that the BMA are lobbying hard against any changes. They won on this a couple of years ago, resulting in a u-turn in tax law.

Doctors see not reintroducing a lifetime allowance and the £258k tax free lump sum as sacrosanct. Any attempt to a target those an attack on the system they signed up to. It would lead to a rush to early retire and a disincentive to progression/helping with backlogs.

Pensions are complicated, governments beware of unintended consequences.

 

[beorhthelm]

I’ve just seen the chat above regarding pensions. In case anyone thinks it’s rich private pensions matter, R4 reported that the BMA are lobbying hard against any changes. They won on this a couple of years ago, resulting in a u-turn in tax law.

Doctors see the £1,073,000 lifetime allowance and £258k tax free lump sum as sacrosanct. Any attempt to a target those an attack on the system they signed up to. It would lead to a rush to early retire and a disincentive to progression/helping with backlogs.

Pensions are complicated, governments beware of unintended consequences.

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.

they're coming for CGT aren't they, and ignore impact to investments?

 

[Weststander]

though they ees complicated, it's pretty astonishing how we subsidise middle to upper income pensions.

I like the much talked about idea of flat rate 30% relief.

Giving an added incentive to tens of millions to save for retirement.

We must do this … demographics, life expectancy.

 

[Bodian]

I’ve just seen the chat above regarding pensions. In case anyone thinks it’s rich private pensions matter, R4 reported that the BMA are lobbying hard against any changes. They won on this a couple of years ago, resulting in a u-turn in tax law.

Doctors see the £1,073,000 lifetime allowance and £258k tax free lump sum as sacrosanct. Any attempt to a target those an attack on the system they signed up to. It would lead to a rush to early retire and a disincentive to progression/helping with backlogs.

Pensions are complicated, governments beware of unintended consequences.

The £1,073,000 lifetime allowance has already been abolished (6 April 2024).

 

[Weststander]

The £1,073,000 lifetime allowance has already been abolished (6 April 2024).

Sorry, I meant left wing think tanks are calling for its reintroduction, and lower.

 

[dsr-burnley]

I’ve just seen the chat above regarding pensions. In case anyone thinks it’s rich private pensions matter, R4 reported that the BMA are lobbying hard against any changes. They won on this a couple of years ago, resulting in a u-turn in tax law.

Doctors see the £1,073,000 lifetime allowance and £258k tax free lump sum as sacrosanct. Any attempt to a target those an attack on the system they signed up to. It would lead to a rush to early retire and a disincentive to progression/helping with backlogs.

Pensions are complicated, governments beware of unintended consequences.

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.

The Tories had to row back on their much more half-hearted equivalent attempts to restrict high pensions, because the tax system of clawbacks was so badly designed that doctors were finding that working longer was reducing their pension, not increasing it. Too many GP retirements, too few GPs remaining. Ever since Blair's new GP contract giving big pay rises and cancelling weekend working, the system might as well have been set up to drive GPs out of the profession. Total shambles.

 

[Weststander]

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.

The Tories had to row back on their much more half-hearted equivalent attempts to restrict high pensions, because the tax system of clawbacks was so badly designed that doctors were finding that working longer was reducing their pension, not increasing it. Too many GP retirements, too few GPs remaining. Ever since Blair's new GP contract giving big pay rises and cancelling weekend working, the system might as well have been set up to drive GPs out of the profession. Total shambles.

The “believed” is hopefully just stirrers/interests from the left or right.

It would be political suicide to favour a sector of 5.95m workers over one containing 21.25m.

And challengeable in the courts. UK tax statutes have a fundamental principle of fairness. Would Starmer want more crap?

 

[Super Steve Earle]

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.

they're coming for CGT aren't they, and ignore impact to investments?

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.

 

[chip]

The “believed” is hopefully just stirrers/interests from the left or right.

It would be political suicide to favour a sector of 5.95m workers over one containing 21.25m.

And challengeable in the courts. UK tax statutes have a fundamental principle of fairness. Would Starmer want more crap?

It currently seems to favour a sector of 650

 

[chip]

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.

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.

Doesn't investment drive growth? Don't the government want to increase growth? Seems odd to penalise investment if you want growth. It would be sensible to funnel more of that investment into the UK maybe.

 

[Weststander]

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.

Doesn't investment drive growth? Don't the government want to increase growth? Seems odd to penalise investment if you want growth. It would be sensible to funnel more of that investment into the UK maybe.

Reeves would be mad to inhibit investment by companies or investing for retirement by under 67’s. For several very obvious reasons. As a former BoE employee, I doubt she will.

 

[chip]

Reeves would be mad to inhibit investment by companies or investing for retirement by under 67’s. For several very obvious reasons. As a former BoE employee, I doubt she will.

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?

 

[Weststander]

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?

I listened to all the R4, R5 and LBC budget stuff, plus the Telegraph’s daily scare stories.

The truth is we simply don’t know what Reeves will do, no leaks.

Best imho not to get agitated by what The Resolution Foundation, IFS and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh are promoting. They don’t have Reeves’s ear, she’s not John McDonnell. She also listens to business and has to take into account global consequences. For example politicians made great play for years about going after non-doms, it roused the rabble and sounded great. Except …. they paid full UK taxes on UK income and gains, plus a flat rate annual charge, as well as running businesses, spending here, employing, often they’re yanks, french and germans working for city firms, law firms. Now they’re exiting with their capital to Italy, UAE and US who welcome them. Another … it’s complicated.

 

[dsr-burnley]

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.

 

[Super Steve Earle]

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.

Doesn't investment drive growth? Don't the government want to increase growth? Seems odd to penalise investment if you want growth. It would be sensible to funnel more of that investment into the UK maybe.

I agree. I think you meant to reply to the post to which I was responding.

 

[Blue&WhiteSea]

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.

No, my point was, those of us with a pot between £400k to £1M are not the ones they were supposedly targeting.

 

[beorhthelm]

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.

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.