Best Of

Lots of scare stories in the media about possible tax rises on pensions but Philip Inman openly advocates it:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/06/rachel-reeves-50bn-problem-solved-stop-pension-tax-relief

The bigoted cretin thinks that ending the tax free lump sum on pensions will hit boomers when in reality it is the following generations who will suffer more.

It would also kill private pensions as nobody will ever save more into a pension beyond what is needed to get a matching employer contribution.

The thought of ordinary working class people having their own £500k personal pension pot really does seem to infuriate some leftists.

I love it - wealthier pensioners 'by virtue of having a pension'
Everyone should be in fucking abject poverty in retirement on the 2 and 6 from the govt

I have to declare several interests in this matter. Firstly, my personal pension funds are around £700k with my wife having a bit more, maybe another £50k.
Secondly, especially in recent years, that sum has been accumulated by the government paying 20% on to my contributions and, in addition, giving me tax relief of 20% in addition (the actually mechanics of this have moved from the Byzantine to the incomprehensible but the broad thrust remains the same). When I retire in a few years I am hoping to receive a significant tax free lump sum that can pay for some serious self indulgence on the part of both myself and my much more deserving spouse.

In short, my pension has accrued because of a scheme which could only reasonably be called fantastically generous. What is the public interest in this? Well, as I have been incentivised to save this way I will not be claiming any means related benefits as a pensioner. I have deferred expenditure which, along with other pension savers, has made funds available for investment, something this country sorely needs. If I had not had these incentives I might have made other choices. Or, of course, I might have thought I needed to save even more.

Taking a step back, pensions are a major benefit, costing well in excess of £50bn of foregone taxes a year, for the better off. Why should those on HRT get more tax relief than those on basic rate? Surely, if anything, it should be the other way around. Why should I get a serious chunk of deferred income, topped up with government funds, tax free when those with less income or a smaller pension pot get less? Again, should it not be the other way around?

What people like me have to face is should we be cutting welfare for the disabled, the sick and the genuinely incompetent or should the focus in fact be on people like me? Don't tell the wife I am even asking the question.

Well, indeed. There are questions to be posed. The problem is the sledgehammer to crack a nut response we often get.
If the government want to cap Tax Free Cash from pensions then they need to do it up the chain, in six figures (of TFC)
A 100,000 pension pot at retirement age gets you a derisory annuity of just over 3 and a half grand. A government that goes after people who take a smaller figure to enjoy a 25,000 lump sum to get them a few little luxuries or home improvements has totally lost the plot.
A lifetime allowance of 125,000 tax free cash on pensions (so half a million pots) seems OK perhaps?

Lots of scare stories in the media about possible tax rises on pensions but Philip Inman openly advocates it:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/06/rachel-reeves-50bn-problem-solved-stop-pension-tax-relief

The bigoted cretin thinks that ending the tax free lump sum on pensions will hit boomers when in reality it is the following generations who will suffer more.

It would also kill private pensions as nobody will ever save more into a pension beyond what is needed to get a matching employer contribution.

The thought of ordinary working class people having their own £500k personal pension pot really does seem to infuriate some leftists.

I love it - wealthier pensioners 'by virtue of having a pension'
Everyone should be in fucking abject poverty in retirement on the 2 and 6 from the govt

I have to declare several interests in this matter. Firstly, my personal pension funds are around £700k with my wife having a bit more, maybe another £50k.
Secondly, especially in recent years, that sum has been accumulated by the government paying 20% on to my contributions and, in addition, giving me tax relief of 20% in addition (the actually mechanics of this have moved from the Byzantine to the incomprehensible but the broad thrust remains the same). When I retire in a few years I am hoping to receive a significant tax free lump sum that can pay for some serious self indulgence on the part of both myself and my much more deserving spouse.

In short, my pension has accrued because of a scheme which could only reasonably be called fantastically generous. What is the public interest in this? Well, as I have been incentivised to save this way I will not be claiming any means related benefits as a pensioner. I have deferred expenditure which, along with other pension savers, has made funds available for investment, something this country sorely needs. If I had not had these incentives I might have made other choices. Or, of course, I might have thought I needed to save even more.

Taking a step back, pensions are a major benefit, costing well in excess of £50bn of foregone taxes a year, for the better off. Why should those on HRT get more tax relief than those on basic rate? Surely, if anything, it should be the other way around. Why should I get a serious chunk of deferred income, topped up with government funds, tax free when those with less income or a smaller pension pot get less? Again, should it not be the other way around?

What people like me have to face is should we be cutting welfare for the disabled, the sick and the genuinely incompetent or should the focus in fact be on people like me? Don't tell the wife I am even asking the question.

I live in the Highgate ward of the London Borough of Camden. We have 1 Green and 2 Labour councillors. We abut the Highgate ward of the London Borough of Haringey, which has 3 LibDem councillors. We are demographically similar wards, although the Camden ward has more social housing, particularly around what's called Highgate New Town.

I think the sort of people who are voting Green in the Camden ward and the sort of people who are voting LibDem in the Haringey ward are pretty similar. The difference is in how active different local parties are. The party that puts in the work has won at council level. (I suspect many of these voters vote Labour at general elections and, given a choice between Farage or Starmer in No 10 in 2029, will vote Starmer.)

That doesn't mean that all Green supporters and all LibDem supporters are interchangeable, by any means, but there is overlap. More in some places than others.

Lots of scare stories in the media about possible tax rises on pensions but Philip Inman openly advocates it:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/sep/06/rachel-reeves-50bn-problem-solved-stop-pension-tax-relief

The bigoted cretin thinks that ending the tax free lump sum on pensions will hit boomers when in reality it is the following generations who will suffer more.

It would also kill private pensions as nobody will ever save more into a pension beyond what is needed to get a matching employer contribution.

The thought of ordinary working class people having their own £500k personal pension pot really does seem to infuriate some leftists.

...but where does 25 per cent come from when the lower rate is 20 per cent? ...

There has to be some net incentive to save in such an inflexible long term vehicle.

Even then, I'm not sure anyone would be well advised to put money into a personal pension if they only get 25% tax relief on the way in and expect to pay whatever basic rate income tax is on the way out, with no tax free lump sum. The inflexibility, the exposure to IHT from 2027, the platform and fund fees, the risk of further adverse changes to legislation, the very real possibility that basic rate income tax will be back at 25% or higher when you come to retire... all these things should put people off.

(Yes there's an NI saving at the moment but whaddyaknow, that's also up for review apparently....)

UK could suspend visas for countries with no migrant return deals, new home secretary says
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g7xyn03yno

Did we suggest this on pb? It sounds familiar, almost Trumpian.

Not really Trumpian. What happens is that, in several countries, the government proclaims they will not assist UK authorities, in any way or circumstance, to take migrants back. This is because there is a strong aspiration in such countries to migrate to the UK.

In the face of non-cooperation, why should the UK cooperate on visas?

I have no problem with the government doing this . I expect Mahmood will put out more policies over the coming weeks which might make more lib minded voters feel uncomfortable . My red line is leaving the ECHR . Libs are going to have to accept some things and think of the bigger picture . Reform must not win the next GE .

This report describes how the ECHR is routinely misreported: https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2025-09-04-misrepresentations-around-human-rights-and-immigration-fuelling-calls-quit-echr