Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

What Boris Johnson pulling out really means – politicalbetting.com

13

Comments

  • EndillionEndillion Posts: 4,960

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    darkage said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jeremy Hunt plots £10bn tax grab from the better off - Chancellor in talks about halving pension tax relief for 40p taxpayers

    https://twitter.com/AllisterHeath/status/1589173089044402177?s=20&t=l9sUd9d-WLHqL1eY1vbUGA

    Can't be done. They'll all leave the country for Monaco. As PB Tories regularly remind us.
    He does need to balance the books but too many tax rises on the rich and that is a risk, he also needs tax cuts for average earners before the general election to have any chance of winning it
    Given how many average earners re going to hit the 40% rate as wages rise and allowances don’t I can’t see this working out.
    And if it's fine to tax pension savings on the way in and pension income on the way out for the current generation of workers then it's fine to do it for retirees. One rule for everyone.
    I'm starting to have doubts about saving in a private pension. You are taking a risk already because firstly, its got to grow faster than inflation, and that is quite difficult; and secondly, there is a lot of uncertainty about how much it is going to be taxed when you claim it, because you are depending on the actions of future governments. If it is then also taxed at 20% on the way in, then the risk/reward metric gets changed. May as well just take the money now, even though it is taxed at about 50%; and pay off the mortgage instead.
    If you are a 40% tax payer the incentives to invest in a pension remain quite generous at the moment. If you invest £10k then you get £2k off your tax bill and £12k in your pot. Given the more flexible rules for drawdown that money will be relatively readily available once you get to a certain age where you might need it, the barriers against getting it back are much lower than they were. In addition annuity rates are suddenly looking much more attractive than they have been for the best part of a decade.

    This is of course not financial advice which I am not qualified to give but right now, under the current regime, a pension contribution makes a lot of sense if you have some spare cash, much more tax efficient than paying down the mortgage.
    Salary sacrifice is also a boost for pension saving:

    https://thepeoplespension.co.uk/salary-sacrifice/#:~:text=Salary sacrifice, sometimes known as,be treated as employer only.
    But that is what’s likely to be attacked here - because it will be the approach being used by most people / firms who allow additional contributions - heck Nest (and most other pension providers) recommend using Salary sacrifice because of the employer NI benefits.
    If they get rid of salary sacrifice then the amount put into pensions will collapse.

    But that would lead to more money for consumer spending now.

    Am I too cynical to think that governments would prefer an increase in economic activity now even if it means a long term hit to the country's financial wellbeing ?
    I think you're drastically overestimating both the amount of money that most people save via salary sacrifice, and the level of understanding most people have of the system in the first place.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited November 2022

    Trump must see DeSantis as a threat because he’s come up with another one of his nicknames: Ron DeSanctimonious.

    https://twitter.com/alexthomp/status/1589055234336514048

    If DeSantis does defeat Crist on Tuesday and is re elected Florida Governor expect him to challenge Trump in the 2024 GOP primaries.

    If DeSantis can get evangelicals and Catholics and suburbanites behind him he would have a chance of winning it, even if the white working class stay loyal to Trump
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    Sorry, a bit late but on the Header -

    It's 1 and 2 and (maybe) 3. But definitely 1 and 2. The Member vote was no slam dunk and if he'd won he could see he didn't have enough MP support to govern.

    4 and 5 not in the mix. He wants the political spotlight and he'd have thought he could turn round the polls (hubristic but he did before tbf so there's some basis for it).
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    malcolmg said:

    eek said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jeremy Hunt plots £10bn tax grab from the better off - Chancellor in talks about halving pension tax relief for 40p taxpayers

    https://twitter.com/AllisterHeath/status/1589173089044402177?s=20&t=l9sUd9d-WLHqL1eY1vbUGA

    Can't be done. They'll all leave the country for Monaco. As PB Tories regularly remind us.
    He does need to balance the books but too many tax rises on the rich and that is a risk, he also needs tax cuts for average earners before the general election to have any chance of winning it
    Given how many average earners re going to hit the 40% rate as wages rise and allowances don’t I can’t see this working out.
    And if it's fine to tax pension savings on the way in and pension income on the way out for the current generation of workers then it's fine to do it for retirees. One rule for everyone.
    I'm starting to have doubts about saving in a private pension. You are taking a risk already because firstly, its got to grow faster than inflation, and that is quite difficult; and secondly, there is a lot of uncertainty about how much it is going to be taxed when you claim it, because you are depending on the actions of future governments. If it is then also taxed at 20% on the way in, then the risk/reward metric gets changed. May as well just take the money now, even though it is taxed at about 50%; and pay off the mortgage instead.
    There’s two reasons to pay into a pension - one is the tax relief on contributions, and the other is employer contribution matching or similar schemes. Take those away, and your bog-standard investment account with Vanguard or similar, or paying off debts faster, become much more attractive.

    (I’m researching this myself at the moment, saving for retirement in a low-tax environment. Most of the ‘pension’ savings plans are an expensively-managed rip-off).
    So 100% agree. No sane person would put money into a DC pension scheme unless someone else put money in as well, be that an employer or the Government (via tax relief) or both. Taking both into account the return can be several hundred percent immediately
    At the moment I am because my current choice is 100% (before tax) at some time in the future or 45% or so now (after employer NI, employee Ni at 2% and 40% income tax). And I’m happy to gamble that the tax I pay when I retire is less than 55%. Note that is worse if you are at the £50,000 level and have children or £100,000+ level.

    If that isn’t possible going forward I would reassess what I’m doing and probably work less
    Becomes an issue surely though when you hit or get close to your LTA
    Were I in that situation (I’m not there yet or in the next 5 or so years) I would have a different set of issues and would probably only be doing enough work to keep me busy and give me pin money.

    I but you can see why anyone who has got to or close to their LTA is now only working once in a while or 1 or 2 days a week.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    Sandpit said:

    40% pension contribution relief is surely kite-flying? It’s been on every Chancellor’s hit list for at least a couple of decades, but is potlitical dynamite to actually introduce it. Behavioural changes (as highlighted by @eek and @MaxPB), especially alongside fiscal drag at a time of inflation, would undo a lot of the benefits while retaining all the political negatives.

    Not sure it's political dynamite. If the public understood (they don't) that high earners are being given an uplift of 40p on every £1 gross/60p net contributed (an instant boost of 66.7%) there would be considerable outrage in the other direction.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 6,773
    MaxPB said:

    If he cuts higher rate relief on pension saving it's basically him signalling that over 65s are more important than the future of the economy. Would be the completely wrong move and signal that the state is now a slave to the DB and state pensioners for the next 30-50 years so everyone else better get ready to bend over.

    Not really. There is a philosophical argument that the State should be willing to match all pension contributions to some extent - in the past they have done this by tax relief but it’s not the only way.

    For example (random numbers as I haven’t done the maths) how about double matching the first £5k of contributions someone makes and then matching the next £15k, but not offering any tax relief on contributions?


  • TresTres Posts: 2,163
    malcolmg said:

    eek said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jeremy Hunt plots £10bn tax grab from the better off - Chancellor in talks about halving pension tax relief for 40p taxpayers

    https://twitter.com/AllisterHeath/status/1589173089044402177?s=20&t=l9sUd9d-WLHqL1eY1vbUGA

    Can't be done. They'll all leave the country for Monaco. As PB Tories regularly remind us.
    He does need to balance the books but too many tax rises on the rich and that is a risk, he also needs tax cuts for average earners before the general election to have any chance of winning it
    Given how many average earners re going to hit the 40% rate as wages rise and allowances don’t I can’t see this working out.
    And if it's fine to tax pension savings on the way in and pension income on the way out for the current generation of workers then it's fine to do it for retirees. One rule for everyone.
    I'm starting to have doubts about saving in a private pension. You are taking a risk already because firstly, its got to grow faster than inflation, and that is quite difficult; and secondly, there is a lot of uncertainty about how much it is going to be taxed when you claim it, because you are depending on the actions of future governments. If it is then also taxed at 20% on the way in, then the risk/reward metric gets changed. May as well just take the money now, even though it is taxed at about 50%; and pay off the mortgage instead.
    There’s two reasons to pay into a pension - one is the tax relief on contributions, and the other is employer contribution matching or similar schemes. Take those away, and your bog-standard investment account with Vanguard or similar, or paying off debts faster, become much more attractive.

    (I’m researching this myself at the moment, saving for retirement in a low-tax environment. Most of the ‘pension’ savings plans are an expensively-managed rip-off).
    So 100% agree. No sane person would put money into a DC pension scheme unless someone else put money in as well, be that an employer or the Government (via tax relief) or both. Taking both into account the return can be several hundred percent immediately
    At the moment I am because my current choice is 100% (before tax) at some time in the future or 45% or so now (after employer NI, employee Ni at 2% and 40% income tax). And I’m happy to gamble that the tax I pay when I retire is less than 55%. Note that is worse if you are at the £50,000 level and have children or £100,000+ level.

    If that isn’t possible going forward I would reassess what I’m doing and probably work less
    Becomes an issue surely though when you hit or get close to your LTA
    Frankly, if you are going hit the LTA you should count your good fortune.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    darkage said:

    DavidL said:

    darkage said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jeremy Hunt plots £10bn tax grab from the better off - Chancellor in talks about halving pension tax relief for 40p taxpayers

    https://twitter.com/AllisterHeath/status/1589173089044402177?s=20&t=l9sUd9d-WLHqL1eY1vbUGA

    Can't be done. They'll all leave the country for Monaco. As PB Tories regularly remind us.
    He does need to balance the books but too many tax rises on the rich and that is a risk, he also needs tax cuts for average earners before the general election to have any chance of winning it
    Given how many average earners re going to hit the 40% rate as wages rise and allowances don’t I can’t see this working out.
    And if it's fine to tax pension savings on the way in and pension income on the way out for the current generation of workers then it's fine to do it for retirees. One rule for everyone.
    I'm starting to have doubts about saving in a private pension. You are taking a risk already because firstly, its got to grow faster than inflation, and that is quite difficult; and secondly, there is a lot of uncertainty about how much it is going to be taxed when you claim it, because you are depending on the actions of future governments. If it is then also taxed at 20% on the way in, then the risk/reward metric gets changed. May as well just take the money now, even though it is taxed at about 50%; and pay off the mortgage instead.
    If you are a 40% tax payer the incentives to invest in a pension remain quite generous at the moment. If you invest £10k then you get £2k off your tax bill and £12k in your pot. Given the more flexible rules for drawdown that money will be relatively readily available once you get to a certain age where you might need it, the barriers against getting it back are much lower than they were. In addition annuity rates are suddenly looking much more attractive than they have been for the best part of a decade.

    This is of course not financial advice which I am not qualified to give but right now, under the current regime, a pension contribution makes a lot of sense if you have some spare cash, much more tax efficient than paying down the mortgage.
    Yes absolutely. The thing is that I am a long way off retirement so just don't know how the rules about 'drawdown' will change over the course of time. What I do know however is that the government are always looking for ways of getting money, also they have tried things on with things like trying to increase student loan interest rates for repayment so I just don't regard them as being in any way reliable when it comes to making assumptions about my pension will be taxed in the future.
    It's a very fair point. One of the many things our political classes are very poor at recognising is that change of itself has a cost because it increases future uncertainty and makes returns less predictable thereby discouraging investment and ambition. We greatly need to simplify our tax code which is genuinely ridiculous and plays absurd favourites between earned income, other income and capital gains but once we do, if we ever do, we need to leave it alone.
  • Endillion said:

    eek said:

    DavidL said:

    darkage said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jeremy Hunt plots £10bn tax grab from the better off - Chancellor in talks about halving pension tax relief for 40p taxpayers

    https://twitter.com/AllisterHeath/status/1589173089044402177?s=20&t=l9sUd9d-WLHqL1eY1vbUGA

    Can't be done. They'll all leave the country for Monaco. As PB Tories regularly remind us.
    He does need to balance the books but too many tax rises on the rich and that is a risk, he also needs tax cuts for average earners before the general election to have any chance of winning it
    Given how many average earners re going to hit the 40% rate as wages rise and allowances don’t I can’t see this working out.
    And if it's fine to tax pension savings on the way in and pension income on the way out for the current generation of workers then it's fine to do it for retirees. One rule for everyone.
    I'm starting to have doubts about saving in a private pension. You are taking a risk already because firstly, its got to grow faster than inflation, and that is quite difficult; and secondly, there is a lot of uncertainty about how much it is going to be taxed when you claim it, because you are depending on the actions of future governments. If it is then also taxed at 20% on the way in, then the risk/reward metric gets changed. May as well just take the money now, even though it is taxed at about 50%; and pay off the mortgage instead.
    If you are a 40% tax payer the incentives to invest in a pension remain quite generous at the moment. If you invest £10k then you get £2k off your tax bill and £12k in your pot. Given the more flexible rules for drawdown that money will be relatively readily available once you get to a certain age where you might need it, the barriers against getting it back are much lower than they were. In addition annuity rates are suddenly looking much more attractive than they have been for the best part of a decade.

    This is of course not financial advice which I am not qualified to give but right now, under the current regime, a pension contribution makes a lot of sense if you have some spare cash, much more tax efficient than paying down the mortgage.
    Salary sacrifice is also a boost for pension saving:

    https://thepeoplespension.co.uk/salary-sacrifice/#:~:text=Salary sacrifice, sometimes known as,be treated as employer only.
    But that is what’s likely to be attacked here - because it will be the approach being used by most people / firms who allow additional contributions - heck Nest (and most other pension providers) recommend using Salary sacrifice because of the employer NI benefits.
    If they get rid of salary sacrifice then the amount put into pensions will collapse.

    But that would lead to more money for consumer spending now.

    Am I too cynical to think that governments would prefer an increase in economic activity now even if it means a long term hit to the country's financial wellbeing ?
    I think you're drastically overestimating both the amount of money that most people save via salary sacrifice, and the level of understanding most people have of the system in the first place.
    Possible.

    But I have a good idea of how much extra pension contributions are made at my workplace via salary sacrifice and its significant.

    What's more removing salary sacrifice is one of those things which could lead to a general loss of trust in private pensions and hence people reducing their contributions to the minimum allowable.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    Stocky said:

    Sandpit said:

    40% pension contribution relief is surely kite-flying? It’s been on every Chancellor’s hit list for at least a couple of decades, but is potlitical dynamite to actually introduce it. Behavioural changes (as highlighted by @eek and @MaxPB), especially alongside fiscal drag at a time of inflation, would undo a lot of the benefits while retaining all the political negatives.

    Not sure it's political dynamite. If the public understood (they don't) that high earners are being given an uplift of 40p on every £1 gross/60p net contributed (an instant boost of 66.7%) there would be considerable outrage in the other direction.
    How many 20% taxpayers realise that there’s an upper limit on (most) employee NI contributions? That’s the bigger “scandal”.

    These things are of course well known by those earning in the top 15% or so, a demographic much over-represented on this site.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited November 2022
    DavidL said:

    Trump must see DeSantis as a threat because he’s come up with another one of his nicknames: Ron DeSanctimonious.

    https://twitter.com/alexthomp/status/1589055234336514048

    In any sane country that advert that was highlighted in the thread yesterday would be enough on its own.
    As the great man said:

    "Through many dark hour
    I been thinking about this
    That Jesus Christ
    Was betrayed by a kiss
    But I can’t think for ya'
    You’ll have to decide
    Whether Judas Iscariot
    Had God on his side"
    Plenty of countries will elect politicians who claim God is behind them, not just the US, plenty in Latin America and Africa, Israel, Muslim majority nations and even in Europe, Poland and Hungary for example, arguably even Italy after Meloni's win
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    Stocky said:

    Sandpit said:

    40% pension contribution relief is surely kite-flying? It’s been on every Chancellor’s hit list for at least a couple of decades, but is potlitical dynamite to actually introduce it. Behavioural changes (as highlighted by @eek and @MaxPB), especially alongside fiscal drag at a time of inflation, would undo a lot of the benefits while retaining all the political negatives.

    Not sure it's political dynamite. If the public understood (they don't) that high earners are being given an uplift of 40p on every £1 gross/60p net contributed (an instant boost of 66.7%) there would be considerable outrage in the other direction.
    I got it when I set up my SIPP many years ago. A lump sum payment to me from HMRC. All of a year's tax back inc the higher rate element. It struck me then as absurdly generous and I feel that even more now. Limiting relief/refund to the basic rate is an absolute no-brainer imo if they're looking for savings. In fact I'd support it anyway, even if times were good.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Trump must see DeSantis as a threat because he’s come up with another one of his nicknames: Ron DeSanctimonious.

    https://twitter.com/alexthomp/status/1589055234336514048

    In any sane country that advert that was highlighted in the thread yesterday would be enough on its own.
    As the great man said:

    "Through many dark hour
    I been thinking about this
    That Jesus Christ
    Was betrayed by a kiss
    But I can’t think for ya'
    You’ll have to decide
    Whether Judas Iscariot
    Had God on his side"
    Plenty of countries will elect politicians who claim God is behind them, not just the US, plenty in Latin America and Africa, Israel, Muslim majority nations and even in Europe Poland and Hungary for example
    Doesn't make it right @HYUFD, doesn't make it right.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jeremy Hunt plots £10bn tax grab from the better off - Chancellor in talks about halving pension tax relief for 40p taxpayers

    https://twitter.com/AllisterHeath/status/1589173089044402177?s=20&t=l9sUd9d-WLHqL1eY1vbUGA

    Can't be done. They'll all leave the country for Monaco. As PB Tories regularly remind us.
    He does need to balance the books but too many tax rises on the rich and that is a risk, he also needs tax cuts for average earners before the general election to have any chance of winning it
    Given how many average earners re going to hit the 40% rate as wages rise and allowances don’t I can’t see this working out.
    And if it's fine to tax pension savings on the way in and pension income on the way out for the current generation of workers then it's fine to do it for retirees. One rule for everyone.
    I'm starting to have doubts about saving in a private pension. You are taking a risk already because firstly, its got to grow faster than inflation, and that is quite difficult; and secondly, there is a lot of uncertainty about how much it is going to be taxed when you claim it, because you are depending on the actions of future governments. If it is then also taxed at 20% on the way in, then the risk/reward metric gets changed. May as well just take the money now, even though it is taxed at about 50%; and pay off the mortgage instead.
    There’s two reasons to pay into a pension - one is the tax relief on contributions, and the other is employer contribution matching or similar schemes. Take those away, and your bog-standard investment account with Vanguard or similar, or paying off debts faster, become much more attractive.

    (I’m researching this myself at the moment, saving for retirement in a low-tax environment. Most of the ‘pension’ savings plans are an expensively-managed rip-off).
    So 100% agree. No sane person would put money into a DC pension scheme unless someone else put money in as well, be that an employer or the Government (via tax relief) or both. Taking both into account the return can be several hundred percent immediately
    At the moment I am because my current choice is 100% (before tax) at some time in the future or 45% or so now (after employer NI, employee Ni at 2% and 40% income tax). And I’m happy to gamble that the tax I pay when I retire is less than 55%. Note that is worse if you are at the £50,000 level and have children or £100,000+ level.

    If that isn’t possible going forward I would reassess what I’m doing and probably work less
    I do wonder how much of a problem early retirement is going to be in the next couple of decades.

    We already hear of it with doctors, who find that their pension contributions are maxed out and part time work ends up paying nearly as much as full time work.

    There’s a couple of (albeit very well-paid) posters on here, who have worked out that, with the mortgage paid off and a million or thereabouts in savings/investments, you can retire at that point close to being a higher-rate taxpayer for life, even if that’s in your late 40s.
    I’m in that boat - no mortgage (but our house is weird for other reasons) but not got the savings after a business didn’t quite work out.

    So I rolled back to plan a, contracting on a £x00 a day or so which is why I’m working 6 months a year rather than 3.

    Were my pension pot full, I would be working til my income hit £50,000 and then stopping for the year.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Trump must see DeSantis as a threat because he’s come up with another one of his nicknames: Ron DeSanctimonious.

    https://twitter.com/alexthomp/status/1589055234336514048

    In any sane country that advert that was highlighted in the thread yesterday would be enough on its own.
    As the great man said:

    "Through many dark hour
    I been thinking about this
    That Jesus Christ
    Was betrayed by a kiss
    But I can’t think for ya'
    You’ll have to decide
    Whether Judas Iscariot
    Had God on his side"
    Plenty of countries will elect politicians who claim God is behind them, not just the US, plenty in Latin America and Africa, Israel, Muslim majority nations and even in Europe Poland and Hungary for example
    Doesn't make it right @HYUFD, doesn't make it right.
    If they win, clearly it is divinely ordained!
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    edited November 2022
    I'm not doing badly on my football bets at the moment.

    Southampton v Newcastle today ( @Gallowgate ).

    Looking at the league table and without looking at the betting I was guessing not much between them at the odds given Newcastle's higher league position and current form but Southampton's home advantage. Perhaps Newcastle slight favourites.

    BF odds have 4.8 Southampton, 1.86 Newcastle, 3.9 the draw. So Newcastle too short I think.

    I've laid Newcastle at 1.86 so I pick up if Soton win or if its a draw.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    MaxPB said:

    If he cuts higher rate relief on pension saving it's basically him signalling that over 65s are more important than the future of the economy. Would be the completely wrong move and signal that the state is now a slave to the DB and state pensioners for the next 30-50 years so everyone else better get ready to bend over.

    Not really. There is a philosophical argument that the State should be willing to match all pension contributions to some extent - in the past they have done this by tax relief but it’s not the only way.

    For example (random numbers as I haven’t done the maths) how about double matching the first £5k of contributions someone makes and then matching the next £15k, but not offering any tax relief on contributions?
    Yes. That's how I'd do it. Matchfunding up to £X.
  • Stocky said:

    Sandpit said:

    40% pension contribution relief is surely kite-flying? It’s been on every Chancellor’s hit list for at least a couple of decades, but is potlitical dynamite to actually introduce it. Behavioural changes (as highlighted by @eek and @MaxPB), especially alongside fiscal drag at a time of inflation, would undo a lot of the benefits while retaining all the political negatives.

    Not sure it's political dynamite. If the public understood (they don't) that high earners are being given an uplift of 40p on every £1 gross/60p net contributed (an instant boost of 66.7%) there would be considerable outrage in the other direction.
    Well everyone gets the 20p, so it's only the additional 20p on top. But its a fair point.

    On the other hand, we want people to invest to pay for their own retirement. I put money into a scheme, and I also pay my workplace pension. I'd want to know if thats still worth it (the personal pension element), or if I might as well save it up, given i'll get taxed on it when I take it out.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    MaxPB said:

    If he cuts higher rate relief on pension saving it's basically him signalling that over 65s are more important than the future of the economy. Would be the completely wrong move and signal that the state is now a slave to the DB and state pensioners for the next 30-50 years so everyone else better get ready to bend over.

    Not really. There is a philosophical argument that the State should be willing to match all pension contributions to some extent - in the past they have done this by tax relief but it’s not the only way.

    For example (random numbers as I haven’t done the maths) how about double matching the first £5k of contributions someone makes and then matching the next £15k, but not offering any tax relief on contributions?


    My pension would be screwed but I would be working 5 months a year not 6. As that says I need to earn £70,000 rather than the £90,000 I’m aiming for.

    Remember my mortgage is paid off - I have little incentive to work beyond the fact Mrs Eek likes holidays (and I really aren’t that bothered by them).
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 50,772
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Trump must see DeSantis as a threat because he’s come up with another one of his nicknames: Ron DeSanctimonious.

    https://twitter.com/alexthomp/status/1589055234336514048

    In any sane country that advert that was highlighted in the thread yesterday would be enough on its own.
    As the great man said:

    "Through many dark hour
    I been thinking about this
    That Jesus Christ
    Was betrayed by a kiss
    But I can’t think for ya'
    You’ll have to decide
    Whether Judas Iscariot
    Had God on his side"
    Plenty of countries will elect politicians who claim God is behind them, not just the US, plenty in Latin America and Africa, Israel, Muslim majority nations and even in Europe Poland and Hungary for example
    Doesn't make it right @HYUFD, doesn't make it right.
    If they win, clearly it is divinely ordained!
    Genuine LOL. Well done.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 20,901
    The cost of Truss, Sunak and Johnsons mismanagement becomes clearer. Not good.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    Sandpit said:

    40% pension contribution relief is surely kite-flying? It’s been on every Chancellor’s hit list for at least a couple of decades, but is potlitical dynamite to actually introduce it. Behavioural changes (as highlighted by @eek and @MaxPB), especially alongside fiscal drag at a time of inflation, would undo a lot of the benefits while retaining all the political negatives.

    Not sure it's political dynamite. If the public understood (they don't) that high earners are being given an uplift of 40p on every £1 gross/60p net contributed (an instant boost of 66.7%) there would be considerable outrage in the other direction.
    I got it when I set up my SIPP many years ago. A lump sum payment to me from HMRC. All of a year's tax back inc the higher rate element. It struck me then as absurdly generous and I feel that even more now. Limiting relief/refund to the basic rate is an absolute no-brainer imo if they're looking for savings. In fact I'd support it anyway, even if times were good.
    I agree. I benefitted similarly. In addition to the initial 66.7% taxpayer-funder uplift the money, once invested, grows (almost) free of any taxation and Osborne's pension freedoms are the icing on the cake. The best investment I ever made (even better than my property) was my pension even though I never had luxury of employer contributions. I now have a sizeable asset which can be used flexibly and tax-efficiently should I need it with any residual fund on my death being passed to my wife and then inter-generationally to my children.

    Removal of the higher-rate relief is a no-brainer, should have happened years ago and could warrant being the next bandwagon for Starmer to jump on.
  • kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    If he cuts higher rate relief on pension saving it's basically him signalling that over 65s are more important than the future of the economy. Would be the completely wrong move and signal that the state is now a slave to the DB and state pensioners for the next 30-50 years so everyone else better get ready to bend over.

    Not really. There is a philosophical argument that the State should be willing to match all pension contributions to some extent - in the past they have done this by tax relief but it’s not the only way.

    For example (random numbers as I haven’t done the maths) how about double matching the first £5k of contributions someone makes and then matching the next £15k, but not offering any tax relief on contributions?
    Yes. That's how I'd do it. Matchfunding up to £X.
    One thing about pensions is that based on anecdote rather than data, there does seem to have been a move by employers to reduce contribution-matching. This might be exacerbated by your proposal for matching by government, or it might not.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    kinabalu said:

    Stocky said:

    Sandpit said:

    40% pension contribution relief is surely kite-flying? It’s been on every Chancellor’s hit list for at least a couple of decades, but is potlitical dynamite to actually introduce it. Behavioural changes (as highlighted by @eek and @MaxPB), especially alongside fiscal drag at a time of inflation, would undo a lot of the benefits while retaining all the political negatives.

    Not sure it's political dynamite. If the public understood (they don't) that high earners are being given an uplift of 40p on every £1 gross/60p net contributed (an instant boost of 66.7%) there would be considerable outrage in the other direction.
    I got it when I set up my SIPP many years ago. A lump sum payment to me from HMRC. All of a year's tax back inc the higher rate element. It struck me then as absurdly generous and I feel that even more now. Limiting relief/refund to the basic rate is an absolute no-brainer imo if they're looking for savings. In fact I'd support it anyway, even if times were good.
    Given that HMRC will do anything for a few extra quid in tax revenue you have to ask why it’s not been implemented every other time it’s been suggested in the past 20 years.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 10,461
    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Trump must see DeSantis as a threat because he’s come up with another one of his nicknames: Ron DeSanctimonious.

    https://twitter.com/alexthomp/status/1589055234336514048

    In any sane country that advert that was highlighted in the thread yesterday would be enough on its own.
    As the great man said:

    "Through many dark hour
    I been thinking about this
    That Jesus Christ
    Was betrayed by a kiss
    But I can’t think for ya'
    You’ll have to decide
    Whether Judas Iscariot
    Had God on his side"
    Plenty of countries will elect politicians who claim God is behind them, not just the US, plenty in Latin America and Africa, Israel, Muslim majority nations and even in Europe Poland and Hungary for example
    Doesn't make it right @HYUFD, doesn't make it right.
    If they win, clearly it is divinely ordained!
    And if they lose I'm guessing they will claim Satan stole it from them.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    edited November 2022

    Stocky said:

    Sandpit said:

    40% pension contribution relief is surely kite-flying? It’s been on every Chancellor’s hit list for at least a couple of decades, but is potlitical dynamite to actually introduce it. Behavioural changes (as highlighted by @eek and @MaxPB), especially alongside fiscal drag at a time of inflation, would undo a lot of the benefits while retaining all the political negatives.

    Not sure it's political dynamite. If the public understood (they don't) that high earners are being given an uplift of 40p on every £1 gross/60p net contributed (an instant boost of 66.7%) there would be considerable outrage in the other direction.
    Well everyone gets the 20p, so it's only the additional 20p on top. But its a fair point.

    On the other hand, we want people to invest to pay for their own retirement. I put money into a scheme, and I also pay my workplace pension. I'd want to know if thats still worth it (the personal pension element), or if I might as well save it up, given i'll get taxed on it when I take it out.
    You will be able to take 25% of the fund tax free. The remaining 75% is classed as taxable income. Nowadays you can gear the income you take to your tax situation and needs - and you can alter it as you want. As my previous post indicates, the residual fund does not die with you.

    Furthermore, and this is not usually understood, your pension fund is automatically in trust. On your death it does not form part of your estate and so avoids IHT.

    Anyone who says pension are rubbish doesn't have a scooby.

    The only thing you need to be aware of is NEVER go through an adviser - they are salesmen - the charges are exorbitant. There are plenty of DIY online wrappers.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    If he cuts higher rate relief on pension saving it's basically him signalling that over 65s are more important than the future of the economy. Would be the completely wrong move and signal that the state is now a slave to the DB and state pensioners for the next 30-50 years so everyone else better get ready to bend over.

    Not really. There is a philosophical argument that the State should be willing to match all pension contributions to some extent - in the past they have done this by tax relief but it’s not the only way.

    For example (random numbers as I haven’t done the maths) how about double matching the first £5k of contributions someone makes and then matching the next £15k, but not offering any tax relief on contributions?
    Yes. That's how I'd do it. Matchfunding up to £X.
    One thing about pensions is that based on anecdote rather than data, there does seem to have been a move by employers to reduce contribution-matching. This might be exacerbated by your proposal for matching by government, or it might not.
    Oh it would be. Pension matching basically means the salary being paid isn’t £60,000 it may instead by £65,000 and many people don’t look at it when changing jobs - so a decent pension can reduce your chances of getting the best workers if you advertise £60,000 (but a good pension) and a competitor offers £65,000 with a crap one.
  • eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    If he cuts higher rate relief on pension saving it's basically him signalling that over 65s are more important than the future of the economy. Would be the completely wrong move and signal that the state is now a slave to the DB and state pensioners for the next 30-50 years so everyone else better get ready to bend over.

    Not really. There is a philosophical argument that the State should be willing to match all pension contributions to some extent - in the past they have done this by tax relief but it’s not the only way.

    For example (random numbers as I haven’t done the maths) how about double matching the first £5k of contributions someone makes and then matching the next £15k, but not offering any tax relief on contributions?


    My pension would be screwed but I would be working 5 months a year not 6. As that says I need to earn £70,000 rather than the £90,000 I’m aiming for.

    Remember my mortgage is paid off - I have little incentive to work beyond the fact Mrs Eek likes holidays (and I really aren’t that bothered by them).
    I am afraid them that you will be working as wife's are the boss and tend to get their way !
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    If he cuts higher rate relief on pension saving it's basically him signalling that over 65s are more important than the future of the economy. Would be the completely wrong move and signal that the state is now a slave to the DB and state pensioners for the next 30-50 years so everyone else better get ready to bend over.

    Not really. There is a philosophical argument that the State should be willing to match all pension contributions to some extent - in the past they have done this by tax relief but it’s not the only way.

    For example (random numbers as I haven’t done the maths) how about double matching the first £5k of contributions someone makes and then matching the next £15k, but not offering any tax relief on contributions?


    My pension would be screwed but I would be working 5 months a year not 6. As that says I need to earn £70,000 rather than the £90,000 I’m aiming for.

    Remember my mortgage is paid off - I have little incentive to work beyond the fact Mrs Eek likes holidays (and I really aren’t that bothered by them).
    I am afraid them that you will be working as wife's are the boss and tend to get their way !
    Why do you think I aim to earn an income of £50,000 rather than £30,000? The difference goes on those holidays.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    eek said:

    malcolmg said:

    eek said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jeremy Hunt plots £10bn tax grab from the better off - Chancellor in talks about halving pension tax relief for 40p taxpayers

    https://twitter.com/AllisterHeath/status/1589173089044402177?s=20&t=l9sUd9d-WLHqL1eY1vbUGA

    Can't be done. They'll all leave the country for Monaco. As PB Tories regularly remind us.
    He does need to balance the books but too many tax rises on the rich and that is a risk, he also needs tax cuts for average earners before the general election to have any chance of winning it
    Given how many average earners re going to hit the 40% rate as wages rise and allowances don’t I can’t see this working out.
    And if it's fine to tax pension savings on the way in and pension income on the way out for the current generation of workers then it's fine to do it for retirees. One rule for everyone.
    I'm starting to have doubts about saving in a private pension. You are taking a risk already because firstly, its got to grow faster than inflation, and that is quite difficult; and secondly, there is a lot of uncertainty about how much it is going to be taxed when you claim it, because you are depending on the actions of future governments. If it is then also taxed at 20% on the way in, then the risk/reward metric gets changed. May as well just take the money now, even though it is taxed at about 50%; and pay off the mortgage instead.
    There’s two reasons to pay into a pension - one is the tax relief on contributions, and the other is employer contribution matching or similar schemes. Take those away, and your bog-standard investment account with Vanguard or similar, or paying off debts faster, become much more attractive.

    (I’m researching this myself at the moment, saving for retirement in a low-tax environment. Most of the ‘pension’ savings plans are an expensively-managed rip-off).
    So 100% agree. No sane person would put money into a DC pension scheme unless someone else put money in as well, be that an employer or the Government (via tax relief) or both. Taking both into account the return can be several hundred percent immediately
    At the moment I am because my current choice is 100% (before tax) at some time in the future or 45% or so now (after employer NI, employee Ni at 2% and 40% income tax). And I’m happy to gamble that the tax I pay when I retire is less than 55%. Note that is worse if you are at the £50,000 level and have children or £100,000+ level.

    If that isn’t possible going forward I would reassess what I’m doing and probably work less
    Becomes an issue surely though when you hit or get close to your LTA
    Were I in that situation (I’m not there yet or in the next 5 or so years) I would have a different set of issues and would probably only be doing enough work to keep me busy and give me pin money.

    I but you can see why anyone who has got to or close to their LTA is now only working once in a while or 1 or 2 days a week.
    I still work because I enjoy it and thinking worst case I will leave my pot to daughter / grandkids who are highly unlikely to accumulate a million
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    Sandpit said:

    40% pension contribution relief is surely kite-flying? It’s been on every Chancellor’s hit list for at least a couple of decades, but is potlitical dynamite to actually introduce it. Behavioural changes (as highlighted by @eek and @MaxPB), especially alongside fiscal drag at a time of inflation, would undo a lot of the benefits while retaining all the political negatives.

    Not sure it's political dynamite. If the public understood (they don't) that high earners are being given an uplift of 40p on every £1 gross/60p net contributed (an instant boost of 66.7%) there would be considerable outrage in the other direction.
    Well everyone gets the 20p, so it's only the additional 20p on top. But its a fair point.

    On the other hand, we want people to invest to pay for their own retirement. I put money into a scheme, and I also pay my workplace pension. I'd want to know if thats still worth it (the personal pension element), or if I might as well save it up, given i'll get taxed on it when I take it out.
    You will be able to take 25% of the fund tax free. The remaining 75% is classed as taxable income. Nowadays you can gear the income you take to your tax situation and needs - and you can alter it as you want. As my previous post indicates, the residual fund does not die with you.

    Furthermore, and this is not usually understood, your pension fund is automatically in trust. On your death it does not form part of your estate and so avoids IHT.
    Only (from memory) if the pensioner dies before their 75th birthday.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653
    eek said:

    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    Sandpit said:

    40% pension contribution relief is surely kite-flying? It’s been on every Chancellor’s hit list for at least a couple of decades, but is potlitical dynamite to actually introduce it. Behavioural changes (as highlighted by @eek and @MaxPB), especially alongside fiscal drag at a time of inflation, would undo a lot of the benefits while retaining all the political negatives.

    Not sure it's political dynamite. If the public understood (they don't) that high earners are being given an uplift of 40p on every £1 gross/60p net contributed (an instant boost of 66.7%) there would be considerable outrage in the other direction.
    Well everyone gets the 20p, so it's only the additional 20p on top. But its a fair point.

    On the other hand, we want people to invest to pay for their own retirement. I put money into a scheme, and I also pay my workplace pension. I'd want to know if thats still worth it (the personal pension element), or if I might as well save it up, given i'll get taxed on it when I take it out.
    You will be able to take 25% of the fund tax free. The remaining 75% is classed as taxable income. Nowadays you can gear the income you take to your tax situation and needs - and you can alter it as you want. As my previous post indicates, the residual fund does not die with you.

    Furthermore, and this is not usually understood, your pension fund is automatically in trust. On your death it does not form part of your estate and so avoids IHT.
    Only (from memory) if the pensioner dies before their 75th birthday.
    No. It is tax free to your spouse/beneficiaries if you die before your 75th birthday. If death is after that age the fund in still inherited by your spouse/beneficiary as a Dependant's Drawdown. The beneficiary can take lump sums (ad hoc or as income) out when they wish but the withdrawals are taxable depending on their personal tax situation. Any residual fund on spouse's death is passed to children and taxed similarly.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 116,712
    edited November 2022
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    Trump must see DeSantis as a threat because he’s come up with another one of his nicknames: Ron DeSanctimonious.

    https://twitter.com/alexthomp/status/1589055234336514048

    In any sane country that advert that was highlighted in the thread yesterday would be enough on its own.
    As the great man said:

    "Through many dark hour
    I been thinking about this
    That Jesus Christ
    Was betrayed by a kiss
    But I can’t think for ya'
    You’ll have to decide
    Whether Judas Iscariot
    Had God on his side"
    Plenty of countries will elect politicians who claim God is behind them, not just the US, plenty in Latin America and Africa, Israel, Muslim majority nations and even in Europe Poland and Hungary for example
    Doesn't make it right @HYUFD, doesn't make it right.
    If they win, clearly it is divinely ordained!
    And if they lose I'm guessing they will claim Satan stole it from them.
    Bolsonaro was certainly keen on claiming his opponents were Satanists, we will find out on Tuesday if DeSantis is indeed God's anointed one or Crist the son of Satan
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    MaxPB's alternative fiscal statement to fill a £50bn gap in the finances and get the economy moving:

    Income tax up by 1p, 2p and 2p for rates of 21p, 42p and 47p

    NI payable on all income types and for all ages

    Eliminate dividend allowance

    Raise dividend tax rates to income tax for director owned shareholdings

    Reduce IHT allowance from £1m per couple to £800k per couple

    CGT on residential property investments rises to income tax rates, 30y non-transferable exemption for new build which is held at 18% and 28%

    Annual value based levy on residential property worth 2.5% of the property's value, 30y non-transferable exemption on new build property

    Increase second property stamp duty surcharge from 3% to 10%, rent earned in the grace period offsets rebates on sale of additional property

    New wealth tax at 6% of total wealth over £200k excluding primary residences payable every 10 years. Includes ISA and pension wealth and can be paid out of pension fund holdings for taxes on pension wealth (so people don't need to pay out of their income on wealth they can't necessarily access)

    New unlimited UK capital investment allowance for all businesses

    £5bn future energy and technology investment fund


  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 19,618
    Was there only one poll this weekend? (The outlier from Opinium that showed Labour increasing its lead)
  • Sandpit said:


    AIUI, the idea behind the verification changes is two-fold. One is to generate income from people who spend their whole lives on Twitter, making the company less reliant on fickle advertisers; the other is to make it more difficult to run tens of thousands of bots, something which his investigation of the company flagged as a genuine problem.

    I don't understand the bot angle. Most bots aren't verified, and still won't be. The exception is if someone is prepared to spend a lot of money on impersonation, in which case they buy or hack a verified account. But this won't change, because you'll still be able to buy or hack a verified account, and as described you'll also just be able to simply pay for one.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB's alternative fiscal statement to fill a £50bn gap in the finances and get the economy moving:

    Income tax up by 1p, 2p and 2p for rates of 21p, 42p and 47p

    NI payable on all income types and for all ages

    Eliminate dividend allowance

    Raise dividend tax rates to income tax for director owned shareholdings

    Reduce IHT allowance from £1m per couple to £800k per couple

    CGT on residential property investments rises to income tax rates, 30y non-transferable exemption for new build which is held at 18% and 28%

    Annual value based levy on residential property worth 2.5% of the property's value, 30y non-transferable exemption on new build property

    Increase second property stamp duty surcharge from 3% to 10%, rent earned in the grace period offsets rebates on sale of additional property

    New wealth tax at 6% of total wealth over £200k excluding primary residences payable every 10 years. Includes ISA and pension wealth and can be paid out of pension fund holdings for taxes on pension wealth (so people don't need to pay out of their income on wealth they can't necessarily access)

    New unlimited UK capital investment allowance for all businesses

    £5bn future energy and technology investment fund


    Think that annual 2.5% levy is too high and you also need something to cover the asset rich but cash poor pensioners.

    But it’s better than playing round with pensions as that will have unexpected albeit entertaining (but horrific rather than comedic) consequences.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    Sandpit said:


    AIUI, the idea behind the verification changes is two-fold. One is to generate income from people who spend their whole lives on Twitter, making the company less reliant on fickle advertisers; the other is to make it more difficult to run tens of thousands of bots, something which his investigation of the company flagged as a genuine problem.

    I don't understand the bot angle. Most bots aren't verified, and still won't be. The exception is if someone is prepared to spend a lot of money on impersonation, in which case they buy or hack a verified account. But this won't change, because you'll still be able to buy or hack a verified account, and as described you'll also just be able to simply pay for one.
    $8 a month to verify a bot may be a great deal..
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB's alternative fiscal statement to fill a £50bn gap in the finances and get the economy moving:

    Income tax up by 1p, 2p and 2p for rates of 21p, 42p and 47p

    NI payable on all income types and for all ages

    Eliminate dividend allowance

    Raise dividend tax rates to income tax for director owned shareholdings

    Reduce IHT allowance from £1m per couple to £800k per couple

    CGT on residential property investments rises to income tax rates, 30y non-transferable exemption for new build which is held at 18% and 28%

    Annual value based levy on residential property worth 2.5% of the property's value, 30y non-transferable exemption on new build property

    Increase second property stamp duty surcharge from 3% to 10%, rent earned in the grace period offsets rebates on sale of additional property

    New wealth tax at 6% of total wealth over £200k excluding primary residences payable every 10 years. Includes ISA and pension wealth and can be paid out of pension fund holdings for taxes on pension wealth (so people don't need to pay out of their income on wealth they can't necessarily access)

    New unlimited UK capital investment allowance for all businesses

    £5bn future energy and technology investment fund


    Think that annual 2.5% levy is too high and you also need something to cover the asset rich but cash poor pensioners.

    But it’s better than playing round with pensions as that will have unexpected albeit entertaining (but horrific rather than comedic) consequences.
    They can liquidate the assets or downsize their house and the 2.5% is supposed to be high as it will drive those investors either into equities or into new build which comes with the exemptions.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797

    Was there only one poll this weekend? (The outlier from Opinium that showed Labour increasing its lead)

    Without seeing subsequent polls it’s hard to say if the poll is an outlier or reflects a new trend
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Was there only one poll this weekend? (The outlier from Opinium that showed Labour increasing its lead)

    Omnisis lead down 4 to 24, it says here

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    Tres said:

    malcolmg said:

    eek said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jeremy Hunt plots £10bn tax grab from the better off - Chancellor in talks about halving pension tax relief for 40p taxpayers

    https://twitter.com/AllisterHeath/status/1589173089044402177?s=20&t=l9sUd9d-WLHqL1eY1vbUGA

    Can't be done. They'll all leave the country for Monaco. As PB Tories regularly remind us.
    He does need to balance the books but too many tax rises on the rich and that is a risk, he also needs tax cuts for average earners before the general election to have any chance of winning it
    Given how many average earners re going to hit the 40% rate as wages rise and allowances don’t I can’t see this working out.
    And if it's fine to tax pension savings on the way in and pension income on the way out for the current generation of workers then it's fine to do it for retirees. One rule for everyone.
    I'm starting to have doubts about saving in a private pension. You are taking a risk already because firstly, its got to grow faster than inflation, and that is quite difficult; and secondly, there is a lot of uncertainty about how much it is going to be taxed when you claim it, because you are depending on the actions of future governments. If it is then also taxed at 20% on the way in, then the risk/reward metric gets changed. May as well just take the money now, even though it is taxed at about 50%; and pay off the mortgage instead.
    There’s two reasons to pay into a pension - one is the tax relief on contributions, and the other is employer contribution matching or similar schemes. Take those away, and your bog-standard investment account with Vanguard or similar, or paying off debts faster, become much more attractive.

    (I’m researching this myself at the moment, saving for retirement in a low-tax environment. Most of the ‘pension’ savings plans are an expensively-managed rip-off).
    So 100% agree. No sane person would put money into a DC pension scheme unless someone else put money in as well, be that an employer or the Government (via tax relief) or both. Taking both into account the return can be several hundred percent immediately
    At the moment I am because my current choice is 100% (before tax) at some time in the future or 45% or so now (after employer NI, employee Ni at 2% and 40% income tax). And I’m happy to gamble that the tax I pay when I retire is less than 55%. Note that is worse if you are at the £50,000 level and have children or £100,000+ level.

    If that isn’t possible going forward I would reassess what I’m doing and probably work less
    Becomes an issue surely though when you hit or get close to your LTA
    Frankly, if you are going hit the LTA you should count your good fortune.
    I am well aware of my good fortune but given amount of tax I pay I would prefer not to be paying it unnecessarily.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614

    Sandpit said:


    AIUI, the idea behind the verification changes is two-fold. One is to generate income from people who spend their whole lives on Twitter, making the company less reliant on fickle advertisers; the other is to make it more difficult to run tens of thousands of bots, something which his investigation of the company flagged as a genuine problem.

    I don't understand the bot angle. Most bots aren't verified, and still won't be. The exception is if someone is prepared to spend a lot of money on impersonation, in which case they buy or hack a verified account. But this won't change, because you'll still be able to buy or hack a verified account, and as described you'll also just be able to simply pay for one.
    I think the angle is that non-verified accounts will become pretty much invisible. If you’re not verified, you’ll be a *consumer* of information on Twitter, rather than someone contributing.
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 9,005
    edited November 2022
    MaxPB - Wouldn't that raise rather more than £50bn? If council tax is approximately 1% of a property's value then going to 2.5% would be another £30bn on its own I would have thought.

    Also I'm surprised you have ignored the issue of land.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 3,870
    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jeremy Hunt plots £10bn tax grab from the better off - Chancellor in talks about halving pension tax relief for 40p taxpayers

    https://twitter.com/AllisterHeath/status/1589173089044402177?s=20&t=l9sUd9d-WLHqL1eY1vbUGA

    Can't be done. They'll all leave the country for Monaco. As PB Tories regularly remind us.
    He does need to balance the books but too many tax rises on the rich and that is a risk, he also needs tax cuts for average earners before the general election to have any chance of winning it
    Given how many average earners re going to hit the 40% rate as wages rise and allowances don’t I can’t see this working out.
    And if it's fine to tax pension savings on the way in and pension income on the way out for the current generation of workers then it's fine to do it for retirees. One rule for everyone.
    I'm starting to have doubts about saving in a private pension. You are taking a risk already because firstly, its got to grow faster than inflation, and that is quite difficult; and secondly, there is a lot of uncertainty about how much it is going to be taxed when you claim it, because you are depending on the actions of future governments. If it is then also taxed at 20% on the way in, then the risk/reward metric gets changed. May as well just take the money now, even though it is taxed at about 50%; and pay off the mortgage instead.
    There’s two reasons to pay into a pension - one is the tax relief on contributions, and the other is employer contribution matching or similar schemes. Take those away, and your bog-standard investment account with Vanguard or similar, or paying off debts faster, become much more attractive.

    (I’m researching this myself at the moment, saving for retirement in a low-tax environment. Most of the ‘pension’ savings plans are an expensively-managed rip-off).
    So 100% agree. No sane person would put money into a DC pension scheme unless someone else put money in as well, be that an employer or the Government (via tax relief) or both. Taking both into account the return can be several hundred percent immediately
    At the moment I am because my current choice is 100% (before tax) at some time in the future or 45% or so now (after employer NI, employee Ni at 2% and 40% income tax). And I’m happy to gamble that the tax I pay when I retire is less than 55%. Note that is worse if you are at the £50,000 level and have children or £100,000+ level.

    If that isn’t possible going forward I would reassess what I’m doing and probably work less
    I do wonder how much of a problem early retirement is going to be in the next couple of decades.

    We already hear of it with doctors, who find that their pension contributions are maxed out and part time work ends up paying nearly as much as full time work.

    There’s a couple of (albeit very well-paid) posters on here, who have worked out that, with the mortgage paid off and a million or thereabouts in savings/investments, you can retire at that point close to being a higher-rate taxpayer for life, even if that’s in your late 40s.
    There is currently a very strong case for increasing the lifetime allowance, which seems to be causing a severe problem for doctors, and hence the NHS.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    MaxPB - Wouldn't that raise rather more than £50bn? If council tax is approximately 1% of a property's value then going to 2.5% would be another £30bn on its own I would have thought.

    It's supposed to be residential property investment.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,403
    Stocky said:

    I'm not doing badly on my football bets at the moment.

    Southampton v Newcastle today ( @Gallowgate ).

    Looking at the league table and without looking at the betting I was guessing not much between them at the odds given Newcastle's higher league position and current form but Southampton's home advantage. Perhaps Newcastle slight favourites.

    BF odds have 4.8 Southampton, 1.86 Newcastle, 3.9 the draw. So Newcastle too short I think.

    I've laid Newcastle at 1.86 so I pick up if Soton win or if its a draw.

    The further south the game, the worse the Toon do.

    (This is based on gut feeling and memories from back in the day, rather than statistical analysis!)

    Good bet.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    Foxy said:

    felix said:

    rcs1000 said:

    In response to @GIN1138, I have banned @TheScreamingEagles as a precaution.

    Finally!!! :smiley: Presumably pizza thing right?
    Dissing Radiohead in a header. It has happened before...

    Wearing a loud shirt in a built up area…
  • BarnesianBarnesian Posts: 7,979
    HYUFD said:

    Trump must see DeSantis as a threat because he’s come up with another one of his nicknames: Ron DeSanctimonious.

    https://twitter.com/alexthomp/status/1589055234336514048

    If DeSantis does defeat Crist on Tuesday and is re elected Florida Governor expect him to challenge Trump in the 2024 GOP primaries.

    If DeSantis can get evangelicals and Catholics and suburbanites behind him he would have a chance of winning it, even if the white working class stay loyal to Trump
    Fight fight!
    It would be a joy to watch.

    I've some money on Michelle being persuaded by Barrack to come to the rescue of the USA if Trump gets the nomination. The grudge match would continue and Michelle would triumph.

    But I can't see her standing against DeSantis. He's not a threat to the constitution.
  • Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:


    AIUI, the idea behind the verification changes is two-fold. One is to generate income from people who spend their whole lives on Twitter, making the company less reliant on fickle advertisers; the other is to make it more difficult to run tens of thousands of bots, something which his investigation of the company flagged as a genuine problem.

    I don't understand the bot angle. Most bots aren't verified, and still won't be. The exception is if someone is prepared to spend a lot of money on impersonation, in which case they buy or hack a verified account. But this won't change, because you'll still be able to buy or hack a verified account, and as described you'll also just be able to simply pay for one.
    I think the angle is that non-verified accounts will become pretty much invisible. If you’re not verified, you’ll be a *consumer* of information on Twitter, rather than someone contributing.
    Per that description my entire feed will become pretty much invisible.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603

    Sandpit said:


    AIUI, the idea behind the verification changes is two-fold. One is to generate income from people who spend their whole lives on Twitter, making the company less reliant on fickle advertisers; the other is to make it more difficult to run tens of thousands of bots, something which his investigation of the company flagged as a genuine problem.

    I don't understand the bot angle. Most bots aren't verified, and still won't be. The exception is if someone is prepared to spend a lot of money on impersonation, in which case they buy or hack a verified account. But this won't change, because you'll still be able to buy or hack a verified account, and as described you'll also just be able to simply pay for one.
    New market opportunity, fake news bot farms can get 1000 bots verified for $8000/m and suddenly fake news becomes real news. There's definitely countries with intelligence budgets to pay trivial sums like that to get approval for fake news bots.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    edited November 2022
    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB's alternative fiscal statement to fill a £50bn gap in the finances and get the economy moving:

    Income tax up by 1p, 2p and 2p for rates of 21p, 42p and 47p

    NI payable on all income types and for all ages

    Eliminate dividend allowance

    Raise dividend tax rates to income tax for director owned shareholdings

    Reduce IHT allowance from £1m per couple to £800k per couple

    CGT on residential property investments rises to income tax rates, 30y non-transferable exemption for new build which is held at 18% and 28%

    Annual value based levy on residential property worth 2.5% of the property's value, 30y non-transferable exemption on new build property

    Increase second property stamp duty surcharge from 3% to 10%, rent earned in the grace period offsets rebates on sale of additional property

    New wealth tax at 6% of total wealth over £200k excluding primary residences payable every 10 years. Includes ISA and pension wealth and can be paid out of pension fund holdings for taxes on pension wealth (so people don't need to pay out of their income on wealth they can't necessarily access)

    New unlimited UK capital investment allowance for all businesses

    £5bn future energy and technology investment fund


    Think that annual 2.5% levy is too high and you also need something to cover the asset rich but cash poor pensioners.

    But it’s better than playing round with pensions as that will have unexpected albeit entertaining (but horrific rather than comedic) consequences.
    They can liquidate the assets or downsize their house and the 2.5% is supposed to be high as it will drive those investors either into equities or into new build which comes with the exemptions.
    I suspect you’ve just made the first owner premium way more than it already currently is - to the extent that the premium would be 40-60% more than a second hand home.

    I can see the logic I but I think the figures are too high and would require extensive modelling to generate a saner option (which at least is possible now unlike the 1980’s where the only way to test the poll tax was to pick a Guinea pig region / country).
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB's alternative fiscal statement to fill a £50bn gap in the finances and get the economy moving:

    Income tax up by 1p, 2p and 2p for rates of 21p, 42p and 47p

    NI payable on all income types and for all ages

    Eliminate dividend allowance

    Raise dividend tax rates to income tax for director owned shareholdings

    Reduce IHT allowance from £1m per couple to £800k per couple

    CGT on residential property investments rises to income tax rates, 30y non-transferable exemption for new build which is held at 18% and 28%

    Annual value based levy on residential property worth 2.5% of the property's value, 30y non-transferable exemption on new build property

    Increase second property stamp duty surcharge from 3% to 10%, rent earned in the grace period offsets rebates on sale of additional property

    New wealth tax at 6% of total wealth over £200k excluding primary residences payable every 10 years. Includes ISA and pension wealth and can be paid out of pension fund holdings for taxes on pension wealth (so people don't need to pay out of their income on wealth they can't necessarily access)

    New unlimited UK capital investment allowance for all businesses

    £5bn future energy and technology investment fund


    Think that annual 2.5% levy is too high and you also need something to cover the asset rich but cash poor pensioners.

    But it’s better than playing round with pensions as that will have unexpected albeit entertaining (but horrific rather than comedic) consequences.
    They can liquidate the assets or downsize their house and the 2.5% is supposed to be high as it will drive those investors either into equities or into new build which comes with the exemptions.
    I suspect you’ve just made the first owner premium way more than it already currently is - to the extent that the premium would be 40-6-% more than a second hand home.

    I can see the Lego I but I think the figures are too high and would require extensive modelling (which t least is possible now unlike the 1980’s where the only way to test the poll tax was to pick a Guinea pig region / country).
    Nah, it was meant to say residential property investment, not primary residences.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 20,403
    If Trump wins in 2024, Biden will be able to run again in 2028.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/suella-braverman-was-warned-again-and-again-over-migrant-crisis-at-manston-7k85qrmts

    Last weekend, The Sunday Times disclosed that the home secretary was suspected of ignoring legal advice that asylum seekers were being held at the Manston processing centre in Kent for too long and needed to be moved urgently. On Monday, she told the Commons that she had never “ignored legal advice” and had pushed to “deliver a rapid increase in emergency accommodation”. Officials now fear that taxpayers could be liable for compensation running at £10,000 per illegally detained migrant.

    However, leaked papers sent to Home Office ministers and senior officials in September and October show government lawyers and officials growing increasingly exasperated at the rapidly worsening situation at Manston. By the time Braverman was sacked as home secretary in mid-October, it had become overwhelmed, with almost 300 migrants detained illegally and the risk of disease and disorder escalating.

    ...

    Looks mega.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:


    AIUI, the idea behind the verification changes is two-fold. One is to generate income from people who spend their whole lives on Twitter, making the company less reliant on fickle advertisers; the other is to make it more difficult to run tens of thousands of bots, something which his investigation of the company flagged as a genuine problem.

    I don't understand the bot angle. Most bots aren't verified, and still won't be. The exception is if someone is prepared to spend a lot of money on impersonation, in which case they buy or hack a verified account. But this won't change, because you'll still be able to buy or hack a verified account, and as described you'll also just be able to simply pay for one.
    New market opportunity, fake news bot farms can get 1000 bots verified for $8000/m and suddenly fake news becomes real news. There's definitely countries with intelligence budgets to pay trivial sums like that to get approval for fake news bots.
    It wouldn’t just be countries - $8,000 is a tiny marketing budget even on Twitter..
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    Roger said:

    Can’t get over the amount of ignoring of a certain poster going on this morning.

    Gin is one of the longest standing and nicest posters on PB.

    Ishmael is the most acerbic. When it comes to debunking mean spirited right wing crackpots no one does it better. Just a pity his aim is sometimes so woeful and in Charles and Gin he's got it badly wrong
    I think some leeway has to be given to someone fulfilling the role of PB's chief curmudgeon. I have some ambitions in that area myself but have to accept that Ishy and Malc are nonpareil.
    Malc needs a return to form - at his best, his swear blogging is a poetic stream-of-consciousness. Merely shouting “Feck”, “Arse” etc from an armchair is beneath his talent.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 3,870
    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB's alternative fiscal statement to fill a £50bn gap in the finances and get the economy moving:

    Income tax up by 1p, 2p and 2p for rates of 21p, 42p and 47p

    NI payable on all income types and for all ages

    Eliminate dividend allowance

    Raise dividend tax rates to income tax for director owned shareholdings

    Reduce IHT allowance from £1m per couple to £800k per couple

    CGT on residential property investments rises to income tax rates, 30y non-transferable exemption for new build which is held at 18% and 28%

    Annual value based levy on residential property worth 2.5% of the property's value, 30y non-transferable exemption on new build property

    Increase second property stamp duty surcharge from 3% to 10%, rent earned in the grace period offsets rebates on sale of additional property

    New wealth tax at 6% of total wealth over £200k excluding primary residences payable every 10 years. Includes ISA and pension wealth and can be paid out of pension fund holdings for taxes on pension wealth (so people don't need to pay out of their income on wealth they can't necessarily access)

    New unlimited UK capital investment allowance for all businesses

    £5bn future energy and technology investment fund


    Think that annual 2.5% levy is too high and you also need something to cover the asset rich but cash poor pensioners.

    But it’s better than playing round with pensions as that will have unexpected albeit entertaining (but horrific rather than comedic) consequences.
    The 2.5% levy could be deducted from the value of the estate on death.
  • If Trump wins in 2024, Biden will be able to run again in 2028.

    If DeSantis wins in 2024 then both Biden and Trump will be able to run in 2028.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    eek said:

    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    Sandpit said:

    40% pension contribution relief is surely kite-flying? It’s been on every Chancellor’s hit list for at least a couple of decades, but is potlitical dynamite to actually introduce it. Behavioural changes (as highlighted by @eek and @MaxPB), especially alongside fiscal drag at a time of inflation, would undo a lot of the benefits while retaining all the political negatives.

    Not sure it's political dynamite. If the public understood (they don't) that high earners are being given an uplift of 40p on every £1 gross/60p net contributed (an instant boost of 66.7%) there would be considerable outrage in the other direction.
    Well everyone gets the 20p, so it's only the additional 20p on top. But its a fair point.

    On the other hand, we want people to invest to pay for their own retirement. I put money into a scheme, and I also pay my workplace pension. I'd want to know if thats still worth it (the personal pension element), or if I might as well save it up, given i'll get taxed on it when I take it out.
    You will be able to take 25% of the fund tax free. The remaining 75% is classed as taxable income. Nowadays you can gear the income you take to your tax situation and needs - and you can alter it as you want. As my previous post indicates, the residual fund does not die with you.

    Furthermore, and this is not usually understood, your pension fund is automatically in trust. On your death it does not form part of your estate and so avoids IHT.
    Only (from memory) if the pensioner dies before their 75th birthday.
    Eek, what extra income tax do you pay if you break £100K, my understanding was the higher rate was up to £150K.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 23,934
    edited November 2022
    eek said:

    Sandpit said:


    AIUI, the idea behind the verification changes is two-fold. One is to generate income from people who spend their whole lives on Twitter, making the company less reliant on fickle advertisers; the other is to make it more difficult to run tens of thousands of bots, something which his investigation of the company flagged as a genuine problem.

    I don't understand the bot angle. Most bots aren't verified, and still won't be. The exception is if someone is prepared to spend a lot of money on impersonation, in which case they buy or hack a verified account. But this won't change, because you'll still be able to buy or hack a verified account, and as described you'll also just be able to simply pay for one.
    $8 a month to verify a bot may be a great deal..
    $8 a month might be a great deal for people like you who can only work for half the year but it is peanuts for an ideologically-driven billionaire (hands-off via PACs) and even less for state actors. They can also throw money and computers at deep fakes, as discussed earlier in this thread.

    ETA scooped by MaxPB.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    On thread. The reason was (2), (2), a thousand times (2)

    My suspicion is that Johnson sought to save face. He was on or about 100 noms but not sure how many woud privately back out. So he agreed to step aside so long as the 1922 made clear that he had the numbers. Cue Mail editorials about 'selfless self-sacrifice' and a generation singing songs about the 'Prince over the water'.

    Even if he won, a poisoned chalice. Rishi is looking at somewhere between 97 and the worst result ever. Why come back to that? The alternative is the “I bowed out gracefully and did lots of semi-ambassadorial work for Ukraine and the environment” as a section in one of his $250k after diner speeches.
  • dixiedean said:

    malcolmg said:

    eek said:

    malcolmg said:

    eek said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jeremy Hunt plots £10bn tax grab from the better off - Chancellor in talks about halving pension tax relief for 40p taxpayers

    https://twitter.com/AllisterHeath/status/1589173089044402177?s=20&t=l9sUd9d-WLHqL1eY1vbUGA

    Can't be done. They'll all leave the country for Monaco. As PB Tories regularly remind us.
    He does need to balance the books but too many tax rises on the rich and that is a risk, he also needs tax cuts for average earners before the general election to have any chance of winning it
    Given how many average earners re going to hit the 40% rate as wages rise and allowances don’t I can’t see this working out.
    And if it's fine to tax pension savings on the way in and pension income on the way out for the current generation of workers then it's fine to do it for retirees. One rule for everyone.
    I'm starting to have doubts about saving in a private pension. You are taking a risk already because firstly, its got to grow faster than inflation, and that is quite difficult; and secondly, there is a lot of uncertainty about how much it is going to be taxed when you claim it, because you are depending on the actions of future governments. If it is then also taxed at 20% on the way in, then the risk/reward metric gets changed. May as well just take the money now, even though it is taxed at about 50%; and pay off the mortgage instead.
    There’s two reasons to pay into a pension - one is the tax relief on contributions, and the other is employer contribution matching or similar schemes. Take those away, and your bog-standard investment account with Vanguard or similar, or paying off debts faster, become much more attractive.

    (I’m researching this myself at the moment, saving for retirement in a low-tax environment. Most of the ‘pension’ savings plans are an expensively-managed rip-off).
    So 100% agree. No sane person would put money into a DC pension scheme unless someone else put money in as well, be that an employer or the Government (via tax relief) or both. Taking both into account the return can be several hundred percent immediately
    At the moment I am because my current choice is 100% (before tax) at some time in the future or 45% or so now (after employer NI, employee Ni at 2% and 40% income tax). And I’m happy to gamble that the tax I pay when I retire is less than 55%. Note that is worse if you are at the £50,000 level and have children or £100,000+ level.

    If that isn’t possible going forward I would reassess what I’m doing and probably work less
    Becomes an issue surely though when you hit or get close to your LTA
    Were I in that situation (I’m not there yet or in the next 5 or so years) I would have a different set of issues and would probably only be doing enough work to keep me busy and give me pin money.

    I but you can see why anyone who has got to or close to their LTA is now only working once in a while or 1 or 2 days a week.
    I still work because I enjoy it and thinking worst case I will leave my pot to daughter / grandkids who are highly unlikely to accumulate a million
    You've hit on the key point there Malcolm. A lot of the issues debated in this thread come down to this.
    The pandemic gave everyone a breather to consider it carefully. And a fair few decided it just wasn't worth it anymore.
    It's a simple argument, but tinkering with tax and pensions doesn't solve the basic problem that too many jobs these days are unrewarding and too many employers don't engender any loyalty at all. In fact, outright antagonism is more common.
    Maybe we ought to consider the structures that make it so.
    A variant being people who are willing to reduce their work level to have more free time.

    This option being especially attractive to those who have reached the maximum state pension level through their NI contributions.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,522
    Sandpit said:

    Might join Mastodon just on the basis of this.


    One irony of this is that people are fleeing twitter for fear that they won't squish bad speech enough, but the platform is designed to make it impossible to squish bad speech. All you can do is remove it from your feed/server, the Nazis can carry on using the platform on their own. The tech is much more of an ideological match for what Elon was saying than what his enemies were saying.
    Watching groups of people on Twitter, moaning about how awful Twitter is, is rather ironic. They want to moan, but they don’t want to quit. They really don’t like the idea that verification is actually about verification, rather than about status.

    AIUI, the idea behind the verification changes is two-fold. One is to generate income from people who spend their whole lives on Twitter, making the company less reliant on fickle advertisers; the other is to make it more difficult to run tens of thousands of bots, something which his investigation of the company flagged as a genuine problem.
    "something which his investigation of the company flagged as a genuine problem."

    It's quite clear from the court case that he did no such 'investigation'. He just invented figures and misrepresented research and work by others.

    Which is one of the major reasons he abandoned the court case and bought Twitter.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674

    Roger said:

    Can’t get over the amount of ignoring of a certain poster going on this morning.

    Gin is one of the longest standing and nicest posters on PB.

    Ishmael is the most acerbic. When it comes to debunking mean spirited right wing crackpots no one does it better. Just a pity his aim is sometimes so woeful and in Charles and Gin he's got it badly wrong
    I think some leeway has to be given to someone fulfilling the role of PB's chief curmudgeon. I have some ambitions in that area myself but have to accept that Ishy and Malc are nonpareil.
    Malc needs a return to form - at his best, his swear blogging is a poetic stream-of-consciousness. Merely shouting “Feck”, “Arse” etc from an armchair is beneath his talent.
    Malmesbury I am too happy to put in so much effort to being a curmudgeon, but will try my best to get back to your targets.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674

    dixiedean said:

    malcolmg said:

    eek said:

    malcolmg said:

    eek said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    darkage said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Jeremy Hunt plots £10bn tax grab from the better off - Chancellor in talks about halving pension tax relief for 40p taxpayers

    https://twitter.com/AllisterHeath/status/1589173089044402177?s=20&t=l9sUd9d-WLHqL1eY1vbUGA

    Can't be done. They'll all leave the country for Monaco. As PB Tories regularly remind us.
    He does need to balance the books but too many tax rises on the rich and that is a risk, he also needs tax cuts for average earners before the general election to have any chance of winning it
    Given how many average earners re going to hit the 40% rate as wages rise and allowances don’t I can’t see this working out.
    And if it's fine to tax pension savings on the way in and pension income on the way out for the current generation of workers then it's fine to do it for retirees. One rule for everyone.
    I'm starting to have doubts about saving in a private pension. You are taking a risk already because firstly, its got to grow faster than inflation, and that is quite difficult; and secondly, there is a lot of uncertainty about how much it is going to be taxed when you claim it, because you are depending on the actions of future governments. If it is then also taxed at 20% on the way in, then the risk/reward metric gets changed. May as well just take the money now, even though it is taxed at about 50%; and pay off the mortgage instead.
    There’s two reasons to pay into a pension - one is the tax relief on contributions, and the other is employer contribution matching or similar schemes. Take those away, and your bog-standard investment account with Vanguard or similar, or paying off debts faster, become much more attractive.

    (I’m researching this myself at the moment, saving for retirement in a low-tax environment. Most of the ‘pension’ savings plans are an expensively-managed rip-off).
    So 100% agree. No sane person would put money into a DC pension scheme unless someone else put money in as well, be that an employer or the Government (via tax relief) or both. Taking both into account the return can be several hundred percent immediately
    At the moment I am because my current choice is 100% (before tax) at some time in the future or 45% or so now (after employer NI, employee Ni at 2% and 40% income tax). And I’m happy to gamble that the tax I pay when I retire is less than 55%. Note that is worse if you are at the £50,000 level and have children or £100,000+ level.

    If that isn’t possible going forward I would reassess what I’m doing and probably work less
    Becomes an issue surely though when you hit or get close to your LTA
    Were I in that situation (I’m not there yet or in the next 5 or so years) I would have a different set of issues and would probably only be doing enough work to keep me busy and give me pin money.

    I but you can see why anyone who has got to or close to their LTA is now only working once in a while or 1 or 2 days a week.
    I still work because I enjoy it and thinking worst case I will leave my pot to daughter / grandkids who are highly unlikely to accumulate a million
    You've hit on the key point there Malcolm. A lot of the issues debated in this thread come down to this.
    The pandemic gave everyone a breather to consider it carefully. And a fair few decided it just wasn't worth it anymore.
    It's a simple argument, but tinkering with tax and pensions doesn't solve the basic problem that too many jobs these days are unrewarding and too many employers don't engender any loyalty at all. In fact, outright antagonism is more common.
    Maybe we ought to consider the structures that make it so.
    A variant being people who are willing to reduce their work level to have more free time.

    This option being especially attractive to those who have reached the maximum state pension level through their NI contributions.
    Question would be whether that is possible option for most people without having to move job, I imagine.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 12,415
    On Topic. I expect Boris Johnson to stand down as MP any day very soonnow - so kicking into touch the LOB Problem.

    The Privileges Committee investigation is zero danger to Boris - it needs actual evidence he lied to Parliament, evidence it won’t have (think of end of The Player, when police watch the murderer walk free because they don’t have evidence). At very worst the committee will split down party lines on its findings.

    The Tory LOTO after the GE rout belongs to a new Gen of politicians - Braverman v Penny v Badenoch. I think Badenoch walks it.
    Interestingly I believe all three of those believe In Trussnomics based on the evidence we have. Trussnomics will live on in the next leader, and possibly even beat Labour in the next election.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:


    AIUI, the idea behind the verification changes is two-fold. One is to generate income from people who spend their whole lives on Twitter, making the company less reliant on fickle advertisers; the other is to make it more difficult to run tens of thousands of bots, something which his investigation of the company flagged as a genuine problem.

    I don't understand the bot angle. Most bots aren't verified, and still won't be. The exception is if someone is prepared to spend a lot of money on impersonation, in which case they buy or hack a verified account. But this won't change, because you'll still be able to buy or hack a verified account, and as described you'll also just be able to simply pay for one.
    New market opportunity, fake news bot farms can get 1000 bots verified for $8000/m and suddenly fake news becomes real news. There's definitely countries with intelligence budgets to pay trivial sums like that to get approval for fake news bots.
    It wouldn’t just be countries - $8,000 is a tiny marketing budget even on Twitter..
    Maintaining 8,000 credit card accounts, on the other hand, is a lot more tricky.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,614
    edited November 2022
    malcolmg said:

    eek said:

    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    Sandpit said:

    40% pension contribution relief is surely kite-flying? It’s been on every Chancellor’s hit list for at least a couple of decades, but is potlitical dynamite to actually introduce it. Behavioural changes (as highlighted by @eek and @MaxPB), especially alongside fiscal drag at a time of inflation, would undo a lot of the benefits while retaining all the political negatives.

    Not sure it's political dynamite. If the public understood (they don't) that high earners are being given an uplift of 40p on every £1 gross/60p net contributed (an instant boost of 66.7%) there would be considerable outrage in the other direction.
    Well everyone gets the 20p, so it's only the additional 20p on top. But its a fair point.

    On the other hand, we want people to invest to pay for their own retirement. I put money into a scheme, and I also pay my workplace pension. I'd want to know if thats still worth it (the personal pension element), or if I might as well save it up, given i'll get taxed on it when I take it out.
    You will be able to take 25% of the fund tax free. The remaining 75% is classed as taxable income. Nowadays you can gear the income you take to your tax situation and needs - and you can alter it as you want. As my previous post indicates, the residual fund does not die with you.

    Furthermore, and this is not usually understood, your pension fund is automatically in trust. On your death it does not form part of your estate and so avoids IHT.
    Only (from memory) if the pensioner dies before their 75th birthday.
    Eek, what extra income tax do you pay if you break £100K, my understanding was the higher rate was up to £150K.
    Withdrawal of personal allowance above £100k, leads to a 60% marginal rate.
    https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates/income-over-100000
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625

    Roger said:

    moonshine said:

    Roger said:

    .

    Latest @JLPartnersPolls @TimesRadio swing voter focus group on immigration:

    🔵 All said Britain is ‘full’ and ‘at capacity’, politicians ‘don’t get it’
    🔵 Blame on immigration for problems with NHS, housing
    🔵 Said Braverman’s description of ‘invasion’ was accurate
    🔵 Felt that PM was wrong to appoint ‘naughty’ Braverman but she ‘has good ideas’
    🔵 Current Channel situation ‘unfair’ with Brits in poverty
    🔵 Tories handling it badly - but most said they would trust them more on immigration than Labour



    https://twitter.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1588462876620095488
    While flicking through the last threads I came across this posted by Carlotta and WilliamGlenn. Apparently a focus group. If evidence was needed to see the pitfalls of focus groups this is it. If might describe the settled will of the Rees Mogg clan but to suggest it informs us of the thoughts of the British people as a whole is nonsense.
    That focus group picks up a definite chord of mainstream opinion. The problem the govt have is they’ve been in charge for ever and haven’t done much of any use about it other than talk tough.

    'A chord' describes it. This country has a nasty underbelly represented by these findings but if this was even the majority opinion let alone the unanimous one-as suggested by this focus group -then it would be very depressing time time for us all

    Of course this is a focus group of swing voters - swing voters at a point where the Cons are 20% behind is likely to be quite right-wing. However, it gives you a hint why the Cons are pushing an issue that is basically their fault! It might work to an extent but first they have to remove the figurehead. Today's Opinium suggests Braverman's words strike a chord but that the woman herself is held in very low regard.

    The cause of this, is like BREXIT, la-la-la style denial of problems.

    And conflation of problems.

    But if everyone shouts at each other loudly enough, with enough invective, the problems will all be solved. That always works.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    Barnesian said:

    HYUFD said:

    Trump must see DeSantis as a threat because he’s come up with another one of his nicknames: Ron DeSanctimonious.

    https://twitter.com/alexthomp/status/1589055234336514048

    If DeSantis does defeat Crist on Tuesday and is re elected Florida Governor expect him to challenge Trump in the 2024 GOP primaries.

    If DeSantis can get evangelicals and Catholics and suburbanites behind him he would have a chance of winning it, even if the white working class stay loyal to Trump
    Fight fight!
    It would be a joy to watch.

    I've some money on Michelle being persuaded by Barrack to come to the rescue of the USA if Trump gets the nomination. The grudge match would continue and Michelle would triumph.

    But I can't see her standing against DeSantis. He's not a threat to the constitution.
    Hey I thought I was all on my jack jones with Michelle! I did her at triple digits for exactly that scenario. Was able to lay the stake back at 30 ish and still leave a nice profit. Bit fairytale, of course, but there is some logic there imo.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981

    Roger said:

    Can’t get over the amount of ignoring of a certain poster going on this morning.

    Gin is one of the longest standing and nicest posters on PB.

    Ishmael is the most acerbic. When it comes to debunking mean spirited right wing crackpots no one does it better. Just a pity his aim is sometimes so woeful and in Charles and Gin he's got it badly wrong
    I think some leeway has to be given to someone fulfilling the role of PB's chief curmudgeon. I have some ambitions in that area myself but have to accept that Ishy and Malc are nonpareil.
    Malc needs a return to form - at his best, his swear blogging is a poetic stream-of-consciousness. Merely shouting “Feck”, “Arse” etc from an armchair is beneath his talent.
    I am a man more sinned against than sinning. I have never been remotely rude to anyone in this subthread and can't imagine circumstances in which I would be. I regret having offended Charles, who was never rude to me or anyone else, but his relentless bragging was wearying. Those taking up the cudgels on his behalf are in the main nebbishes to whom a well known saying about heat and kitchens applies.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 46,268
    kyf_100 said:

    Sandpit said:

    The deepfake videos are coming.

    This low-budget music video, from US counter-culture commentator Tim Pool, is currently #3 on the iTunes chart in the US, and the video has half a million views in a couple of days.

    It’s showing a bunch of media figures singing the lyrics to the song. Not perfect, and clearly exaggerated for parody - but not a million miles away, and done on a tiny budget.

    How long before someone motivated, or with a political donation-sized budget, can put together a plausible news report of an event that never happened?

    At the risk of turning this into another conversation about AI art, I've been playing with the tech a lot the last few months and have even used it in some of my recent work.

    The pace of development is frightening.

    Off-the-shelf tools to create static images barely existed three months ago and the tech was decidedly wonky. Now you can download a bit of free software, tell it what you want, and it more or less gets there within about 4 or 5 iterations. Or five minutes, if you like.

    The main limitation around AI for video at the moment is processing power. You have to do it on your own hardware, there's no WYSIWIG text to video interface yet so it takes a lot of knowledge, and it takes hours rather than seconds to generate results that are often suboptimal.

    Once a product comes to market with a simple interface using remote servers to process data quickly (probably at huge cost, but still) the floodgates will be open.

    We're about a year or so out from that happening, I reckon.

    I hate to say it, but Leon was right about just how advanced this stuff is getting, and I was wrong about its usefulness and efficacy.
    *dark, scornful laughter on the Primrose Hill borderlands*
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851

    If Trump wins in 2024, Biden will be able to run again in 2028.

    If Joe is running anywhere in 2028 that'll be great news for him and his family.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 38,522
    Video allegedly showing a Russian soldier surrendering.

    https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1589205045354336263

    All seems surprisingly convivial.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 41,674
    Sandpit said:

    malcolmg said:

    eek said:

    Stocky said:

    Stocky said:

    Sandpit said:

    40% pension contribution relief is surely kite-flying? It’s been on every Chancellor’s hit list for at least a couple of decades, but is potlitical dynamite to actually introduce it. Behavioural changes (as highlighted by @eek and @MaxPB), especially alongside fiscal drag at a time of inflation, would undo a lot of the benefits while retaining all the political negatives.

    Not sure it's political dynamite. If the public understood (they don't) that high earners are being given an uplift of 40p on every £1 gross/60p net contributed (an instant boost of 66.7%) there would be considerable outrage in the other direction.
    Well everyone gets the 20p, so it's only the additional 20p on top. But its a fair point.

    On the other hand, we want people to invest to pay for their own retirement. I put money into a scheme, and I also pay my workplace pension. I'd want to know if thats still worth it (the personal pension element), or if I might as well save it up, given i'll get taxed on it when I take it out.
    You will be able to take 25% of the fund tax free. The remaining 75% is classed as taxable income. Nowadays you can gear the income you take to your tax situation and needs - and you can alter it as you want. As my previous post indicates, the residual fund does not die with you.

    Furthermore, and this is not usually understood, your pension fund is automatically in trust. On your death it does not form part of your estate and so avoids IHT.
    Only (from memory) if the pensioner dies before their 75th birthday.
    Eek, what extra income tax do you pay if you break £100K, my understanding was the higher rate was up to £150K.
    Withdrawal of personal allowance above £100k, leads to a 60% marginal rate.
    https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates/income-over-100000
    Cheers
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB's alternative fiscal statement to fill a £50bn gap in the finances and get the economy moving:

    Income tax up by 1p, 2p and 2p for rates of 21p, 42p and 47p

    NI payable on all income types and for all ages

    Eliminate dividend allowance

    Raise dividend tax rates to income tax for director owned shareholdings

    Reduce IHT allowance from £1m per couple to £800k per couple

    CGT on residential property investments rises to income tax rates, 30y non-transferable exemption for new build which is held at 18% and 28%

    Annual value based levy on residential property worth 2.5% of the property's value, 30y non-transferable exemption on new build property

    Increase second property stamp duty surcharge from 3% to 10%, rent earned in the grace period offsets rebates on sale of additional property

    New wealth tax at 6% of total wealth over £200k excluding primary residences payable every 10 years. Includes ISA and pension wealth and can be paid out of pension fund holdings for taxes on pension wealth (so people don't need to pay out of their income on wealth they can't necessarily access)

    New unlimited UK capital investment allowance for all businesses

    £5bn future energy and technology investment fund


    Think that annual 2.5% levy is too high and you also need something to cover the asset rich but cash poor pensioners.

    But it’s better than playing round with pensions as that will have unexpected albeit entertaining (but horrific rather than comedic) consequences.
    They can liquidate the assets or downsize their house and the 2.5% is supposed to be high as it will drive those investors either into equities or into new build which comes with the exemptions.
    Not to nitpick - since I like the thrust of it - but what about London houses? If you live in one worth (say) £2m that'll be £50k cash you have to stump up to HMRC each year every year. Bit steep maybe?
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    edited November 2022

    Roger said:

    moonshine said:

    Roger said:

    .

    Latest @JLPartnersPolls @TimesRadio swing voter focus group on immigration:

    🔵 All said Britain is ‘full’ and ‘at capacity’, politicians ‘don’t get it’
    🔵 Blame on immigration for problems with NHS, housing
    🔵 Said Braverman’s description of ‘invasion’ was accurate
    🔵 Felt that PM was wrong to appoint ‘naughty’ Braverman but she ‘has good ideas’
    🔵 Current Channel situation ‘unfair’ with Brits in poverty
    🔵 Tories handling it badly - but most said they would trust them more on immigration than Labour



    https://twitter.com/jamesjohnson252/status/1588462876620095488
    While flicking through the last threads I came across this posted by Carlotta and WilliamGlenn. Apparently a focus group. If evidence was needed to see the pitfalls of focus groups this is it. If might describe the settled will of the Rees Mogg clan but to suggest it informs us of the thoughts of the British people as a whole is nonsense.
    That focus group picks up a definite chord of mainstream opinion. The problem the govt have is they’ve been in charge for ever and haven’t done much of any use about it other than talk tough.

    'A chord' describes it. This country has a nasty underbelly represented by these findings but if this was even the majority opinion let alone the unanimous one-as suggested by this focus group -then it would be very depressing time time for us all
    Of course this is a focus group of swing voters - swing voters at a point where the Cons are 20% behind is likely to be quite right-wing. However, it gives you a hint why the Cons are pushing an issue that is basically their fault! It might work to an extent but first they have to remove the figurehead. Today's Opinium suggests Braverman's words strike a chord but that the woman herself is held in very low regard.

    The cause of this, is like BREXIT, la-la-la style denial of problems.

    And conflation of problems.

    But if everyone shouts at each other loudly enough, with enough invective, the problems will all be solved. That always works.ETA QUOTE COCK UP MY COMMENT STARTS HERE
    BPC should crack down on focus groups which are convened by proper pollsters but opaque about recruitment weighting etc. What is swing? Does it include con to refuk undecideds?

    Some polling on the issue at https://mattgoodwin.substack.com/p/britain-has-lost-control-of-its-borders

    "At 49 per cent, the number of people who reject the suggestion that somebody who has arrived unlawfully in Britain on a small boat from a safe country should be allowed to stay is significantly larger than the number, at 25 per cent, who think they should be allowed to stay. And when it comes to the specific issue of Albanians, a large majority of British people, 61 per cent, say ‘they should be required to leave the country and return to Albania’. Only 13 per cent think they should be allowed to stay."
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:


    AIUI, the idea behind the verification changes is two-fold. One is to generate income from people who spend their whole lives on Twitter, making the company less reliant on fickle advertisers; the other is to make it more difficult to run tens of thousands of bots, something which his investigation of the company flagged as a genuine problem.

    I don't understand the bot angle. Most bots aren't verified, and still won't be. The exception is if someone is prepared to spend a lot of money on impersonation, in which case they buy or hack a verified account. But this won't change, because you'll still be able to buy or hack a verified account, and as described you'll also just be able to simply pay for one.
    New market opportunity, fake news bot farms can get 1000 bots verified for $8000/m and suddenly fake news becomes real news. There's definitely countries with intelligence budgets to pay trivial sums like that to get approval for fake news bots.
    It wouldn’t just be countries - $8,000 is a tiny marketing budget even on Twitter..
    Maintaining 8,000 credit card accounts, on the other hand, is a lot more tricky.
    I don’t think Twitter will operate a 1 unique card per account policy - even if they did Musk will remove it when someone says extra money is available..
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,996

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB's alternative fiscal statement to fill a £50bn gap in the finances and get the economy moving:

    Income tax up by 1p, 2p and 2p for rates of 21p, 42p and 47p

    NI payable on all income types and for all ages

    Eliminate dividend allowance

    Raise dividend tax rates to income tax for director owned shareholdings

    Reduce IHT allowance from £1m per couple to £800k per couple

    CGT on residential property investments rises to income tax rates, 30y non-transferable exemption for new build which is held at 18% and 28%

    Annual value based levy on residential property worth 2.5% of the property's value, 30y non-transferable exemption on new build property

    Increase second property stamp duty surcharge from 3% to 10%, rent earned in the grace period offsets rebates on sale of additional property

    New wealth tax at 6% of total wealth over £200k excluding primary residences payable every 10 years. Includes ISA and pension wealth and can be paid out of pension fund holdings for taxes on pension wealth (so people don't need to pay out of their income on wealth they can't necessarily access)

    New unlimited UK capital investment allowance for all businesses

    £5bn future energy and technology investment fund


    Think that annual 2.5% levy is too high and you also need something to cover the asset rich but cash poor pensioners.

    But it’s better than playing round with pensions as that will have unexpected albeit entertaining (but horrific rather than comedic) consequences.
    The 2.5% levy could be deducted from the value of the estate on death.
    2.5% is a massive share of the imputed rental yield of a house which is 4-8%, after paying tax on the purchase price to boot. 10k annually on a 400k house would shift people toward other kinds of spending that are taxed at closer to 20% instead of 40-50%.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB's alternative fiscal statement to fill a £50bn gap in the finances and get the economy moving:

    Income tax up by 1p, 2p and 2p for rates of 21p, 42p and 47p

    NI payable on all income types and for all ages

    Eliminate dividend allowance

    Raise dividend tax rates to income tax for director owned shareholdings

    Reduce IHT allowance from £1m per couple to £800k per couple

    CGT on residential property investments rises to income tax rates, 30y non-transferable exemption for new build which is held at 18% and 28%

    Annual value based levy on residential property worth 2.5% of the property's value, 30y non-transferable exemption on new build property

    Increase second property stamp duty surcharge from 3% to 10%, rent earned in the grace period offsets rebates on sale of additional property

    New wealth tax at 6% of total wealth over £200k excluding primary residences payable every 10 years. Includes ISA and pension wealth and can be paid out of pension fund holdings for taxes on pension wealth (so people don't need to pay out of their income on wealth they can't necessarily access)

    New unlimited UK capital investment allowance for all businesses

    £5bn future energy and technology investment fund


    Think that annual 2.5% levy is too high and you also need something to cover the asset rich but cash poor pensioners.

    But it’s better than playing round with pensions as that will have unexpected albeit entertaining (but horrific rather than comedic) consequences.
    They can liquidate the assets or downsize their house and the 2.5% is supposed to be high as it will drive those investors either into equities or into new build which comes with the exemptions.
    Not to nitpick - since I like the thrust of it - but what about London houses? If you live in one worth (say) £2m that'll be £50k cash you have to stump up to HMRC each year every year. Bit steep maybe?
    TCO of a 2m house you stay put in for 20 years, 3m. This would turn houses into onerous assets, crash the markets and crash the banks. Max's proposals need to be read in light of his imminent move to Switzerland.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 37,603
    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB's alternative fiscal statement to fill a £50bn gap in the finances and get the economy moving:

    Income tax up by 1p, 2p and 2p for rates of 21p, 42p and 47p

    NI payable on all income types and for all ages

    Eliminate dividend allowance

    Raise dividend tax rates to income tax for director owned shareholdings

    Reduce IHT allowance from £1m per couple to £800k per couple

    CGT on residential property investments rises to income tax rates, 30y non-transferable exemption for new build which is held at 18% and 28%

    Annual value based levy on residential property worth 2.5% of the property's value, 30y non-transferable exemption on new build property

    Increase second property stamp duty surcharge from 3% to 10%, rent earned in the grace period offsets rebates on sale of additional property

    New wealth tax at 6% of total wealth over £200k excluding primary residences payable every 10 years. Includes ISA and pension wealth and can be paid out of pension fund holdings for taxes on pension wealth (so people don't need to pay out of their income on wealth they can't necessarily access)

    New unlimited UK capital investment allowance for all businesses

    £5bn future energy and technology investment fund


    Think that annual 2.5% levy is too high and you also need something to cover the asset rich but cash poor pensioners.

    But it’s better than playing round with pensions as that will have unexpected albeit entertaining (but horrific rather than comedic) consequences.
    They can liquidate the assets or downsize their house and the 2.5% is supposed to be high as it will drive those investors either into equities or into new build which comes with the exemptions.
    Not to nitpick - since I like the thrust of it - but what about London houses? If you live in one worth (say) £2m that'll be £50k cash you have to stump up to HMRC each year every year. Bit steep maybe?
    Meant to say on property investment, not primary residences so shouldn't be an issue.
  • Sandpit said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:


    AIUI, the idea behind the verification changes is two-fold. One is to generate income from people who spend their whole lives on Twitter, making the company less reliant on fickle advertisers; the other is to make it more difficult to run tens of thousands of bots, something which his investigation of the company flagged as a genuine problem.

    I don't understand the bot angle. Most bots aren't verified, and still won't be. The exception is if someone is prepared to spend a lot of money on impersonation, in which case they buy or hack a verified account. But this won't change, because you'll still be able to buy or hack a verified account, and as described you'll also just be able to simply pay for one.
    New market opportunity, fake news bot farms can get 1000 bots verified for $8000/m and suddenly fake news becomes real news. There's definitely countries with intelligence budgets to pay trivial sums like that to get approval for fake news bots.
    It wouldn’t just be countries - $8,000 is a tiny marketing budget even on Twitter..
    Maintaining 8,000 credit card accounts, on the other hand, is a lot more tricky.
    No it isn't. For a start, hostile states might own banks and credit card companies. And even in the decadent West, there are many large companies running tens of thousands of Amex cards for employees, and other card companies are available.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    edited November 2022
    EPG said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB's alternative fiscal statement to fill a £50bn gap in the finances and get the economy moving:

    Income tax up by 1p, 2p and 2p for rates of 21p, 42p and 47p

    NI payable on all income types and for all ages

    Eliminate dividend allowance

    Raise dividend tax rates to income tax for director owned shareholdings

    Reduce IHT allowance from £1m per couple to £800k per couple

    CGT on residential property investments rises to income tax rates, 30y non-transferable exemption for new build which is held at 18% and 28%

    Annual value based levy on residential property worth 2.5% of the property's value, 30y non-transferable exemption on new build property

    Increase second property stamp duty surcharge from 3% to 10%, rent earned in the grace period offsets rebates on sale of additional property

    New wealth tax at 6% of total wealth over £200k excluding primary residences payable every 10 years. Includes ISA and pension wealth and can be paid out of pension fund holdings for taxes on pension wealth (so people don't need to pay out of their income on wealth they can't necessarily access)

    New unlimited UK capital investment allowance for all businesses

    £5bn future energy and technology investment fund


    Think that annual 2.5% levy is too high and you also need something to cover the asset rich but cash poor pensioners.

    But it’s better than playing round with pensions as that will have unexpected albeit entertaining (but horrific rather than comedic) consequences.
    The 2.5% levy could be deducted from the value of the estate on death.
    2.5% is a massive share of the imputed rental yield of a house which is 4-8%, after paying tax on the purchase price to boot. 10k annually on a 400k house would shift people toward other kinds of spending that are taxed at closer to 20% instead of 40-50%.
    House prices are only so high and rental yields so low because of the cheap cost of money and the limited other options for investing.

    I doubt rental yields would be so low if interest rates hasn’t been kept at zero for 10+ years - that’s not to say the returns would be higher, more that purchase prices would be lower.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    MaxPB said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB's alternative fiscal statement to fill a £50bn gap in the finances and get the economy moving:

    Income tax up by 1p, 2p and 2p for rates of 21p, 42p and 47p

    NI payable on all income types and for all ages

    Eliminate dividend allowance

    Raise dividend tax rates to income tax for director owned shareholdings

    Reduce IHT allowance from £1m per couple to £800k per couple

    CGT on residential property investments rises to income tax rates, 30y non-transferable exemption for new build which is held at 18% and 28%

    Annual value based levy on residential property worth 2.5% of the property's value, 30y non-transferable exemption on new build property

    Increase second property stamp duty surcharge from 3% to 10%, rent earned in the grace period offsets rebates on sale of additional property

    New wealth tax at 6% of total wealth over £200k excluding primary residences payable every 10 years. Includes ISA and pension wealth and can be paid out of pension fund holdings for taxes on pension wealth (so people don't need to pay out of their income on wealth they can't necessarily access)

    New unlimited UK capital investment allowance for all businesses

    £5bn future energy and technology investment fund


    Think that annual 2.5% levy is too high and you also need something to cover the asset rich but cash poor pensioners.

    But it’s better than playing round with pensions as that will have unexpected albeit entertaining (but horrific rather than comedic) consequences.
    They can liquidate the assets or downsize their house and the 2.5% is supposed to be high as it will drive those investors either into equities or into new build which comes with the exemptions.
    Not to nitpick - since I like the thrust of it - but what about London houses? If you live in one worth (say) £2m that'll be £50k cash you have to stump up to HMRC each year every year. Bit steep maybe?
    Meant to say on property investment, not primary residences so shouldn't be an issue.
    So what do we do with primary residences as that is where most people’s wealth is stored.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    Ishmael_Z said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB's alternative fiscal statement to fill a £50bn gap in the finances and get the economy moving:

    Income tax up by 1p, 2p and 2p for rates of 21p, 42p and 47p

    NI payable on all income types and for all ages

    Eliminate dividend allowance

    Raise dividend tax rates to income tax for director owned shareholdings

    Reduce IHT allowance from £1m per couple to £800k per couple

    CGT on residential property investments rises to income tax rates, 30y non-transferable exemption for new build which is held at 18% and 28%

    Annual value based levy on residential property worth 2.5% of the property's value, 30y non-transferable exemption on new build property

    Increase second property stamp duty surcharge from 3% to 10%, rent earned in the grace period offsets rebates on sale of additional property

    New wealth tax at 6% of total wealth over £200k excluding primary residences payable every 10 years. Includes ISA and pension wealth and can be paid out of pension fund holdings for taxes on pension wealth (so people don't need to pay out of their income on wealth they can't necessarily access)

    New unlimited UK capital investment allowance for all businesses

    £5bn future energy and technology investment fund


    Think that annual 2.5% levy is too high and you also need something to cover the asset rich but cash poor pensioners.

    But it’s better than playing round with pensions as that will have unexpected albeit entertaining (but horrific rather than comedic) consequences.
    They can liquidate the assets or downsize their house and the 2.5% is supposed to be high as it will drive those investors either into equities or into new build which comes with the exemptions.
    Not to nitpick - since I like the thrust of it - but what about London houses? If you live in one worth (say) £2m that'll be £50k cash you have to stump up to HMRC each year every year. Bit steep maybe?
    TCO of a 2m house you stay put in for 20 years, 3m. This would turn houses into onerous assets, crash the markets and crash the banks. Max's proposals need to be read in light of his imminent move to Switzerland.
    S'okay. Just seen clarification that it's on investment props.
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 8,981
    kinabalu said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB's alternative fiscal statement to fill a £50bn gap in the finances and get the economy moving:

    Income tax up by 1p, 2p and 2p for rates of 21p, 42p and 47p

    NI payable on all income types and for all ages

    Eliminate dividend allowance

    Raise dividend tax rates to income tax for director owned shareholdings

    Reduce IHT allowance from £1m per couple to £800k per couple

    CGT on residential property investments rises to income tax rates, 30y non-transferable exemption for new build which is held at 18% and 28%

    Annual value based levy on residential property worth 2.5% of the property's value, 30y non-transferable exemption on new build property

    Increase second property stamp duty surcharge from 3% to 10%, rent earned in the grace period offsets rebates on sale of additional property

    New wealth tax at 6% of total wealth over £200k excluding primary residences payable every 10 years. Includes ISA and pension wealth and can be paid out of pension fund holdings for taxes on pension wealth (so people don't need to pay out of their income on wealth they can't necessarily access)

    New unlimited UK capital investment allowance for all businesses

    £5bn future energy and technology investment fund


    Think that annual 2.5% levy is too high and you also need something to cover the asset rich but cash poor pensioners.

    But it’s better than playing round with pensions as that will have unexpected albeit entertaining (but horrific rather than comedic) consequences.
    They can liquidate the assets or downsize their house and the 2.5% is supposed to be high as it will drive those investors either into equities or into new build which comes with the exemptions.
    Not to nitpick - since I like the thrust of it - but what about London houses? If you live in one worth (say) £2m that'll be £50k cash you have to stump up to HMRC each year every year. Bit steep maybe?
    TCO of a 2m house you stay put in for 20 years, 3m. This would turn houses into onerous assets, crash the markets and crash the banks. Max's proposals need to be read in light of his imminent move to Switzerland.
    S'okay. Just seen clarification that it's on investment props.
    phew.
  • If Trump wins in 2024, Biden will be able to run again in 2028.

    Sure, he'll only be what, 84 or something?
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,996
    kinabalu said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB's alternative fiscal statement to fill a £50bn gap in the finances and get the economy moving:

    Income tax up by 1p, 2p and 2p for rates of 21p, 42p and 47p

    NI payable on all income types and for all ages

    Eliminate dividend allowance

    Raise dividend tax rates to income tax for director owned shareholdings

    Reduce IHT allowance from £1m per couple to £800k per couple

    CGT on residential property investments rises to income tax rates, 30y non-transferable exemption for new build which is held at 18% and 28%

    Annual value based levy on residential property worth 2.5% of the property's value, 30y non-transferable exemption on new build property

    Increase second property stamp duty surcharge from 3% to 10%, rent earned in the grace period offsets rebates on sale of additional property

    New wealth tax at 6% of total wealth over £200k excluding primary residences payable every 10 years. Includes ISA and pension wealth and can be paid out of pension fund holdings for taxes on pension wealth (so people don't need to pay out of their income on wealth they can't necessarily access)

    New unlimited UK capital investment allowance for all businesses

    £5bn future energy and technology investment fund


    Think that annual 2.5% levy is too high and you also need something to cover the asset rich but cash poor pensioners.

    But it’s better than playing round with pensions as that will have unexpected albeit entertaining (but horrific rather than comedic) consequences.
    They can liquidate the assets or downsize their house and the 2.5% is supposed to be high as it will drive those investors either into equities or into new build which comes with the exemptions.
    Not to nitpick - since I like the thrust of it - but what about London houses? If you live in one worth (say) £2m that'll be £50k cash you have to stump up to HMRC each year every year. Bit steep maybe?
    TCO of a 2m house you stay put in for 20 years, 3m. This would turn houses into onerous assets, crash the markets and crash the banks. Max's proposals need to be read in light of his imminent move to Switzerland.
    S'okay. Just seen clarification that it's on investment props.
    Okay, but a total 80%+ tax rate would abolish renting. Good for the inherited incumbent wealth crowd whose parents can copay, bad for anyone else who wants to move around for work, study, family reasons.
  • Being a bit of a cynic ( a birthright being born in Hull), I am sure that the nominations being topped up to 100 was all part of the deal for Boris to withdraw.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 49,961

    Video allegedly showing a Russian soldier surrendering.

    https://twitter.com/wartranslated/status/1589205045354336263

    All seems surprisingly convivial.

    Just some old bloke, caught up in someone else's war. He's going to be warmish, dry, fed, safe - in a better place than the tens of thousands of his fellow cannon-fodder.
  • Another point with Pension contributions is that companies can make employer contributions, get corporation tax relief. The employee can then get that money into their pot, without making additional personal tax issues.

    Also, there's then the matter of salary sacrifice which will need to be considers

    The balance between personal contributions and employers contributions is a tricky one.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    EPG said:

    kinabalu said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB's alternative fiscal statement to fill a £50bn gap in the finances and get the economy moving:

    Income tax up by 1p, 2p and 2p for rates of 21p, 42p and 47p

    NI payable on all income types and for all ages

    Eliminate dividend allowance

    Raise dividend tax rates to income tax for director owned shareholdings

    Reduce IHT allowance from £1m per couple to £800k per couple

    CGT on residential property investments rises to income tax rates, 30y non-transferable exemption for new build which is held at 18% and 28%

    Annual value based levy on residential property worth 2.5% of the property's value, 30y non-transferable exemption on new build property

    Increase second property stamp duty surcharge from 3% to 10%, rent earned in the grace period offsets rebates on sale of additional property

    New wealth tax at 6% of total wealth over £200k excluding primary residences payable every 10 years. Includes ISA and pension wealth and can be paid out of pension fund holdings for taxes on pension wealth (so people don't need to pay out of their income on wealth they can't necessarily access)

    New unlimited UK capital investment allowance for all businesses

    £5bn future energy and technology investment fund


    Think that annual 2.5% levy is too high and you also need something to cover the asset rich but cash poor pensioners.

    But it’s better than playing round with pensions as that will have unexpected albeit entertaining (but horrific rather than comedic) consequences.
    They can liquidate the assets or downsize their house and the 2.5% is supposed to be high as it will drive those investors either into equities or into new build which comes with the exemptions.
    Not to nitpick - since I like the thrust of it - but what about London houses? If you live in one worth (say) £2m that'll be £50k cash you have to stump up to HMRC each year every year. Bit steep maybe?
    TCO of a 2m house you stay put in for 20 years, 3m. This would turn houses into onerous assets, crash the markets and crash the banks. Max's proposals need to be read in light of his imminent move to Switzerland.
    S'okay. Just seen clarification that it's on investment props.
    Okay, but a total 80%+ tax rate would abolish renting. Good for the inherited incumbent wealth crowd whose parents can copay, bad for anyone else who wants to move around for work, study, family reasons.
    Well we need a private rented sector but I'd like to see it made smaller by the expansion of both home ownership and council housing. Also BTL shouldn't be a popular road to wealth accretion. It's not healthy if it is.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760
    kinabalu said:

    EPG said:

    kinabalu said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB's alternative fiscal statement to fill a £50bn gap in the finances and get the economy moving:

    Income tax up by 1p, 2p and 2p for rates of 21p, 42p and 47p

    NI payable on all income types and for all ages

    Eliminate dividend allowance

    Raise dividend tax rates to income tax for director owned shareholdings

    Reduce IHT allowance from £1m per couple to £800k per couple

    CGT on residential property investments rises to income tax rates, 30y non-transferable exemption for new build which is held at 18% and 28%

    Annual value based levy on residential property worth 2.5% of the property's value, 30y non-transferable exemption on new build property

    Increase second property stamp duty surcharge from 3% to 10%, rent earned in the grace period offsets rebates on sale of additional property

    New wealth tax at 6% of total wealth over £200k excluding primary residences payable every 10 years. Includes ISA and pension wealth and can be paid out of pension fund holdings for taxes on pension wealth (so people don't need to pay out of their income on wealth they can't necessarily access)

    New unlimited UK capital investment allowance for all businesses

    £5bn future energy and technology investment fund


    Think that annual 2.5% levy is too high and you also need something to cover the asset rich but cash poor pensioners.

    But it’s better than playing round with pensions as that will have unexpected albeit entertaining (but horrific rather than comedic) consequences.
    They can liquidate the assets or downsize their house and the 2.5% is supposed to be high as it will drive those investors either into equities or into new build which comes with the exemptions.
    Not to nitpick - since I like the thrust of it - but what about London houses? If you live in one worth (say) £2m that'll be £50k cash you have to stump up to HMRC each year every year. Bit steep maybe?
    TCO of a 2m house you stay put in for 20 years, 3m. This would turn houses into onerous assets, crash the markets and crash the banks. Max's proposals need to be read in light of his imminent move to Switzerland.
    S'okay. Just seen clarification that it's on investment props.
    Okay, but a total 80%+ tax rate would abolish renting. Good for the inherited incumbent wealth crowd whose parents can copay, bad for anyone else who wants to move around for work, study, family reasons.
    Well we need a private rented sector but I'd like to see it made smaller by the expansion of both home ownership and council housing. Also BTL shouldn't be a popular road to wealth accretion. It's not healthy if it is.
    Has anyone ever explored making house builders build rental properties as part of new developments - either managed by them, or by the local council?

    It seems one way of solving a large number of potential problems.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 43,625
    Ishmael_Z said:

    Roger said:

    Can’t get over the amount of ignoring of a certain poster going on this morning.

    Gin is one of the longest standing and nicest posters on PB.

    Ishmael is the most acerbic. When it comes to debunking mean spirited right wing crackpots no one does it better. Just a pity his aim is sometimes so woeful and in Charles and Gin he's got it badly wrong
    I think some leeway has to be given to someone fulfilling the role of PB's chief curmudgeon. I have some ambitions in that area myself but have to accept that Ishy and Malc are nonpareil.
    Malc needs a return to form - at his best, his swear blogging is a poetic stream-of-consciousness. Merely shouting “Feck”, “Arse” etc from an armchair is beneath his talent.
    I am a man more sinned against than sinning. I have never been remotely rude to anyone in this subthread and can't imagine circumstances in which I would be. I regret having offended Charles, who was never rude to me or anyone else, but his relentless bragging was wearying. Those taking up the cudgels on his behalf are in the main nebbishes to whom a well known saying about heat and kitchens applies.
    I was on USENET before HTTP was a thing.

    In all that time, linking people online to their real world selves against their will always leads to failure.

    It doesn’t matter how justified you think you are. You always lose.

    Why?

    “Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!”
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 66,760

    If Trump wins in 2024, Biden will be able to run again in 2028.

    Sure, he'll only be what, 84 or something?
    86 I think.

    Trump would be 82.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 38,851
    eek said:

    EPG said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB's alternative fiscal statement to fill a £50bn gap in the finances and get the economy moving:

    Income tax up by 1p, 2p and 2p for rates of 21p, 42p and 47p

    NI payable on all income types and for all ages

    Eliminate dividend allowance

    Raise dividend tax rates to income tax for director owned shareholdings

    Reduce IHT allowance from £1m per couple to £800k per couple

    CGT on residential property investments rises to income tax rates, 30y non-transferable exemption for new build which is held at 18% and 28%

    Annual value based levy on residential property worth 2.5% of the property's value, 30y non-transferable exemption on new build property

    Increase second property stamp duty surcharge from 3% to 10%, rent earned in the grace period offsets rebates on sale of additional property

    New wealth tax at 6% of total wealth over £200k excluding primary residences payable every 10 years. Includes ISA and pension wealth and can be paid out of pension fund holdings for taxes on pension wealth (so people don't need to pay out of their income on wealth they can't necessarily access)

    New unlimited UK capital investment allowance for all businesses

    £5bn future energy and technology investment fund


    Think that annual 2.5% levy is too high and you also need something to cover the asset rich but cash poor pensioners.

    But it’s better than playing round with pensions as that will have unexpected albeit entertaining (but horrific rather than comedic) consequences.
    The 2.5% levy could be deducted from the value of the estate on death.
    2.5% is a massive share of the imputed rental yield of a house which is 4-8%, after paying tax on the purchase price to boot. 10k annually on a 400k house would shift people toward other kinds of spending that are taxed at closer to 20% instead of 40-50%.
    House prices are only so high and rental yields so low because of the cheap cost of money and the limited other options for investing.

    I doubt rental yields would be so low if interest rates hasn’t been kept at zero for 10+ years - that’s not to say the returns would be higher, more that purchase prices would be lower.
    That's right. Property competes for investment money with other asset classes. So if yields there are higher, so must be those on property. Via lower prices and/or higher rents. Probably, as you say, more the former.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 9,653

    Another point with Pension contributions is that companies can make employer contributions, get corporation tax relief. The employee can then get that money into their pot, without making additional personal tax issues.

    Also, there's then the matter of salary sacrifice which will need to be considers

    The balance between personal contributions and employers contributions is a tricky one.

    It's more complex than it seems, and Hunt will face strong opposition from the financial lobby if he tries to tinker too much.

    A further issue is that of charity contributions, which can be funded similarly to pensions via gift aid - and so deprive the treasury of much-needed coffers. If I were Hunt I would do the right thing rather than caving to the financial lobby and restrict pension tax relief to 20% and abolish charity gift aid entirely.
  • eekeek Posts: 24,797
    ydoethur said:

    kinabalu said:

    EPG said:

    kinabalu said:

    Ishmael_Z said:

    kinabalu said:

    MaxPB said:

    eek said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB's alternative fiscal statement to fill a £50bn gap in the finances and get the economy moving:

    Income tax up by 1p, 2p and 2p for rates of 21p, 42p and 47p

    NI payable on all income types and for all ages

    Eliminate dividend allowance

    Raise dividend tax rates to income tax for director owned shareholdings

    Reduce IHT allowance from £1m per couple to £800k per couple

    CGT on residential property investments rises to income tax rates, 30y non-transferable exemption for new build which is held at 18% and 28%

    Annual value based levy on residential property worth 2.5% of the property's value, 30y non-transferable exemption on new build property

    Increase second property stamp duty surcharge from 3% to 10%, rent earned in the grace period offsets rebates on sale of additional property

    New wealth tax at 6% of total wealth over £200k excluding primary residences payable every 10 years. Includes ISA and pension wealth and can be paid out of pension fund holdings for taxes on pension wealth (so people don't need to pay out of their income on wealth they can't necessarily access)

    New unlimited UK capital investment allowance for all businesses

    £5bn future energy and technology investment fund


    Think that annual 2.5% levy is too high and you also need something to cover the asset rich but cash poor pensioners.

    But it’s better than playing round with pensions as that will have unexpected albeit entertaining (but horrific rather than comedic) consequences.
    They can liquidate the assets or downsize their house and the 2.5% is supposed to be high as it will drive those investors either into equities or into new build which comes with the exemptions.
    Not to nitpick - since I like the thrust of it - but what about London houses? If you live in one worth (say) £2m that'll be £50k cash you have to stump up to HMRC each year every year. Bit steep maybe?
    TCO of a 2m house you stay put in for 20 years, 3m. This would turn houses into onerous assets, crash the markets and crash the banks. Max's proposals need to be read in light of his imminent move to Switzerland.
    S'okay. Just seen clarification that it's on investment props.
    Okay, but a total 80%+ tax rate would abolish renting. Good for the inherited incumbent wealth crowd whose parents can copay, bad for anyone else who wants to move around for work, study, family reasons.
    Well we need a private rented sector but I'd like to see it made smaller by the expansion of both home ownership and council housing. Also BTL shouldn't be a popular road to wealth accretion. It's not healthy if it is.
    Has anyone ever explored making house builders build rental properties as part of new developments - either managed by them, or by the local council?

    It seems one way of solving a large number of potential problems.
    You mean the social housing requirements that all builders desperately do everything to avoid implementing. With separate entrances for the riff raff.

    I think one of the local builders did 2 such blocks of flats in their recent scheme. Both are a think nice pensions funds for their directors ( guess it’s a slight improvement on the overall ground rent approach that was previously used).
This discussion has been closed.