Reeve isn't stupid. The budget will surely have some tax grabs from the well off - pension tax relief on higher earners for example and goodies for everyone else - increase the basic tax threshold for example.
She should raise personal allowance marginally to ensure people on a basic state pension and a bit of interest from savings don't need to pay income tax. The increase in personal allowance should be restricted to pensioners and would part offset the removal of the winter fuel allowance.
I've advise anyone with a pension or an isa to put away everything they can into it during September and October, as soon as they can.
Don't think I've ever seen such crap advice in my life.
Basically it would be impossible for things to change this tax year so don't stress about it.
Any pension changes will occur from April 6th 2025 because anything else would be hell to organise. As anyone who understands pensions or tax will tell you..
Literally the only thing you can change mid-year is NI and VAT..
Reeve isn't stupid. The budget will surely have some tax grabs from the well off - pension tax relief on higher earners for example and goodies for everyone else - increase the basic tax threshold for example.
She should raise personal allowance marginally to ensure people on a basic state pension and a bit of interest from savings don't need to pay income tax. The increase in personal allowance should be restricted to pensioners and would part offset the removal of the winter fuel allowance.
I've advise anyone with a pension or an isa to put away everything they can into it during September and October, as soon as they can.
Put it in or take it out in case the 25 per cent tax free allowance is axed?
ETA that reminds me, I shall soon need to withdraw next year's living expenses.
I can’t see them removing the 25% rule. I am ready to be wrong, but that would be exceptionally unpopular.
If I was placing a bet in this market it would be on Bridget.
If I was placing a bet on this market, it would simply be to lay all the options.
One genuinely odd thing about that list is that David Lammy isn't on it.
Even before Lammy become FS there was discussion about who it should actually be instead. I don't think he is in the frame for leader.
Bridget has much going for her. Proper northern, Catholic, charm, can speak in meaningful sentences when she wants, perhaps a less posh Harriet Harman. Possible value.
Reeves and Streeting are likely to become less popular over time given their roles in government. I've no idea why anyone imagines Burnham might suddenly find himself in with a chance, and Khan (although much longer odds) is unlikely too.
I think Lammy has probably realised that he isn't up to the job of being PM, and seems quite happy in his current role.
So Phillipson does seem the most likely possibility, but I think we're a very long way off any change.
I think we're so far off change that none of today's Cabinet are likely.
Yeah - mostly with you.
A couple of factors though which could cause change; - government finances (this looks pretty grim) - the left (they never go quietly into the night)
I suspect that the government will avoid these perils, but who knows. The above, combined with Tory weakness, are also why I'm not laying Farage as next PM at the seemingly ludicrous 11.5s available. (Well that and if it's a good bet you just tie money up for years)
Thanks. On finances though, for how long can the Government "get away' with laying the blame on the Tories for the past 14 years? My recollection is that Brown's government didn't exactly leave a financial bed of roses. In fact the public finances have been in a mess since about 2005. The issue with the Coalition was that they cut where they shouldn't have, especially Sure Start and tuition fees and didn't raise taxes where they could have, on, for example, unearned income. Raising VAT was also counter-productive. If that puts me on the Left, so be it.
To be fair, the Conservatives in Government were still talking about the Winter of Discontent well into the mid-90s as a reason for not voting for Blair. I think there's a good bit of mileage in blaming the previous Conservative-led Governments - the prison system crisis can be laid entirely at the Conservative door for example.
I don't disagree with much of your analysis of the Coalition - in order to get to No.10, Cameron had to make some promises on not cutting the NHS or Education which were as deleterious as the LD commitment on tuition fees.
The public finances were in a bad state in 2010 - no one is arguing that - but Osborne and Alexander should have raised taxes more than they did and made shallower but broader cuts to public spending. The origins of the current crisis in local Government finance can be found here - in sheer headcount, the local Government sector has shrunk by a third since 2012 yet it has taken on increasing burdens such as public health and the growing demands on care for vulnerable adults and children.
To be fair, progress was made on reducing the deficit (the likes of Braverman trumpet that at every opportunity) but the way it was done was counter productive.
I think they can lay the blame on the Tories for the last 14 years forever - it wasn't anybody else who was running the country.
I think you may mean something around "how long will blaming the Tories be effective" in protecting Mr Starmer's Government.
I think it depends on the question - for prisons there are multiple issues and the Conservatives made multiple promises on multiple occasions to build X prisons, and afaik did not keep any of them.
Given that prisons take up to 10 years to develop, that should be that long for those (it may not be), but eg for Court backlogs which have ballooned over 3-4 years they will not get so much patience as they should be able to have something of an impact much more quickly.
Perhaps it is also about if the Cons can make any narratives stick. That requires credibility. "Starmer letting prisoners out early" will not wash when the Tories let out 10,000 early last year. All that would be is a further proof that this current generation of senior conservatives are a collection putrid, stupid, self-serving hypocrites.
Is it perhaps "how long will it take for the shine to come off Labour" vs "how quickly can the Tories recover some measure of credibility."
I've read the story twice but have no idea what Tugendhat expects His Majesty's matelots actually to do and (to paraphrase Donald Trump) I don't think he does either.
This is an opposition slogan, not a government one. Did anyone notice the silence on this and all related subjects from the PM today?
QAnon conspiracy theorist/self-proclaimed "prophet" Johnny Enlow reports that Trump will soon receive the endorsement of "a major name star that has been assumed to be dead for a long time." https://x.com/RightWingWatch/status/1828151052761178373
So Starmer has cancelled the Helicopter contract for the Govt. This has all the hallmarks of Jim Hacker and "The Economy Drive".
The Media must be very watchful on Govt ministers in Helicopters even if loaned to them
To focus on hypocrisy slightly misses the point. The question ought to be, do we want ministers whizzing about the country to see how the other half lives? If we do, then helicopters might be an easier way of doing it than car or train. If we'd rather they stay at their desks, then it probably does not matter.
If I was placing a bet in this market it would be on Bridget.
If I was placing a bet on this market, it would simply be to lay all the options.
One genuinely odd thing about that list is that David Lammy isn't on it.
Even before Lammy become FS there was discussion about who it should actually be instead. I don't think he is in the frame for leader.
Bridget has much going for her. Proper northern, Catholic, charm, can speak in meaningful sentences when she wants, perhaps a less posh Harriet Harman. Possible value.
Reeves and Streeting are likely to become less popular over time given their roles in government. I've no idea why anyone imagines Burnham might suddenly find himself in with a chance, and Khan (although much longer odds) is unlikely too.
I think Lammy has probably realised that he isn't up to the job of being PM, and seems quite happy in his current role.
So Phillipson does seem the most likely possibility, but I think we're a very long way off any change.
I think we're so far off change that none of today's Cabinet are likely.
Yeah - mostly with you.
A couple of factors though which could cause change; - government finances (this looks pretty grim) - the left (they never go quietly into the night)
I suspect that the government will avoid these perils, but who knows. The above, combined with Tory weakness, are also why I'm not laying Farage as next PM at the seemingly ludicrous 11.5s available. (Well that and if it's a good bet you just tie money up for years)
Thanks. On finances though, for how long can the Government "get away' with laying the blame on the Tories for the past 14 years? My recollection is that Brown's government didn't exactly leave a financial bed of roses. In fact the public finances have been in a mess since about 2005. The issue with the Coalition was that they cut where they shouldn't have, especially Sure Start and tuition fees and didn't raise taxes where they could have, on, for example, unearned income. Raising VAT was also counter-productive. If that puts me on the Left, so be it.
To be fair, the Conservatives in Government were still talking about the Winter of Discontent well into the mid-90s as a reason for not voting for Blair. I think there's a good bit of mileage in blaming the previous Conservative-led Governments - the prison system crisis can be laid entirely at the Conservative door for example.
I don't disagree with much of your analysis of the Coalition - in order to get to No.10, Cameron had to make some promises on not cutting the NHS or Education which were as deleterious as the LD commitment on tuition fees.
The public finances were in a bad state in 2010 - no one is arguing that - but Osborne and Alexander should have raised taxes more than they did and made shallower but broader cuts to public spending. The origins of the current crisis in local Government finance can be found here - in sheer headcount, the local Government sector has shrunk by a third since 2012 yet it has taken on increasing burdens such as public health and the growing demands on care for vulnerable adults and children.
To be fair, progress was made on reducing the deficit (the likes of Braverman trumpet that at every opportunity) but the way it was done was counter productive.
I think they can lay the blame on the Tories for the last 14 years forever - it wasn't anybody else who was running the country.
I think you may mean something around "how long will blaming the Tories be effective" in protecting Mr Starmer's Government.
I think it depends on the question - for prisons there are multiple issues and the Conservatives made multiple promises on multiple occasions to build X prisons, and afaik did not keep any of them.
Given that prisons take up to 10 years to develop, that should be that long for those (it may not be), but eg for Court backlogs which have ballooned over 3-4 years they will not get so much patience as they should be able to have something of an impact much more quickly.
Perhaps it is also about if the Cons can make any narratives stick. That requires credibility. "Starmer letting prisoners out early" will not wash when the Tories let out 10,000 early last year. All that would be is a further proof that this current generation of senior conservatives are a collection putrid, stupid, self-serving hypocrites.
Is it perhaps "how long will it take for the shine to come off Labour" vs "how quickly can the Tories recover some measure of credibility."
I've read the story twice but have no idea what Tugendhat expects His Majesty's matelots actually to do and (to paraphrase Donald Trump) I don't think he does either.
Pretending it's still the early 19thC is quite on brand with the current party, TBF.
Reeve isn't stupid. The budget will surely have some tax grabs from the well off - pension tax relief on higher earners for example and goodies for everyone else - increase the basic tax threshold for example.
She should raise personal allowance marginally to ensure people on a basic state pension and a bit of interest from savings don't need to pay income tax. The increase in personal allowance should be restricted to pensioners and would part offset the removal of the winter fuel allowance.
Why should the increase in PA be restricted to pensioners? They get enough goodies as it is. How did we enter a world where ageism in the tax system and benefit system is acceptable? See also lower minimum wage for 18 year olds.
The problem is that PA has not been raised for ages and now pensioners on the basic state pension are very near having to pay a small amount of tax. Pensions are paid before tax. Many pensioners will not be aware that they are due to pay tax or don't know how to make a declaration.
So ... there another carers allowance scandal on the horizon as a multitude of pensioners are chased for small sums plus penalties.
The answer is to slightly raise the PA. But this costs if it applies to everyone so I suggest it is restricted to pensioners. And it has the added PR benefit of partly addressing the WFA controversy.
However I entirely agree with your complaint about pensioners getting special treatment. I would remove the triple lock, make free travel passes benefits in kind and I support the removal of the WFA. My suggestion to slightly raise the PA for pensioners was avoid a cock-up (and save admin expenses) rather than to further molly coddle pensioners. I say this as an 81 year old pensioner.
Add the factor that (a) DWP don't issue P60s and leave it to HMRC to amend the inevitable errors, and (2) the taxable sum for state pension in a given tax year is (uniquely for such a straightforward imcome of known sum) not what you actually get, but some notional figure calculated by a formula which is not easy to get right ...
Good reasons to increase the personal allowance for all taxpayers. Not a reason to exempt pensioners.
And finance it by moving the 45% tax rate to start at £100K and remove the PA taper and its cliff edge. I'd love to be in the Treasury working on Reeves's budget.
And review the use (some might say abuse) of salary sacrifice to artificially lower salary for tax and benefit purposes.
It is use rather than abuse as the governmnet encourages it. No-one in power seems to differentiate between the government foregoing tax to help people build a modest retirement pot (say 500k) which helps the government by limiting the need for future social security payments and those building multi million retirement pots which provide no additional govt benefit but miss out on significant amounts of tax.
So Starmer has cancelled the Helicopter contract for the Govt. This has all the hallmarks of Jim Hacker and "The Economy Drive".
The Media must be very watchful on Govt ministers in Helicopters even if loaned to them
That’s the sort of needless penny-pinching that ignores the value of time to the ministers.
Give it a few weeks and they’ll be taking off the seat covers from first class train carriages. Again.
IIRC part of the reason for helicopter usage was security. So when Starmer inevitably has to fly somewhere again he will look like a right tit when he tries to justify it.
It won't be difficult for him to look a right tit. He is a duplicitous shit and will be found out as is already starting to happen.
I've read the story twice but have no idea what Tugendhat expects His Majesty's matelots actually to do and (to paraphrase Donald Trump) I don't think he does either.
This is an opposition slogan, not a government one. Did anyone notice the silence on this and all related subjects from the PM today?
There is no provision on the Type 45 destroyers for hanging people.
Big and Expensive would quote £1.6 billion to add it. It would end up costing 3.6 and not work.
Politics is a funny business. If the Tories had got in and pursued extreme fiscal prudence, Labour wouldn’t be complaining and Tories would be applauding.
Having rejected populism is Starmer carving out a new political credo, which perhaps we might call unpopulism?
That said his wiser political opponents would do well to shut up right now. There may seem to be a political opportunity, but it only seems that way.
On Starmer's speech, the risk I think is not so much the tax rises. No-one was honest about the inevitable tax rises before the election. Being honest about tax now when they weren't before isn't great, but Labour can probably ride that out. The risk IMO is that taxes rise AND no-one notices any improvement in the provision of public services.
So Starmer has cancelled the Helicopter contract for the Govt. This has all the hallmarks of Jim Hacker and "The Economy Drive".
The Media must be very watchful on Govt ministers in Helicopters even if loaned to them
That’s the sort of needless penny-pinching that ignores the value of time to the ministers.
Give it a few weeks and they’ll be taking off the seat covers from first class train carriages. Again.
IIRC part of the reason for helicopter usage was security. So when Starmer inevitably has to fly somewhere again he will look like a right tit when he tries to justify it.
It won't be difficult for him to look a right tit. He is a duplicitous shit and will be found out as is already starting to happen.
I had to laugh when he referred to honesty and integrity
I mean honesty and integrity from a man who is both a lawyer and a politician.
I've read the story twice but have no idea what Tugendhat expects His Majesty's matelots actually to do and (to paraphrase Donald Trump) I don't think he does either.
Pretending it's still the early 19thC is quite on brand with the current party, TBF.
Or ‘Tom Tugendhat wants to send his seamen all over the world if he becomes PM’
On Starmer's speech, the risk I think is not so much the tax rises. No-one was honest about the inevitable tax rises before the election. Being honest about tax now when they weren't before isn't great, but Labour can probably ride that out. The risk IMO is that taxes rise AND no-one notices any improvement in the provision of public services.
LOL on what basis will public services improve. It has the same management, with the same people doing the same things.
So Starmer has cancelled the Helicopter contract for the Govt. This has all the hallmarks of Jim Hacker and "The Economy Drive".
The Media must be very watchful on Govt ministers in Helicopters even if loaned to them
That’s the sort of needless penny-pinching that ignores the value of time to the ministers.
Give it a few weeks and they’ll be taking off the seat covers from first class train carriages. Again.
IIRC part of the reason for helicopter usage was security. So when Starmer inevitably has to fly somewhere again he will look like a right tit when he tries to justify it.
It won't be difficult for him to look a right tit. He is a duplicitous shit and will be found out as is already starting to happen.
I had to laugh when he referred to honesty and integrity
I mean honesty and integrity from a man who is both a lawyer and a politician.
QAnon conspiracy theorist/self-proclaimed "prophet" Johnny Enlow reports that Trump will soon receive the endorsement of "a major name star that has been assumed to be dead for a long time." https://x.com/RightWingWatch/status/1828151052761178373
Joe Biden?
Mike Pence...
Trump doesn't actually need any more celebrity endorsements - he's already got the so-called Big 3: Russell, Nigel and Andrew.
He has the Hulkster. That is the big one.
Arnie would really be the big one but I can't imagine that he would touch Trump with a barge-pole. More likely to endorse Kamala.
Update from yesterday. So I tweeted out a request for baptismal pools (aka full immersion fonts) installed in Church of England churches, and by the end of the day I had a list of 25+ modern ones (ie post war) - below. Only 2 are from me.
One was installed in a mining village near me in the 1990s. St Peter, Plymouth is an Anglo-Catholic shrine which did a huge building project in ~2007 in a deprived area about which a neighbouring Roma Catholic priest wrote a thesis. There's one near Tunbridge Wells installed in 1710 as a counter to local new (then) 'baptist' movements (it apparently has not been used very much - once on record!). And St Michael le Belfrey in York are installing one this year with an up-and-down hydraulic floor to guarantee accessibility for people who can't do steps as part of a major refurbishment project.
My photo quota today is the baptistry at SS Peter and Paul, Hucknall, Notts - a local one I did not know about. It very much of its time, but the joy of church architecture is that the history of the community can be read for decades or centuries.
List of some CofE places with baptistries. My 150-200 estimate may be low.
All Saints, Huthwaite, Notts All Saints, Wellington Christ Church Chineham, Basingstokee Christ Church, Bromley. Christ Church, Gypsy Hill, London Church of Christ the Cornerstone, Milton Keynes Church of the Resurrection, Grovehill, Hemel Hempstead Greyfriars, Reading Holy Trinity, Norwich Portsmouth Cathedral Salisbury Cathedral – I think SS Peter & Paul, Aston , Birmingham SS Peter and Paul, Hucknall , Notts St Andrew the Great, Cambridge St Andrew, Goldsworth Park, Woking St Andrew, Walthamstow St George, Britwell St John, Egham St Mary-at-Lambeth St Matthew, Wigmore St Matthias, Leeds St Michael-le-Belfrey, York St Nicholas, Nottingham, Notts St Paul, Margate St Peter, Plymouth St Thomas, Newcastle
So Starmer has cancelled the Helicopter contract for the Govt. This has all the hallmarks of Jim Hacker and "The Economy Drive".
The Media must be very watchful on Govt ministers in Helicopters even if loaned to them
That’s the sort of needless penny-pinching that ignores the value of time to the ministers.
Give it a few weeks and they’ll be taking off the seat covers from first class train carriages. Again.
IIRC part of the reason for helicopter usage was security. So when Starmer inevitably has to fly somewhere again he will look like a right tit when he tries to justify it.
It won't be difficult for him to look a right tit. He is a duplicitous shit and will be found out as is already starting to happen.
I had to laugh when he referred to honesty and integrity
I mean honesty and integrity from a man who is both a lawyer and a politician.
Reeve isn't stupid. The budget will surely have some tax grabs from the well off - pension tax relief on higher earners for example and goodies for everyone else - increase the basic tax threshold for example.
She should raise personal allowance marginally to ensure people on a basic state pension and a bit of interest from savings don't need to pay income tax. The increase in personal allowance should be restricted to pensioners and would part offset the removal of the winter fuel allowance.
I've advise anyone with a pension or an isa to put away everything they can into it during September and October, as soon as they can.
Don't think I've ever seen such crap advice in my life.
Basically it would be impossible for things to change this tax year so don't stress about it.
Any pension changes will occur from April 6th 2025 because anything else would be hell to organise. As anyone who understands pensions or tax will tell you..
Literally the only thing you can change mid-year is NI and VAT..
Whether or not the advice is crap or not, YMMV, I don't really think people should be doling out financial advice here as a general point. We all have different circumstances and are at a different point in our lives.
The advice Casino offered was the same advice my best mate had from his financial adviser. Which he duly did. But he is a partner in a law firm in London and is paid more in a month than I am in a year, and I am quite well remunerated.
I've read the story twice but have no idea what Tugendhat expects His Majesty's matelots actually to do and (to paraphrase Donald Trump) I don't think he does either.
Pretending it's still the early 19thC is quite on brand with the current party, TBF.
Or ‘Tom Tugendhat wants to send his seamen all over the world if he becomes PM’
There are plenty of facebook groups that already match willing donor and recipient.
Update from yesterday. So I tweeted out a request for baptismal pools (aka full immersion fonts) installed in Church of England churches, and by the end of the day I had a list of 25+ modern ones (ie post war) - below. Only 2 are from me.
One was installed in a mining village near me in the 1990s. St Peter, Plymouth is an Anglo-Catholic shrine which did a huge building project in ~2007 in a deprived area about which a neighbouring Roma Catholic priest wrote a thesis. There's one near Tunbridge Wells installed in 1710 as a counter to local new (then) 'baptist' movements (it apparently has not been used very much - once on record!). And St Michael le Belfrey in York are installing one this year with an up-and-down hydraulic floor to guarantee accessibility for people who can't do steps as part of a major refurbishment project.
My photo quota today is the baptistry at SS Peter and Paul, Hucknall, Notts - a local one I did not know about. It very much of its time, but the joy of church architecture is that the history of the community can be read for decades or centuries.
List of some CofE places with baptistries. My 150-200 estimate may be low.
All Saints, Huthwaite, Notts All Saints, Wellington Christ Church Chineham, Basingstokee Christ Church, Bromley. Christ Church, Gypsy Hill, London Church of Christ the Cornerstone, Milton Keynes Church of the Resurrection, Grovehill, Hemel Hempstead Greyfriars, Reading Holy Trinity, Norwich Portsmouth Cathedral Salisbury Cathedral – I think SS Peter & Paul, Aston , Birmingham SS Peter and Paul, Hucknall , Notts St Andrew the Great, Cambridge St Andrew, Goldsworth Park, Woking St Andrew, Walthamstow St George, Britwell St John, Egham St Mary-at-Lambeth St Matthew, Wigmore St Matthias, Leeds St Michael-le-Belfrey, York St Nicholas, Nottingham, Notts St Paul, Margate St Peter, Plymouth St Thomas, Newcastle
My grandson was baptised at the weekend. It was basically a copper bowl on a treetrunk.
St Peter, Plymouth is an Anglo-Catholic shrine which did a huge building project in ~2007 in a deprived area about which a neighbouring Roma Catholic priest wrote a thesis.
Lol. Typo - Roman Catholic priest, not Roma. And a couple of other typos I will gloss over.
Sir Drear claiming labour have done more in 7 weeks than the Tories in 7 years.
Totally untrue. Although the labour fanboys here will, of course, disagree.
They have spoke extensively of what they plan to do. That is fair enough. But they need to deliver it and that takes time. Judge in 12 months. That’s fair.
Taking the longer view, the combination of ISAs and these various savings tax allowances has had the effect of shifting almost all savings income for almost everyone out of any liability for tax. Another policy feature that has had the effect of favouring the older generation.
Why savings income should enjoy much greater exemption from tax (and of course never attracts NI) than earned or other forms of income isn’t clear?
Sir Drear claiming labour have done more in 7 weeks than the Tories in 7 years.
Totally untrue. Although the labour fanboys here will, of course, disagree.
They have spoke extensively of what they plan to do. That is fair enough. But they need to deliver it and that takes time. Judge in 12 months. That’s fair.
Which is roughly just before Liz Truss shat the bed.
*More to do with US interest rates but it is a good narrative for Starmer and Reeves.
Mostly the $ falling as the Fed has as good as guaranteed an interest rate fall incoming. £ now $1.32; good news for my travels, although still a rate way below pre-Brexit levels.
St Peter, Plymouth is an Anglo-Catholic shrine which did a huge building project in ~2007 in a deprived area about which a neighbouring Roma Catholic priest wrote a thesis.
Lol. Typo - Roman Catholic priest, not Roma. And a couple of other typos I will gloss over.
I also came across this wonderful little story - apparently the Baptistry at Aston Parish Church has a cover made of glass.
Update from yesterday. So I tweeted out a request for baptismal pools (aka full immersion fonts) installed in Church of England churches, and by the end of the day I had a list of 25+ modern ones (ie post war) - below. Only 2 are from me.
One was installed in a mining village near me in the 1990s. St Peter, Plymouth is an Anglo-Catholic shrine which did a huge building project in ~2007 in a deprived area about which a neighbouring Roma Catholic priest wrote a thesis. There's one near Tunbridge Wells installed in 1710 as a counter to local new (then) 'baptist' movements (it apparently has not been used very much - once on record!). And St Michael le Belfrey in York are installing one this year with an up-and-down hydraulic floor to guarantee accessibility for people who can't do steps as part of a major refurbishment project.
My photo quota today is the baptistry at SS Peter and Paul, Hucknall, Notts - a local one I did not know about. It very much of its time, but the joy of church architecture is that the history of the community can be read for decades or centuries.
List of some CofE places with baptistries. My 150-200 estimate may be low.
All Saints, Huthwaite, Notts All Saints, Wellington Christ Church Chineham, Basingstokee Christ Church, Bromley. Christ Church, Gypsy Hill, London Church of Christ the Cornerstone, Milton Keynes Church of the Resurrection, Grovehill, Hemel Hempstead Greyfriars, Reading Holy Trinity, Norwich Portsmouth Cathedral Salisbury Cathedral – I think SS Peter & Paul, Aston , Birmingham SS Peter and Paul, Hucknall , Notts St Andrew the Great, Cambridge St Andrew, Goldsworth Park, Woking St Andrew, Walthamstow St George, Britwell St John, Egham St Mary-at-Lambeth St Matthew, Wigmore St Matthias, Leeds St Michael-le-Belfrey, York St Nicholas, Nottingham, Notts St Paul, Margate St Peter, Plymouth St Thomas, Newcastle
My grandson was baptised at the weekend. It was basically a copper bowl on a treetrunk.
Thanks for the reply - it's all interesting. This could turn into a serious rabbit hole if I'm not careful.
The earliest one, which I had not considered, was that the Saxon crypt at St Wystan, Repton, could have started life as an 8th century baptistry.
Jack Elsom @JackElsom · 43m On the BBC World At One, Sarah Montague says when they asked Downing Street for a government minister to appear on today’s programme, they “put forward” Jonathan Ashworth, the ex-MP now heading the Labour Together think tank.
Taking the longer view, the combination of ISAs and these various savings tax allowances has had the effect of shifting almost all savings income for almost everyone out of any liability for tax. Another policy feature that has had the effect of favouring the older generation.
Why savings income should enjoy much greater exemption from tax (and of course never attracts NI) than earned or other forms of income isn’t clear?
Yes I am quite surprised at how many people don't know about that. On several occasions I have had to explain it to people who can't work out why their tax bill is less than they were expecting. The typical person it helps is pensioners on just a state pension but who have put by a nest egg in savings. It doesn't help earners on anything over a modest salary or pensioners taking anything over a modest pension in addition to their state pension so it would be rather mean if Reeves removed it.
The only disadvantage to it is most people don't know about it, but as it kicks in automatically that isn't an issue other than confusion over how much tax they are paying.
Taking the longer view, the combination of ISAs and these various savings tax allowances has had the effect of shifting almost all savings income for almost everyone out of any liability for tax. Another policy feature that has had the effect of favouring the older generation.
Why savings income should enjoy much greater exemption from tax (and of course never attracts NI) than earned or other forms of income isn’t clear?
Because we want to encourage saving.
I understand why we want to encourage saving up to say 500k per person to fund a reasonable retirement. Why do we want to encourage people to save £2m+ and forego the tax on that though?
Taking the longer view, the combination of ISAs and these various savings tax allowances has had the effect of shifting almost all savings income for almost everyone out of any liability for tax. Another policy feature that has had the effect of favouring the older generation.
Why savings income should enjoy much greater exemption from tax (and of course never attracts NI) than earned or other forms of income isn’t clear?
Because we want to encourage saving.
I understand why we want to encourage saving up to say 500k per person to fund a reasonable retirement. Why do we want to encourage people to save £2m+ and forego the tax on that though?
To get the equivalent of the state pension, which is fairly crap, takes £250k or so.
One thing that we really need to make clear, in public discourse, is the cost of our expectations. For example, the cost of 24/7 provision of one, minimum wage employee, is north of £130K a year.
Taking the longer view, the combination of ISAs and these various savings tax allowances has had the effect of shifting almost all savings income for almost everyone out of any liability for tax. Another policy feature that has had the effect of favouring the older generation.
Why savings income should enjoy much greater exemption from tax (and of course never attracts NI) than earned or other forms of income isn’t clear?
In the (not very) old days it was treated just the same for income tax, with income tax simply deducted at source at the basic rate. Of course in those days some people had to reclaim it as the SP was significantly below the threshold, and of course quite a few married women didn't have a full SP anyway because not enough NI. But overall the lack of special allowances and the deduction at source made life a lot simpler for most people. It was only when the Tories started pandering to their pensioner constituency that all the little allowances and fiddles came in, which favoured the latter.
On Starmer's speech, the risk I think is not so much the tax rises. No-one was honest about the inevitable tax rises before the election. Being honest about tax now when they weren't before isn't great, but Labour can probably ride that out. The risk IMO is that taxes rise AND no-one notices any improvement in the provision of public services.
LOL on what basis will public services improve. It has the same management, with the same people doing the same things.
"change" my arse.
As long as they put in a modicum of effort I would say it's almost impossible for the Starmer government to be worse than the other lot. In truth they haven't been so far. The risk in my view is they aren't perceived to be enough better to get credit forb improving things, possibly because they aren't enough better. And so the party with more appealing rhetoric wins the gig, which is unlikely to be Starmer
Taking the longer view, the combination of ISAs and these various savings tax allowances has had the effect of shifting almost all savings income for almost everyone out of any liability for tax. Another policy feature that has had the effect of favouring the older generation.
Why savings income should enjoy much greater exemption from tax (and of course never attracts NI) than earned or other forms of income isn’t clear?
Because we want to encourage saving.
I understand why we want to encourage saving up to say 500k per person to fund a reasonable retirement. Why do we want to encourage people to save £2m+ and forego the tax on that though?
Jeremy Hunt did try to do something about this but it upset the Consultants and other Public Sector workers in well paid jobs. So he folded.
Rachel Reeves initially spoke about an exemption for the Public Sector but this is neither fair nor easy to implement.
Maybe they will limit the amount you can put in a pension from £60K to a smaller amount ?
Taking the longer view, the combination of ISAs and these various savings tax allowances has had the effect of shifting almost all savings income for almost everyone out of any liability for tax. Another policy feature that has had the effect of favouring the older generation.
Why savings income should enjoy much greater exemption from tax (and of course never attracts NI) than earned or other forms of income isn’t clear?
Because we want to encourage saving.
I understand why we want to encourage saving up to say 500k per person to fund a reasonable retirement. Why do we want to encourage people to save £2m+ and forego the tax on that though?
To get the equivalent of the state pension, which is fairly crap, takes £250k or so.
One thing that we really need to make clear, in public discourse, is the cost of our expectations. For example, the cost of 24/7 provision of one, minimum wage employee, is north of £130K a year.
Yes so 500k plus state pension would be about 30k per year. With some added tax flexibility from ISAs and savings rates broadly equivalent to average UK earnings. I don't see why we should forego tax for those who want and can afford to build up savings beyond that.
Increase CGT rates (don't think there is any margin in the threshold which is too low anyway (sucks in not worth bothering about stuff currently)). IHT I can't see changing. For some odd reason people feel strongly about the IHT threshold and the rate is high anyway. Although people do think this is an area for increases, but I struggle to see how. Remove the last NI reductions the Tories introduced. Restrict pension payment tax relief to a pension fund to the 20% band for both DC and DB pensions. Starting point of 45% band of income tax reduced to £100,000 or introduce a 50% band at £150,000. Start the loss of PA at say £75,000 (but if you do, make it slower than currently, which is too much of a change, say a £1 for every £5 earned instead of £1 for every £2 earned as it currently is. This still creates steps in the tax graph, but it is not as brutal as before)
I have not the foggiest what that lot adds up to, but it must be a lot and nobody would do all of it.
On Starmer's speech, the risk I think is not so much the tax rises. No-one was honest about the inevitable tax rises before the election. Being honest about tax now when they weren't before isn't great, but Labour can probably ride that out. The risk IMO is that taxes rise AND no-one notices any improvement in the provision of public services.
LOL on what basis will public services improve. It has the same management, with the same people doing the same things.
"change" my arse.
As long as they put in a modicum of effort I would say it's almost impossible for the Starmer government to be worse than the other lot. In truth they haven't been so far. The risk in my view is they aren't perceived to be enough better to get credit forb improving things, possibly because they aren't enough better. And so the party with more appealing rhetoric wins the gig, which is unlikely to be Starmer
Yes I am quite surprised at how many people don't know about that. On several occasions I have had to explain it to people who can't work out why their tax bill is less than they were expecting. The typical person it helps is pensioners on just a state pension but who have put by a nest egg in savings. It doesn't help earners on anything over a modest salary or pensioners taking anything over a modest pension in addition to their state pension so it would be rather mean if Reeves removed it.
The only disadvantage to it is most people don't know about it, but as it kicks in automatically that isn't an issue other than confusion over how much tax they are paying.
Yes I am quite surprised at how many people don't know about that. On several occasions I have had to explain it to people who can't work out why their tax bill is less than they were expecting. The typical person it helps is pensioners on just a state pension but who have put by a nest egg in savings. It doesn't help earners on anything over a modest salary or pensioners taking anything over a modest pension in addition to their state pension so it would be rather mean if Reeves removed it.
The only disadvantage to it is most people don't know about it, but as it kicks in automatically that isn't an issue other than confusion over how much tax they are paying.
Does the same apply to dividend income ?
No. £500 tax free dividend allowance but not related to income.
It looks like Mike Nesbitt may be elected unopposed as head of the UUP. Nesbitt was found to have broken COVID-19 lockdown in 2020 when he went to visit a woman who was not his wife for a liaison.
If Nesbitt can come back from that, maybe Boris can get over Partygate?
Yes I am quite surprised at how many people don't know about that. On several occasions I have had to explain it to people who can't work out why their tax bill is less than they were expecting. The typical person it helps is pensioners on just a state pension but who have put by a nest egg in savings. It doesn't help earners on anything over a modest salary or pensioners taking anything over a modest pension in addition to their state pension so it would be rather mean if Reeves removed it.
The only disadvantage to it is most people don't know about it, but as it kicks in automatically that isn't an issue other than confusion over how much tax they are paying.
Does the same apply to dividend income ?
No.
But there is (a) a (now fairly small, £500) dividend allowance and (b) the rate of tax on dividends above that is much lower than income tax. Only 8.75% if a basic rate taxpayer.
Sir Drear claiming labour have done more in 7 weeks than the Tories in 7 years.
Totally untrue. Although the labour fanboys here will, of course, disagree.
They have spoke extensively of what they plan to do. That is fair enough. But they need to deliver it and that takes time. Judge in 12 months. That’s fair.
Yes I am quite surprised at how many people don't know about that. On several occasions I have had to explain it to people who can't work out why their tax bill is less than they were expecting. The typical person it helps is pensioners on just a state pension but who have put by a nest egg in savings. It doesn't help earners on anything over a modest salary or pensioners taking anything over a modest pension in addition to their state pension so it would be rather mean if Reeves removed it.
The only disadvantage to it is most people don't know about it, but as it kicks in automatically that isn't an issue other than confusion over how much tax they are paying.
Does the same apply to dividend income ?
No. £500 tax free dividend allowance but not related to income.
Not the allowance, sure, but the excess is taxed acc to income:
Working out tax on dividends
How much tax you pay on dividends above the dividend allowance depends on your Income Tax band. Tax band Tax rate on dividends over the allowance Basic rate 8.75% Higher rate 33.75% Additional rate 39.35%
It looks like Mike Nesbitt may be elected unopposed as head of the UUP. Nesbitt was found to have broken COVID-19 lockdown in 2020 when he went to visit a woman who was not his wife for a liaison.
If Nesbitt can come back from that, maybe Boris can get over Partygate?
Nah, Nesbitt didn’t introduce the lockdown laws that Boris Johnson did, that’s what did for Boris Johnson, the hypocrisy.
It looks like Mike Nesbitt may be elected unopposed as head of the UUP. Nesbitt was found to have broken COVID-19 lockdown in 2020 when he went to visit a woman who was not his wife for a liaison.
If Nesbitt can come back from that, maybe Boris can get over Partygate?
Nah, Nesbitt didn’t introduce the lockdown laws that Boris Johnson did, that’s what did for Boris Johnson, the hypocrisy.
Hang on, they were devolved weren't they? Seriously.
Yes I am quite surprised at how many people don't know about that. On several occasions I have had to explain it to people who can't work out why their tax bill is less than they were expecting. The typical person it helps is pensioners on just a state pension but who have put by a nest egg in savings. It doesn't help earners on anything over a modest salary or pensioners taking anything over a modest pension in addition to their state pension so it would be rather mean if Reeves removed it.
The only disadvantage to it is most people don't know about it, but as it kicks in automatically that isn't an issue other than confusion over how much tax they are paying.
Does the same apply to dividend income ?
Personal Savings Allowance and a Starting Rate of zero for first 5K seems an odd mixture policy-wise. Why are their two different schemes? Maybe I am missing something?
On topic: Why would Labour members vote to strip themselves of having a say in who becomes the leader of their party? 🤷♂️
They would still have a vote on the party leader in Opposition, just leave it to MPs to select the PM in government.
Labour members have of course never elected a party leader and PM when the party is in government anyway, unlike the Tories in 2019 when their members elected Boris as PM and in 2022 when they elected Truss PM
It looks like Mike Nesbitt may be elected unopposed as head of the UUP. Nesbitt was found to have broken COVID-19 lockdown in 2020 when he went to visit a woman who was not his wife for a liaison.
If Nesbitt can come back from that, maybe Boris can get over Partygate?
Nah, Nesbitt didn’t introduce the lockdown laws that Boris Johnson did, that’s what did for Boris Johnson, the hypocrisy.
Hang on, they were devolved weren't they? Seriously.
I meant Nesbitt wasn’t in power in NI, so he didn’t break the lockdown rules he had introduced.
Update from yesterday. So I tweeted out a request for baptismal pools (aka full immersion fonts) installed in Church of England churches, and by the end of the day I had a list of 25+ modern ones (ie post war) - below. Only 2 are from me.
One was installed in a mining village near me in the 1990s. St Peter, Plymouth is an Anglo-Catholic shrine which did a huge building project in ~2007 in a deprived area about which a neighbouring Roma Catholic priest wrote a thesis. There's one near Tunbridge Wells installed in 1710 as a counter to local new (then) 'baptist' movements (it apparently has not been used very much - once on record!). And St Michael le Belfrey in York are installing one this year with an up-and-down hydraulic floor to guarantee accessibility for people who can't do steps as part of a major refurbishment project.
My photo quota today is the baptistry at SS Peter and Paul, Hucknall, Notts - a local one I did not know about. It very much of its time, but the joy of church architecture is that the history of the community can be read for decades or centuries.
List of some CofE places with baptistries. My 150-200 estimate may be low.
All Saints, Huthwaite, Notts All Saints, Wellington Christ Church Chineham, Basingstokee Christ Church, Bromley. Christ Church, Gypsy Hill, London Church of Christ the Cornerstone, Milton Keynes Church of the Resurrection, Grovehill, Hemel Hempstead Greyfriars, Reading Holy Trinity, Norwich Portsmouth Cathedral Salisbury Cathedral – I think SS Peter & Paul, Aston , Birmingham SS Peter and Paul, Hucknall , Notts St Andrew the Great, Cambridge St Andrew, Goldsworth Park, Woking St Andrew, Walthamstow St George, Britwell St John, Egham St Mary-at-Lambeth St Matthew, Wigmore St Matthias, Leeds St Michael-le-Belfrey, York St Nicholas, Nottingham, Notts St Paul, Margate St Peter, Plymouth St Thomas, Newcastle
My grandson was baptised at the weekend. It was basically a copper bowl on a treetrunk.
Sir Drear claiming labour have done more in 7 weeks than the Tories in 7 years.
Totally untrue. Although the labour fanboys here will, of course, disagree.
They have spoke extensively of what they plan to do. That is fair enough. But they need to deliver it and that takes time. Judge in 12 months. That’s fair.
Are there any Labour fanbois on here? I hope you don't include me. I've already stated the Winter Fuel rollback is an error.
Starmer definitely has an absence of strong fans but plenty who think he has done enough to deserve a fair crack even if we don't agree with him in lots of areas. I suspect he will be quite content with that.
Yes I am quite surprised at how many people don't know about that. On several occasions I have had to explain it to people who can't work out why their tax bill is less than they were expecting. The typical person it helps is pensioners on just a state pension but who have put by a nest egg in savings. It doesn't help earners on anything over a modest salary or pensioners taking anything over a modest pension in addition to their state pension so it would be rather mean if Reeves removed it.
The only disadvantage to it is most people don't know about it, but as it kicks in automatically that isn't an issue other than confusion over how much tax they are paying.
Does the same apply to dividend income ?
Personal Savings Allowance and a Starting Rate of zero for first 5K seems an odd mixture policy-wise. Why are their two different schemes? Maybe I am missing something?
Pandering to people who had savings income rather than salaries. Who are a certain age and vote a certain way. Is the only explanation I can think of.
Yes I am quite surprised at how many people don't know about that. On several occasions I have had to explain it to people who can't work out why their tax bill is less than they were expecting. The typical person it helps is pensioners on just a state pension but who have put by a nest egg in savings. It doesn't help earners on anything over a modest salary or pensioners taking anything over a modest pension in addition to their state pension so it would be rather mean if Reeves removed it.
The only disadvantage to it is most people don't know about it, but as it kicks in automatically that isn't an issue other than confusion over how much tax they are paying.
Does the same apply to dividend income ?
Personal Savings Allowance and a Starting Rate of zero for first 5K seems an odd mixture policy-wise. Why are their two different schemes? Maybe I am missing something?
Pandering to people who had savings income rather than salaries. Who are a certain age and vote a certain way. Is the only explanation I can think of.
The other one was savings rates were extremely low (sub 1%??) when it was introduced so didn't cost much and reduced admin. But yes, client vote.
It looks like Mike Nesbitt may be elected unopposed as head of the UUP. Nesbitt was found to have broken COVID-19 lockdown in 2020 when he went to visit a woman who was not his wife for a liaison.
If Nesbitt can come back from that, maybe Boris can get over Partygate?
Nah, Nesbitt didn’t introduce the lockdown laws that Boris Johnson did, that’s what did for Boris Johnson, the hypocrisy.
Hang on, they were devolved weren't they? Seriously.
I meant Nesbitt wasn’t in power in NI, so he didn’t break the lockdown rules he had introduced.
Yes I am quite surprised at how many people don't know about that. On several occasions I have had to explain it to people who can't work out why their tax bill is less than they were expecting. The typical person it helps is pensioners on just a state pension but who have put by a nest egg in savings. It doesn't help earners on anything over a modest salary or pensioners taking anything over a modest pension in addition to their state pension so it would be rather mean if Reeves removed it.
The only disadvantage to it is most people don't know about it, but as it kicks in automatically that isn't an issue other than confusion over how much tax they are paying.
Does the same apply to dividend income ?
Personal Savings Allowance and a Starting Rate of zero for first 5K seems an odd mixture policy-wise. Why are their two different schemes? Maybe I am missing something?
Pandering to people who had savings income rather than salaries. Who are a certain age and vote a certain way. Is the only explanation I can think of.
The other one was savings rates were extremely low (sub 1%??) when it was introduced so didn't cost much and reduced admin. But yes, client vote.
Indeed - the increase in savings rates has done as much as than anything to bring many pensioners within tax for the first time.
On working conditions for men and women: Years ago, I read about a problem a chip maker (Intel?) had. Their technicians were mostly women and the facility used "clean rooms", which meant hair nets, no make up, and so forth.
They were paid well and mostly liked their work, but after a bit they came to management with a request: They wanted a separate cafeteria.
Why? Because they didn't want to compete with the women working in offices, who could dress up, wear make up, and so forth.
It looks like Mike Nesbitt may be elected unopposed as head of the UUP. Nesbitt was found to have broken COVID-19 lockdown in 2020 when he went to visit a woman who was not his wife for a liaison.
If Nesbitt can come back from that, maybe Boris can get over Partygate?
Nah, Nesbitt didn’t introduce the lockdown laws that Boris Johnson did, that’s what did for Boris Johnson, the hypocrisy.
Hang on, they were devolved weren't they? Seriously.
I meant Nesbitt wasn’t in power in NI, so he didn’t break the lockdown rules he had introduced.
The UUP was in the grand coalition at Stormont at the time and had the Health portfolio, although Nesbitt was just a backbencher at the time. He resigned from his role as a deputy chair of a committee.
He was made Health Minister 4 years later, and one UUP councillor quit the party in response.
I don’t really see why the Personal Savings Allowance shouldn’t go completely at this point. In an environment of low rates it was perhaps a slight nudge towards saving, but with the other incentives in the system now I don’t think it should be included.
I’d be in favour of retaining the ISA system but removing the PSA. If Reeves wants to nudge the ISA allowance a few k downwards I don’t see tremendous harm in that, but I’d caution against anything more drastic.
I don’t really see why the Personal Savings Allowance shouldn’t go completely at this point. In an environment of low rates it was perhaps a slight nudge towards saving, but with the other incentives in the system now I don’t think it should be included.
I’d be in favour of retaining the ISA system but removing the PSA. If Reeves wants to nudge the ISA allowance a few k downwards I don’t see tremendous harm in that, but I’d caution against anything more drastic.
Make still more sense to do that and make the banks pay basic rate tax on non-ISA interest at source, to take the opportunity of simplification.
Taking the longer view, the combination of ISAs and these various savings tax allowances has had the effect of shifting almost all savings income for almost everyone out of any liability for tax. Another policy feature that has had the effect of favouring the older generation.
Why savings income should enjoy much greater exemption from tax (and of course never attracts NI) than earned or other forms of income isn’t clear?
Because we want to encourage saving.
I understand why we want to encourage saving up to say 500k per person to fund a reasonable retirement. Why do we want to encourage people to save £2m+ and forego the tax on that though?
Jeremy Hunt did try to do something about this but it upset the Consultants and other Public Sector workers in well paid jobs. So he folded.
Rachel Reeves initially spoke about an exemption for the Public Sector but this is neither fair nor easy to implement.
Maybe they will limit the amount you can put in a pension from £60K to a smaller amount ?
How difficult is it to do anything seriously about pensions, when everyone involved in policymaking has one of the best pensions available anywhere in the country, as an MP or senior CS?
Yes I am quite surprised at how many people don't know about that. On several occasions I have had to explain it to people who can't work out why their tax bill is less than they were expecting. The typical person it helps is pensioners on just a state pension but who have put by a nest egg in savings. It doesn't help earners on anything over a modest salary or pensioners taking anything over a modest pension in addition to their state pension so it would be rather mean if Reeves removed it.
The only disadvantage to it is most people don't know about it, but as it kicks in automatically that isn't an issue other than confusion over how much tax they are paying.
Does the same apply to dividend income ?
Personal Savings Allowance and a Starting Rate of zero for first 5K seems an odd mixture policy-wise. Why are their two different schemes? Maybe I am missing something?
Pandering to people who had savings income rather than salaries. Who are a certain age and vote a certain way. Is the only explanation I can think of.
The other one was savings rates were extremely low (sub 1%??) when it was introduced so didn't cost much and reduced admin. But yes, client vote.
I disagree with you both that it is a bribe for the simple reason that the vast majority of people don't know it exists so it is a crap bribe. I would be surprised if 1 in a 100 people have heard of it, because it impacts so few people and happens automatically.
I just think it is a very sensible idea. The £1000 for basic rate payers and £500 for higher rate payers is an admin allowance to keep small amounts out of the tax system whereas the £5000 (which reduces to nothing as your earned income increases) is a useful benefit for poor pensioners who have put a nest egg by.
FYI the recent decrease in some of these allowances I think were a mistake. The reduction of the dividend allowance to £500 and the CGT to £3000 I think was wrong because it brings into play some petty stuff with huge admin attached. if the Govt wanted to bring in more revenue it could have kept the old thresholds for qualifying, but if you did qualify start the tax calculation at a lower threshold figure. So only a very small loss of revenue without bringing in petty dividends or gains.
So is the big takeaway from Starmer's speech that, having given pay rises to the public sector, they are probably going to skim that salary increase away increasing income tax and removing pension tax relief for higher earners? And maybe make NI payable on pension income?
Very weird tax given he said no increases in income tax, VAT or national insurance. And yes it has been very obvious all year pension tax relief will be in some way less generous, will have to wait for budget for details.
Ah OK I didn't hear the speech, I guess I should have researched before I posted 😁
Taking the longer view, the combination of ISAs and these various savings tax allowances has had the effect of shifting almost all savings income for almost everyone out of any liability for tax. Another policy feature that has had the effect of favouring the older generation.
Why savings income should enjoy much greater exemption from tax (and of course never attracts NI) than earned or other forms of income isn’t clear?
Because we want to encourage saving.
Yes, the ISA allowance of £20k looks targeted at middle-aged people who have now paid off the mortgage that previously cost £20k, and HMG wants them to save rather than blow it on a new Audi or skiing in the Bahamas and claim benefits when retired.
That's simple though. Some of the other tax allowances look calculated to keep accountants in gainful employment. If ordinary punters are maximising their uptake, it is probably by chance.
Not that I can see this swaying significant numbers of people.
From Bernie Sanders to Trump in two short steps. That makes perfect sense, err...
We had a poster on here who went from supporting Corbyn to supporting Johnson.
Johnson has had an unfortunate bad press here today. For one, surely Johnson, unlike Trump is not compromised by Russia.
I am sure under the circumstances none of us would have had the faintest idea that attending lavish parties hosted by KGB officers where quite possibly copious amounts of alcohol, banned narcotics and an abundance of Italian and Eastern European call girls on offer was anything other than appropriate for a senior elected Government Official to if they so desired enjoy without armed security service chaperones present.
What's the average tenure of a prime minister since Cameron left office?
Cameron left office on 13 July 2016. Sunak left office on July 5 2024
Thats 2914 days. Four PMs in that period (May, Boris, Truss, Sunak). So that's about 728 days each on average, but Truss obviously skews it. Leaving her out, it's about a thousand days each
Taking the longer view, the combination of ISAs and these various savings tax allowances has had the effect of shifting almost all savings income for almost everyone out of any liability for tax. Another policy feature that has had the effect of favouring the older generation.
Why savings income should enjoy much greater exemption from tax (and of course never attracts NI) than earned or other forms of income isn’t clear?
I think the logic is to encourage people to save and have a nest egg for the future. Which is certainly not a bad idea - people with modest savings are much more likely to tide over the modest storms of life without government intervention. See also why we made pension contributions tax deductible in the first place.
How much this actually has resulted in more people being savers vs being a way for the moderately well off to pay less tax is arguable, but the general idea is certainly a sound one.
Taking the longer view, the combination of ISAs and these various savings tax allowances has had the effect of shifting almost all savings income for almost everyone out of any liability for tax. Another policy feature that has had the effect of favouring the older generation.
Why savings income should enjoy much greater exemption from tax (and of course never attracts NI) than earned or other forms of income isn’t clear?
Because we want to encourage saving.
Yes, the ISA allowance of £20k looks targeted at middle-aged people who have now paid off the mortgage that previously cost £20k, and HMG wants them to save rather than blow it on a new Audi or skiing in the Bahamas and claim benefits when retired.
That's simple though. Some of the other tax allowances look calculated to keep accountants in gainful employment. If ordinary punters are maximising their uptake, it is probably by chance.
Yes I am quite surprised at how many people don't know about that. On several occasions I have had to explain it to people who can't work out why their tax bill is less than they were expecting. The typical person it helps is pensioners on just a state pension but who have put by a nest egg in savings. It doesn't help earners on anything over a modest salary or pensioners taking anything over a modest pension in addition to their state pension so it would be rather mean if Reeves removed it.
The only disadvantage to it is most people don't know about it, but as it kicks in automatically that isn't an issue other than confusion over how much tax they are paying.
Does the same apply to dividend income ?
Personal Savings Allowance and a Starting Rate of zero for first 5K seems an odd mixture policy-wise. Why are their two different schemes? Maybe I am missing something?
All basic rate payers get the PSA, low income earners get the extra £5k. There are a small number of people who benefit from the starter rate for savings and by definition they are not on big incomes. Difficult to get rid of it in one go. I'd get rid of the PSA and reduce the SRFS to £3k.
Taking the longer view, the combination of ISAs and these various savings tax allowances has had the effect of shifting almost all savings income for almost everyone out of any liability for tax. Another policy feature that has had the effect of favouring the older generation.
Why savings income should enjoy much greater exemption from tax (and of course never attracts NI) than earned or other forms of income isn’t clear?
Because we want to encourage saving.
I understand why we want to encourage saving up to say 500k per person to fund a reasonable retirement. Why do we want to encourage people to save £2m+ and forego the tax on that though?
Jeremy Hunt did try to do something about this but it upset the Consultants and other Public Sector workers in well paid jobs. So he folded.
Rachel Reeves initially spoke about an exemption for the Public Sector but this is neither fair nor easy to implement.
Maybe they will limit the amount you can put in a pension from £60K to a smaller amount ?
How difficult is it to do anything seriously about pensions, when everyone involved in policymaking has one of the best pensions available anywhere in the country, as an MP or senior CS?
Yup and they come up with Nest for the proles. Better than nothing but large up front charge.
I've read the story twice but have no idea what Tugendhat expects His Majesty's matelots actually to do and (to paraphrase Donald Trump) I don't think he does either.
Pretending it's still the early 19thC is quite on brand with the current party, TBF.
Or ‘Tom Tugendhat wants to send his seamen all over the world if he becomes PM’
What's the average tenure of a prime minister since Cameron left office?
May - 3 years 11 days Johnson - 3 years 44 days (includes leap year) Truss - 49 days Sunak - 1 year 254 days (includes leap year) Starmer - 53 days not out
So, calculated on a cricketing basis, the current average is 742 days, or 2 non-leap years and 12 days.
Just under two years without Starmer's contribution.
From Thatcher's election in 1979 Britain had three Prime Ministers in 28 years. Even with Cameron's six year stint, the following 17 years have seen seven Prime Ministers.
It's a symptom of malaise.
Ideally Starmer will be a stunning success and a grateful nation will give him a decade in the top job. But I'm not seeing it at the moment.
Yes I am quite surprised at how many people don't know about that. On several occasions I have had to explain it to people who can't work out why their tax bill is less than they were expecting. The typical person it helps is pensioners on just a state pension but who have put by a nest egg in savings. It doesn't help earners on anything over a modest salary or pensioners taking anything over a modest pension in addition to their state pension so it would be rather mean if Reeves removed it.
The only disadvantage to it is most people don't know about it, but as it kicks in automatically that isn't an issue other than confusion over how much tax they are paying.
Does the same apply to dividend income ?
Personal Savings Allowance and a Starting Rate of zero for first 5K seems an odd mixture policy-wise. Why are their two different schemes? Maybe I am missing something?
Pandering to people who had savings income rather than salaries. Who are a certain age and vote a certain way. Is the only explanation I can think of.
The other one was savings rates were extremely low (sub 1%??) when it was introduced so didn't cost much and reduced admin. But yes, client vote.
I disagree with you both that it is a bribe for the simple reason that the vast majority of people don't know it exists so it is a crap bribe. I would be surprised if 1 in a 100 people have heard of it, because it impacts so few people and happens automatically.
I just think it is a very sensible idea. The £1000 for basic rate payers and £500 for higher rate payers is an admin allowance to keep small amounts out of the tax system whereas the £5000 (which reduces to nothing as your earned income increases) is a useful benefit for poor pensioners who have put a nest egg by.
FYI the recent decrease in some of these allowances I think were a mistake. The reduction of the dividend allowance to £500 and the CGT to £3000 I think was wrong because it brings into play some petty stuff with huge admin attached. if the Govt wanted to bring in more revenue it could have kept the old thresholds for qualifying, but if you did qualify start the tax calculation at a lower threshold figure. So only a very small loss of revenue without bringing in petty dividends or gains.
I shouldn't say this but I wonder sometimes how many people actually pay tax on their dividend income. They used to be paid net, no?
Yes I am quite surprised at how many people don't know about that. On several occasions I have had to explain it to people who can't work out why their tax bill is less than they were expecting. The typical person it helps is pensioners on just a state pension but who have put by a nest egg in savings. It doesn't help earners on anything over a modest salary or pensioners taking anything over a modest pension in addition to their state pension so it would be rather mean if Reeves removed it.
The only disadvantage to it is most people don't know about it, but as it kicks in automatically that isn't an issue other than confusion over how much tax they are paying.
Does the same apply to dividend income ?
Personal Savings Allowance and a Starting Rate of zero for first 5K seems an odd mixture policy-wise. Why are their two different schemes? Maybe I am missing something?
Pandering to people who had savings income rather than salaries. Who are a certain age and vote a certain way. Is the only explanation I can think of.
The other one was savings rates were extremely low (sub 1%??) when it was introduced so didn't cost much and reduced admin. But yes, client vote.
I disagree with you both that it is a bribe for the simple reason that the vast majority of people don't know it exists so it is a crap bribe. I would be surprised if 1 in a 100 people have heard of it, because it impacts so few people and happens automatically.
I just think it is a very sensible idea. The £1000 for basic rate payers and £500 for higher rate payers is an admin allowance to keep small amounts out of the tax system whereas the £5000 (which reduces to nothing as your earned income increases) is a useful benefit for poor pensioners who have put a nest egg by.
FYI the recent decrease in some of these allowances I think were a mistake. The reduction of the dividend allowance to £500 and the CGT to £3000 I think was wrong because it brings into play some petty stuff with huge admin attached. if the Govt wanted to bring in more revenue it could have kept the old thresholds for qualifying, but if you did qualify start the tax calculation at a lower threshold figure. So only a very small loss of revenue without bringing in petty dividends or gains.
I shouldn't say this but I wonder sometimes how many people actually pay tax on their dividend income. They used to be paid net, no?
AIUI it's notified to HMRC by the payer. So it's risky not to declare it ...
Increase CGT rates (don't think there is any margin in the threshold which is too low anyway (sucks in not worth bothering about stuff currently)). IHT I can't see changing. For some odd reason people feel strongly about the IHT threshold and the rate is high anyway. Although people do think this is an area for increases, but I struggle to see how. Remove the last NI reductions the Tories introduced. Restrict pension payment tax relief to a pension fund to the 20% band for both DC and DB pensions. Starting point of 45% band of income tax reduced to £100,000 or introduce a 50% band at £150,000. Start the loss of PA at say £75,000 (but if you do, make it slower than currently, which is too much of a change, say a £1 for every £5 earned instead of £1 for every £2 earned as it currently is. This still creates steps in the tax graph, but it is not as brutal as before)
I have not the foggiest what that lot adds up to, but it must be a lot and nobody would do all of it.
PS And as a give away increase the PA.
On CGT/IHT I would definitely expect to see them get rid of rebasing for CGT purposes on death. I also think they will squeeze business property relief, e.g. bringing AIM shares back into tax, or even abolish it.
If they equalise CGT rates with income tax rates, they will have to do something about indexation for inflation because the unfairness of not doing so is then too obvious. But indexation is extra admin. So maybe they will just push the CGT rates up a bit and do nothing about indexation ?
Increase CGT rates (don't think there is any margin in the threshold which is too low anyway (sucks in not worth bothering about stuff currently)). IHT I can't see changing. For some odd reason people feel strongly about the IHT threshold and the rate is high anyway. Although people do think this is an area for increases, but I struggle to see how. Remove the last NI reductions the Tories introduced. Restrict pension payment tax relief to a pension fund to the 20% band for both DC and DB pensions. Starting point of 45% band of income tax reduced to £100,000 or introduce a 50% band at £150,000. Start the loss of PA at say £75,000 (but if you do, make it slower than currently, which is too much of a change, say a £1 for every £5 earned instead of £1 for every £2 earned as it currently is. This still creates steps in the tax graph, but it is not as brutal as before)
I have not the foggiest what that lot adds up to, but it must be a lot and nobody would do all of it.
PS And as a give away increase the PA.
On CGT/IHT I would definitely expect to see them get rid of rebasing for CGT purposes on death. I also think they will squeeze business property relief, e.g. bringing AIM shares back into tax, or even abolish it.
If they equalise CGT rates with income tax rates, they will have to do something about indexation for inflation because the unfairness of not doing so is then too obvious. But indexation is extra admin. So maybe they will just push the CGT rates up a bit and do nothing about indexation ?
It's also pretty nailed on that they will worsen the tax treatment of funds left in DC pensions on death: tax pre-75 deaths same as post-75, possibly also bring into IHT (though that's tricky as the interaction of IHT and pension trusts is about the most conceptually difficult area of law I've ever dealt with )
I don’t really see why the Personal Savings Allowance shouldn’t go completely at this point. In an environment of low rates it was perhaps a slight nudge towards saving, but with the other incentives in the system now I don’t think it should be included.
I’d be in favour of retaining the ISA system but removing the PSA. If Reeves wants to nudge the ISA allowance a few k downwards I don’t see tremendous harm in that, but I’d caution against anything more drastic.
Make still more sense to do that and make the banks pay basic rate tax on non-ISA interest at source, to take the opportunity of simplification.
The system works reasonably well now with the banks informing HMRC after the tax year finishes.
Increase CGT rates (don't think there is any margin in the threshold which is too low anyway (sucks in not worth bothering about stuff currently)). IHT I can't see changing. For some odd reason people feel strongly about the IHT threshold and the rate is high anyway. Although people do think this is an area for increases, but I struggle to see how. Remove the last NI reductions the Tories introduced. Restrict pension payment tax relief to a pension fund to the 20% band for both DC and DB pensions. Starting point of 45% band of income tax reduced to £100,000 or introduce a 50% band at £150,000. Start the loss of PA at say £75,000 (but if you do, make it slower than currently, which is too much of a change, say a £1 for every £5 earned instead of £1 for every £2 earned as it currently is. This still creates steps in the tax graph, but it is not as brutal as before)
I have not the foggiest what that lot adds up to, but it must be a lot and nobody would do all of it.
PS And as a give away increase the PA.
On CGT/IHT I would definitely expect to see them get rid of rebasing for CGT purposes on death. I also think they will squeeze business property relief, e.g. bringing AIM shares back into tax, or even abolish it.
If they equalise CGT rates with income tax rates, they will have to do something about indexation for inflation because the unfairness of not doing so is then too obvious. But indexation is extra admin. So maybe they will just push the CGT rates up a bit and do nothing about indexation ?
Abolishing rebasing on death would require full CGT on the individual transfer, no? Which raises issues because the original cost may be lost in the sands of time, so it's not possible for the executor or the beneficiary to work out the actual capital gain. Though I suppose it's the fault of the testator for not keeping records ... at least if it is all lumped into a single total for IHT that is avoided.
Comments
On the latter my guess is Oasis.
Note this is separate from the £1,000 Personal Savings Allowance.
The £5,000 amount slides down if other income is above the PA.
PA is £12,570. So if pension is £13,570, then Starting rate for Savings (ie 0%) applies to £4,000 of savings interest.
If pension is precisely £12,570, then you can earn £6,000 of savings interest tax free (ie £5,000 + £1,000) - ie total income £18,570, tax bill £nil.
I bet 90% of people (even on here) haven't the faintest idea about this.
Maybe Reeves might abolish it?
https://www.gov.uk/apply-tax-free-interest-on-savings
Basically it would be impossible for things to change this tax year so don't stress about it.
Any pension changes will occur from April 6th 2025 because anything else would be hell to organise. As anyone who understands pensions or tax will tell you..
Literally the only thing you can change mid-year is NI and VAT..
I think you may mean something around "how long will blaming the Tories be effective" in protecting Mr Starmer's Government.
I think it depends on the question - for prisons there are multiple issues and the Conservatives made multiple promises on multiple occasions to build X prisons, and afaik did not keep any of them.
Given that prisons take up to 10 years to develop, that should be that long for those (it may not be), but eg for Court backlogs which have ballooned over 3-4 years they will not get so much patience as they should be able to have something of an impact much more quickly.
Perhaps it is also about if the Cons can make any narratives stick. That requires credibility. "Starmer letting prisoners out early" will not wash when the Tories let out 10,000 early last year. All that would be is a further proof that this current generation of senior conservatives are a collection putrid, stupid, self-serving hypocrites.
Is it perhaps "how long will it take for the shine to come off Labour" vs "how quickly can the Tories recover some measure of credibility."
Big and Expensive would quote £1.6 billion to add it. It would end up costing 3.6 and not work.
Pound jumps to highest level in two years
Which is roughly just before Liz Truss shat the bed.
*More to do with US interest rates but it is a good narrative for Starmer and Reeves.
Having rejected populism is Starmer carving out a new political credo, which perhaps we might call unpopulism?
That said his wiser political opponents would do well to shut up right now. There may seem to be a political opportunity, but it only seems that way.
I mean honesty and integrity from a man who is both a lawyer and a politician.
He really does take us all for mugs.
"change" my arse.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/07/04/history-suggests-lawyer-starmer-was-always-going-to-win-this-election/
Update from yesterday. So I tweeted out a request for baptismal pools (aka full immersion fonts) installed in Church of England churches, and by the end of the day I had a list of 25+ modern ones (ie post war) - below. Only 2 are from me.
One was installed in a mining village near me in the 1990s. St Peter, Plymouth is an Anglo-Catholic shrine which did a huge building project in ~2007 in a deprived area about which a neighbouring Roma Catholic priest wrote a thesis. There's one near Tunbridge Wells installed in 1710 as a counter to local new (then) 'baptist' movements (it apparently has not been used very much - once on record!). And St Michael le Belfrey in York are installing one this year with an up-and-down hydraulic floor to guarantee accessibility for people who can't do steps as part of a major refurbishment project.
My photo quota today is the baptistry at SS Peter and Paul, Hucknall, Notts - a local one I did not know about. It very much of its time, but the joy of church architecture is that the history of the community can be read for decades or centuries.
List of some CofE places with baptistries. My 150-200 estimate may be low.
All Saints, Huthwaite, Notts
All Saints, Wellington
Christ Church Chineham, Basingstokee
Christ Church, Bromley.
Christ Church, Gypsy Hill, London
Church of Christ the Cornerstone, Milton Keynes
Church of the Resurrection, Grovehill, Hemel Hempstead
Greyfriars, Reading
Holy Trinity, Norwich
Portsmouth Cathedral
Salisbury Cathedral – I think
SS Peter & Paul, Aston , Birmingham
SS Peter and Paul, Hucknall , Notts
St Andrew the Great, Cambridge
St Andrew, Goldsworth Park, Woking
St Andrew, Walthamstow
St George, Britwell
St John, Egham
St Mary-at-Lambeth
St Matthew, Wigmore
St Matthias, Leeds
St Michael-le-Belfrey, York
St Nicholas, Nottingham, Notts
St Paul, Margate
St Peter, Plymouth
St Thomas, Newcastle
The advice Casino offered was the same advice my best mate had from his financial adviser. Which he duly did. But he is a partner in a law firm in London and is paid more in a month than I am in a year, and I am quite well remunerated.
Totally untrue. Although the labour fanboys here will, of course, disagree.
They have spoke extensively of what they plan to do. That is fair enough. But they need to deliver it and that takes time. Judge in 12 months. That’s fair.
https://x.com/itvnewspolitics/status/1828372146424340571?s=61
Why savings income should enjoy much greater exemption from tax (and of course never attracts NI) than earned or other forms of income isn’t clear?
Richard Huss @richardhuss Aug 26
At the recent licensing of the new Archdeacon of Aston, Bishop Michael looked just a little discomfited at the placing of his seat upon the baptistry's glass cover.
https://x.com/richardhuss/status/1828054398200692911
The earliest one, which I had not considered, was that the Saxon crypt at St Wystan, Repton, could have started life as an 8th century baptistry.
Jack Elsom
@JackElsom
·
43m
On the BBC World At One, Sarah Montague says when they asked Downing Street for a government minister to appear on today’s programme, they “put forward” Jonathan Ashworth, the ex-MP now heading the Labour Together think tank.
The only disadvantage to it is most people don't know about it, but as it kicks in automatically that isn't an issue other than confusion over how much tax they are paying.
"Give a man a place by the fire - you make him warm for the night. Set him on fire and you make him warm for life."
Why do we want to encourage people to save £2m+ and forego the tax on that though?
One thing that we really need to make clear, in public discourse, is the cost of our expectations. For example, the cost of 24/7 provision of one, minimum wage employee, is north of £130K a year.
Rachel Reeves initially spoke about an exemption for the Public Sector but this is neither fair nor easy to implement.
Maybe they will limit the amount you can put in a pension from £60K to a smaller amount ?
Increase CGT rates (don't think there is any margin in the threshold which is too low anyway (sucks in not worth bothering about stuff currently)).
IHT I can't see changing. For some odd reason people feel strongly about the IHT threshold and the rate is high anyway. Although people do think this is an area for increases, but I struggle to see how.
Remove the last NI reductions the Tories introduced.
Restrict pension payment tax relief to a pension fund to the 20% band for both DC and DB pensions.
Starting point of 45% band of income tax reduced to £100,000 or introduce a 50% band at £150,000.
Start the loss of PA at say £75,000 (but if you do, make it slower than currently, which is too much of a change, say a £1 for every £5 earned instead of £1 for every £2 earned as it currently is. This still creates steps in the tax graph, but it is not as brutal as before)
I have not the foggiest what that lot adds up to, but it must be a lot and nobody would do all of it.
PS And as a give away increase the PA.
If Nesbitt can come back from that, maybe Boris can get over Partygate?
Working out tax on dividends
How much tax you pay on dividends above the dividend allowance depends on your Income Tax band.
Tax band Tax rate on dividends over the allowance
Basic rate 8.75%
Higher rate 33.75%
Additional rate 39.35%
Labour members have of course never elected a party leader and PM when the party is in government anyway, unlike the Tories in 2019 when their members elected Boris as PM and in 2022 when they elected Truss PM
https://news.sky.com/story/amp/us-election-donald-trump-suggests-he-may-back-out-of-tv-debate-against-kamala-harris-13203880
Not that I can see this swaying significant numbers of people.
They were paid well and mostly liked their work, but after a bit they came to management with a request: They wanted a separate cafeteria.
Why? Because they didn't want to compete with the women working in offices, who could dress up, wear make up, and so forth.
He was made Health Minister 4 years later, and one UUP councillor quit the party in response.
Measurement series
How to measure political concepts
Ideas series
Ideas pertinent to 2020s politics
Chronicle of a bet foretold series
Stories of my real-life gambling
Reviews
I read a book! It had words and everything!
Other
Stuff. Not the above stuff.
- http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/10/28/the-november-6th-us-midterms-where-we-are-and-what-might-happen/
- https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/11/06/the-november-6th-us-midterms-where-we-are-and-what-might-happen-part-ii/
- https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/01/21/finland/
If anybody can spot one I missed, please let me knowI’d be in favour of retaining the ISA system but removing the PSA. If Reeves wants to nudge the ISA allowance a few k downwards I don’t see tremendous harm in that, but I’d caution against anything more drastic.
I’ll ask Robert if he can give you your own Wordpress login so your pieces are easier to track under your own name.
I just think it is a very sensible idea. The £1000 for basic rate payers and £500 for higher rate payers is an admin allowance to keep small amounts out of the tax system whereas the £5000 (which reduces to nothing as your earned income increases) is a useful benefit for poor pensioners who have put a nest egg by.
FYI the recent decrease in some of these allowances I think were a mistake. The reduction of the dividend allowance to £500 and the CGT to £3000 I think was wrong because it brings into play some petty stuff with huge admin attached. if the Govt wanted to bring in more revenue it could have kept the old thresholds for qualifying, but if you did qualify start the tax calculation at a lower threshold figure. So only a very small loss of revenue without bringing in petty dividends or gains.
Liz Truss was seven weeks.
Rishi Sunak was 20 months.
I make that roughly 23 months each.
That's simple though. Some of the other tax allowances look calculated to keep accountants in gainful employment. If ordinary punters are maximising their uptake, it is probably by chance.
£500k in ISAs, £500k invested in other investments / bank deposits.
Assuming 5% return, total income = £50k.
ISA income = £25k, tax = £nil.
Other income = £25k. £19,070 tax free (12,570+5,000+1,000+500). Tax = 20% * 5,930 = £1,186.
So tax bill on £50k income is just over £1k.
I am sure under the circumstances none of us would have had the faintest idea that attending lavish parties hosted by KGB officers where quite possibly copious amounts of alcohol, banned narcotics and an abundance of Italian and Eastern European call girls on offer was anything other than appropriate for a senior elected Government Official to if they so desired enjoy without armed security service chaperones present.
Sunak left office on July 5 2024
Thats 2914 days. Four PMs in that period (May, Boris, Truss, Sunak). So that's about 728 days each on average, but Truss obviously skews it. Leaving her out, it's about a thousand days each
Which has a nice parallel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_of_the_Thousand_Days
How much this actually has resulted in more people being savers vs being a way for the moderately well off to pay less tax is arguable, but the general idea is certainly a sound one.
(a) downsizers
(b) pension lump sum
(c) legacies
(d) compensation payments
- by no means all of whom will be middle aged with income to spare.)
Johnson - 3 years 44 days (includes leap year)
Truss - 49 days
Sunak - 1 year 254 days (includes leap year)
Starmer - 53 days not out
So, calculated on a cricketing basis, the current average is 742 days, or 2 non-leap years and 12 days.
Just under two years without Starmer's contribution.
From Thatcher's election in 1979 Britain had three Prime Ministers in 28 years. Even with Cameron's six year stint, the following 17 years have seen seven Prime Ministers.
It's a symptom of malaise.
Ideally Starmer will be a stunning success and a grateful nation will give him a decade in the top job. But I'm not seeing it at the moment.
Or should that be enflaming…
If they equalise CGT rates with income tax rates, they will have to do something about indexation for inflation because the unfairness of not doing so is then too obvious. But indexation is extra admin. So maybe they will just push the CGT rates up a bit and do nothing about indexation ?
Damning with faint praise…!
Confusing word, inflammable. Meaning 'easily set on fire'. And actually meaning exactly the same as 'flammable'.