Leicester have won an appeal against a decision that could have led to a points deduction for an alleged breach of Premier League Profit and Sustainability rules.
An independent panel found the Premier League did not have the jurisdiction to punish the club.
The Premier League said it was "surprised and disappointed" by the panel's decision.
Leicester said they have "simply sought to ensure that the rules are applied based on how they are actually written".
The Foxes were charged by the Premier League for breaching spending rules. They appealed against this charge but an independent commission then ruled the top flight could take action.
Leicester then appealed against that decision – based on the fact they were in the English Football League (EFL) at the time the charge was issued – and the outcome was announced on Tuesday.
In the Seattle area, there are a number of Russian Baptist churches. As I understand it, they were persecuted by the czars, by Stalin, and now by Putin. But they seem to be mostly left alone, here. (Though I wouldn't advise them to apply for a job with, for example, Google.)
Last Friday, I encountered several Jehovah Witness women offering pamphlets -- in Russian. The Witnesses are regulars just outside the local library, but this is the first time I have seen the Russian versions of their literature.
(I have known Witnesses all my life. To say the least, I don't share their theology, but the ones I have met have all been good people, willing to live in peace with others.)
BREAKING: Former Republican Senator from the critical battleground state of Pennsylvania, Pat Toomey, has announced he will not endorse or vote for Donald Trump. This is huge.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
But the higher earner will save tax at 40, 45 or 60% on their earnings and only pay tax at 20% when they draw it and then only on 75% of it so an effective rate of 15%, assuming they never enter the 40% band, which they never should if they have any sense regarding managing their pension. A person on the basic rate band gets none of these tax breaks other than the tax being limited to 75% of the pension.
That is clearly mindbogglingly unfair.
Not really. If they draw their pension at the higher rate they will pay the higher rate. If they never draw a higher rate their pot will eventually expire or retire.
If you try double-taxing people they'll simply stop saving into pensions or stop working causing us far bigger problems.
Are you in favour of giving standard rate tax payers a 40% tax credit on their pension contributions to ensure they don't stop saving into pensions or stop working altogether?
Or is it just the wealthy who deserve big tax breaks to keep them saving and working?
PS You're losing this argument. I'd move onto something else.
No I'm not. The point of pension tax relief is to incentivise earners to defer current taxable income into future taxable income by creating a pensions pot they can draw down so they can provide for themselves in old age without being a burden on the State. That's in all our interests as taxpayers, because the alternative isn't that they happily pay more tax it's that they stop working, work less or move which would reduce our tax take and growth, and store up bigger demographic challenges for us in future.
We already subject pensions to a lifetime limit, which is calculated to not be absurdly generous, and that keeps people working hard and not quitting. And it's just starting to work in getting people ready for retirement.
Your ideas are bad ideas, and that's why they need to be called out. Particularly because you and your ilk don't seem intellectually able enough to spot it.
How about we reduce taxes on those working for a living all the time so they don't stop working, work less or move? Why should only those who are saving for a pension avoid that, shouldn't those saving for a deposit or paying a mortgage or any other cost in life be able to do that if that's their choice?
We have tax free savings regimes for people who want to save for deposits.
I have sympathy with CR’s point here - we need more people saving more money into private pensions, not less. There is a conversation around exactly where the bounds of generosity are set, perhaps, but pensions saving should not be discouraged generally.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
It’s one of the tax changes the last government was actively looking at.
I knew it! Bloody Lefties.
Getting tax relief at 40% or 45% on the way in, but only paying 20% on most or all of it on the way out, seems like something ripe for the chop to me.
It is estimated to save £10b - half the black hole. I'm sure it will be in the Reeves' budget.
It will just kill pension saving and end up costing the clowns money. They should tax benefits, free houses, cars , etc.
I see the PB Tories are back to publicly wallowing in their manifold stages of grief.
How one longs for the halcyon days of Guess Boris' Weight.
Looks more like PB’s right wingers are enjoying the chance to mock and deride this already-ludicrous and laughable government, which is now promising to nationalise concert ticketing because oasis are charging too much
That's fine. Go for it. I probably would in your shoes. It will help the time pass. However as a lifelong Labour person, 2 months after a landslide win resulting in a Tory government being replaced by a Labour one for only the 2nd time in my long long adult lifetime, you can probably imagine how much I and ilk care about all the whinging from the right. It just makes things better tbh. Slightly shameful admission but there you go.
It's Liz I feel sorry for. I had hoped that she would be remembered for the Truss Principle which states that it takes way less than 50 days to fail as a PM. Clearly Lessons Have Not Been Learned.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
But the higher earner will save tax at 40, 45 or 60% on their earnings and only pay tax at 20% when they draw it and then only on 75% of it so an effective rate of 15%, assuming they never enter the 40% band, which they never should if they have any sense regarding managing their pension. A person on the basic rate band gets none of these tax breaks other than the tax being limited to 75% of the pension.
That is clearly mindbogglingly unfair.
Not really. If they draw their pension at the higher rate they will pay the higher rate. If they never draw a higher rate their pot will eventually expire or retire.
If you try double-taxing people they'll simply stop saving into pensions or stop working causing us far bigger problems.
Are you in favour of giving standard rate tax payers a 40% tax credit on their pension contributions to ensure they don't stop saving into pensions or stop working altogether?
Or is it just the wealthy who deserve big tax breaks to keep them saving and working?
PS You're losing this argument. I'd move onto something else.
No I'm not. The point of pension tax relief is to incentivise earners to defer current taxable income into future taxable income by creating a pensions pot they can draw down so they can provide for themselves in old age without being a burden on the State. That's in all our interests as taxpayers, because the alternative isn't that they happily pay more tax it's that they stop working, work less or move which would reduce our tax take and growth, and store up bigger demographic challenges for us in future.
We already subject pensions to a lifetime limit, which is calculated to not be absurdly generous, and that keeps people working hard and not quitting. And it's just starting to work in getting people ready for retirement.
Your ideas are bad ideas, and that's why they need to be called out. Particularly because you and your ilk don't seem intellectually able enough to spot it.
How about we reduce taxes on those working for a living all the time so they don't stop working, work less or move? Why should only those who are saving for a pension avoid that, shouldn't those saving for a deposit or paying a mortgage or any other cost in life be able to do that if that's their choice?
We have tax free savings regimes for people who want to save for deposits.
I have sympathy with CR’s point here - we need more people saving more money into private pensions, not less. There is a conversation around exactly where the bounds of generosity are set, perhaps, but pensions saving should not be discouraged generally.
I agree, but the incentives are truly plentiful anyway. Extra incentives aren't needed for the wealthy. Of course the nutty PA claw back at £100k causes a huge number of additional pension contributions, but if that anomaly was sorted it would disappear.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
But the higher earner will save tax at 40, 45 or 60% on their earnings and only pay tax at 20% when they draw it and then only on 75% of it so an effective rate of 15%, assuming they never enter the 40% band, which they never should if they have any sense regarding managing their pension. A person on the basic rate band gets none of these tax breaks other than the tax being limited to 75% of the pension.
That is clearly mindbogglingly unfair.
Not really. If they draw their pension at the higher rate they will pay the higher rate. If they never draw a higher rate their pot will eventually expire or retire.
If you try double-taxing people they'll simply stop saving into pensions or stop working causing us far bigger problems.
Consider a pension pot of £800k, where most of the money was subject to 40% tax relief. Take the £200000 lump sum at 0% to pay off your mortgage, then buy an annuity at age 65. This is £600000 * 0.07 = £42000. Add £11000 state pension. Total income £53000.
Almost no 40% tax paid on exit. Average tax paid on exit about 15%.
Edit: plus tax free income from a lifetime of ISAs.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
It’s one of the tax changes the last government was actively looking at.
I knew it! Bloody Lefties.
Getting tax relief at 40% or 45% on the way in, but only paying 20% on most or all of it on the way out, seems like something ripe for the chop to me.
It is estimated to save £10b - half the black hole. I'm sure it will be in the Reeves' budget.
It will just kill pension saving and end up costing the clowns money. They should tax benefits, free houses, cars , etc.
Labour want to take from those who work/have worked for what they have got and instead give more money to those on benefits.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
But the higher earner will save tax at 40, 45 or 60% on their earnings and only pay tax at 20% when they draw it and then only on 75% of it so an effective rate of 15%, assuming they never enter the 40% band, which they never should if they have any sense regarding managing their pension. A person on the basic rate band gets none of these tax breaks other than the tax being limited to 75% of the pension.
That is clearly mindbogglingly unfair.
Not really. If they draw their pension at the higher rate they will pay the higher rate. If they never draw a higher rate their pot will eventually expire or retire.
If you try double-taxing people they'll simply stop saving into pensions or stop working causing us far bigger problems.
Consider a pension pot of £800k, where most of the money was subject to 40% tax relief. Take the £200000 lump sum at 0% to pay off your mortgage, then buy an annuity at age 65. This is £600000 * 0.07 = £42000. Add £11000 state pension. Total income £53000.
Almost no 40% tax paid on exit. Average tax paid on exit about 15%.
Edit: plus tax free income from a lifetime of ISAs.
In answer to @rcs1000 from the last thread (Sorry I don't know how to continue an old thread on a new discussion). I would love to know as I see a number of you do it.
"If you remove the personal allowance - even if gradually between £100k and £150k - then you create the situation that your £150,001 pound is worth more than your £100,000 one."
No, not necessarily and I thought my description covered that, but maybe it wasn't clear. You remove the allowance very gradually. I would start earlier, say at £75,000, and remove it so slowly that the marginal rate increase is quite small (not the whooping 20% currently). Once you get to the elimination point you introduce a new tax band at the current effective rate or of course if you are so inclined to a higher rate.
So your effective tax rates are say:
0, 20, 40, 45 (effective while eliminating PA), 45
instead of
0, 20, 40, 60 (effective while you eliminate PA), 45
It really isn't complicated either which some are critical of. After all it is what we do currently, but just smooths it.
Why withdraw the personal allowance at all, rather than just increase the headline rate at that point? What am I missing? Or is it simple to avoid increasing the headline rate at that point?
On quoting from previous thread, simply:
On previous thread, hit quote as normal
Add your comments
Copy the whole text box
Go to new thread and paste as a 'new' comment (add FTP: before the paste if you like)
(You can also swap 2-4 around, doing 1, 3, 4, 2, depending at which point you prefer to add your typing)
PA is really there for the benefit of the lower paid, however it has greater benefit the higher your marginal tax rate is which is perverse. Each time you increase the PA (which you should do each time because of inflation) you benefit the well off more than the poorest which is the opposite of your objective. You could I guess mess with the thresholds or rates each time, but that is more messy than just getting rid of it for those that don't need it.
Sorry, but if your marginal rate is at 45% because of the removal of the tax free allowance, then it is absolutely identical to simply lowering the point at which the higher rate is charged.
The effect is identical. It's just more complicated.
I agree, but is it more complicated? People also aren't happy with the PA and higher threshold converging, although it is the same thing. Matter of opinion I suppose. Why do you think the Govt didn't do that in the first place?
I see the PB Tories are back to publicly wallowing in their manifold stages of grief.
How one longs for the halcyon days of Guess Boris' Weight.
Looks more like PB’s right wingers are enjoying the chance to mock and deride this already-ludicrous and laughable government, which is now promising to nationalise concert ticketing because oasis are charging too much
Which again is a fucking stupid idea.
It will lead to more rationing, fewer concerts, more empty seats, and worse quality stadia experiences.
Under the National Gig Service, Oasis will be free at the point of use with a waiting list prioritised by need.
Is there a market where I can bet on a second set of gig dates for Oasis being announced.
It would be... unusual to leave so much evident money on the table.
This Oasis thing; I have no interest, my next ticket, not tricky to obtain is, for the Liszt B Flat piano sonata and I would pay good money to avoid hearing them; but there is an oddity.
Oasis and their agents could obviously charge £Nzillion more than they have for tickets given the instant resale price. Clearly they have kept prices way below what they could get if they went for the wealthiest/most enthusiastic people, with a polite queue personal or digital and everyone who could afford easily getting a ticket.
Good for them not doing so. But the oddity is that having based the price way below what the market could command they then renounce all that goodwill by acting like Ryanair and upping the price to non-wealthy people 10 hours into a million strong queue. Bad PR.
Could I suggest that if you really want hard core fans, not rich, to get decently priced tickets the old fashioned way is best: Box office and queue in the rain at one venue in Manchester in November, personal tickets only, 2 max per person.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
But the higher earner will save tax at 40, 45 or 60% on their earnings and only pay tax at 20% when they draw it and then only on 75% of it so an effective rate of 15%, assuming they never enter the 40% band, which they never should if they have any sense regarding managing their pension. A person on the basic rate band gets none of these tax breaks other than the tax being limited to 75% of the pension.
That is clearly mindbogglingly unfair.
Not really. If they draw their pension at the higher rate they will pay the higher rate. If they never draw a higher rate their pot will eventually expire or retire.
If you try double-taxing people they'll simply stop saving into pensions or stop working causing us far bigger problems.
Are you in favour of giving standard rate tax payers a 40% tax credit on their pension contributions to ensure they don't stop saving into pensions or stop working altogether?
Or is it just the wealthy who deserve big tax breaks to keep them saving and working?
PS You're losing this argument. I'd move onto something else.
No I'm not. The point of pension tax relief is to incentivise earners to defer current taxable income into future taxable income by creating a pensions pot they can draw down so they can provide for themselves in old age without being a burden on the State. That's in all our interests as taxpayers, because the alternative isn't that they happily pay more tax it's that they stop working, work less or move which would reduce our tax take and growth, and store up bigger demographic challenges for us in future.
We already subject pensions to a lifetime limit, which is calculated to not be absurdly generous, and that keeps people working hard and not quitting. And it's just starting to work in getting people ready for retirement.
Your ideas are bad ideas, and that's why they need to be called out. Particularly because you and your ilk don't seem intellectually able enough to spot it.
How about we reduce taxes on those working for a living all the time so they don't stop working, work less or move? Why should only those who are saving for a pension avoid that, shouldn't those saving for a deposit or paying a mortgage or any other cost in life be able to do that if that's their choice?
We have tax free savings regimes for people who want to save for deposits.
I have sympathy with CR’s point here - we need more people saving more money into private pensions, not less. There is a conversation around exactly where the bounds of generosity are set, perhaps, but pensions saving should not be discouraged generally.
We don't have tax free incomes for people who want to save for deposits.
There's a world of difference between saying we'll waive taxes on interest on savings, versus saying we'll waive taxes so you can save more.
Yes pension saving should not be discouraged, but nor should work either. Taxes should be low and consistent.
Absolute and utter bombshell news. Except to people like me who were always saying that self accusations by the depressed are not to be taken at face value.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
But the higher earner will save tax at 40, 45 or 60% on their earnings and only pay tax at 20% when they draw it and then only on 75% of it so an effective rate of 15%, assuming they never enter the 40% band, which they never should if they have any sense regarding managing their pension. A person on the basic rate band gets none of these tax breaks other than the tax being limited to 75% of the pension.
That is clearly mindbogglingly unfair.
Not really. If they draw their pension at the higher rate they will pay the higher rate. If they never draw a higher rate their pot will eventually expire or retire.
If you try double-taxing people they'll simply stop saving into pensions or stop working causing us far bigger problems.
Are you in favour of giving standard rate tax payers a 40% tax credit on their pension contributions to ensure they don't stop saving into pensions or stop working altogether?
Or is it just the wealthy who deserve big tax breaks to keep them saving and working?
PS You're losing this argument. I'd move onto something else.
No I'm not. The point of pension tax relief is to incentivise earners to defer current taxable income into future taxable income by creating a pensions pot they can draw down so they can provide for themselves in old age without being a burden on the State. That's in all our interests as taxpayers, because the alternative isn't that they happily pay more tax it's that they stop working, work less or move which would reduce our tax take and growth, and store up bigger demographic challenges for us in future.
We already subject pensions to a lifetime limit, which is calculated to not be absurdly generous, and that keeps people working hard and not quitting. And it's just starting to work in getting people ready for retirement.
Your ideas are bad ideas, and that's why they need to be called out. Particularly because you and your ilk don't seem intellectually able enough to spot it.
How about we reduce taxes on those working for a living all the time so they don't stop working, work less or move? Why should only those who are saving for a pension avoid that, shouldn't those saving for a deposit or paying a mortgage or any other cost in life be able to do that if that's their choice?
We have tax free savings regimes for people who want to save for deposits.
I have sympathy with CR’s point here - we need more people saving more money into private pensions, not less. There is a conversation around exactly where the bounds of generosity are set, perhaps, but pensions saving should not be discouraged generally.
We don't have tax free incomes for people who want to save for deposits.
If you're a basic rate taxpayer, the LISA is an approximation.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
But the higher earner will save tax at 40, 45 or 60% on their earnings and only pay tax at 20% when they draw it and then only on 75% of it so an effective rate of 15%, assuming they never enter the 40% band, which they never should if they have any sense regarding managing their pension. A person on the basic rate band gets none of these tax breaks other than the tax being limited to 75% of the pension.
That is clearly mindbogglingly unfair.
Not really. If they draw their pension at the higher rate they will pay the higher rate. If they never draw a higher rate their pot will eventually expire or retire.
If you try double-taxing people they'll simply stop saving into pensions or stop working causing us far bigger problems.
Consider a pension pot of £800k, where most of the money was subject to 40% tax relief. Take the £200000 lump sum at 0% to pay off your mortgage, then buy an annuity at age 65. This is £600000 * 0.07 = £42000. Add £11000 state pension. Total income £53000.
Almost no 40% tax paid on exit. Average tax paid on exit about 15%.
Edit: plus tax free income from a lifetime of ISAs.
How do you survive on 53K though
I nip to the loo when it's my turn to buy a round of 80/-. Blame it on my weak bladder.
Flatlander said: » show previous quotes Dynamic road pricing?
4pm outside a school? £10 / mile. M74 through the borders late at night? 0.01p / mile.
Would mean universal car tracking through. Do we really want that?
That would make a lot of teachers very unhappy…
Universal car tracking is coming, UK is behind the trend, a friend was in the Philippines to quote for an ANPR road pricing system. The challenge in the UK will be number plate obscuring / cloning and vandalism of cameras which seem to be regarded as acceptable criminality. The same friend said that they get far more grief about traffic cameras in social situations than they did when they worked on weapons targeting systems.
I think that fits with what I said the other day ... it will be a few years before we are ready.
More secure number plates coming first?
You’d have to move to a stamped system of number plates, if you’re going to use ANPR for a national system of toll gates.
An RFID-based system would be easier to implement, but you’re still going to be using ANPR for enforcement.
I have a little tag in the car that pings when I go through a French toll gate. Something similar built into cars in South Africa for tolls too. Works nicely.
I see the PB Tories are back to publicly wallowing in their manifold stages of grief.
How one longs for the halcyon days of Guess Boris' Weight.
Looks more like PB’s right wingers are enjoying the chance to mock and deride this already-ludicrous and laughable government, which is now promising to nationalise concert ticketing because oasis are charging too much
Which again is a fucking stupid idea.
It will lead to more rationing, fewer concerts, more empty seats, and worse quality stadia experiences.
Under the National Gig Service, Oasis will be free at the point of use with a waiting list prioritised by need.
Is there a market where I can bet on a second set of gig dates for Oasis being announced.
It would be... unusual to leave so much evident money on the table.
This Oasis thing; I have no interest, my next ticket, not tricky to obtain is, for the Liszt B Flat piano sonata and I would pay good money to avoid hearing them; but there is an oddity.
Oasis and their agents could obviously charge £Nzillion more than they have for tickets given the instant resale price. Clearly they have kept prices way below what they could get if they went for the wealthiest/most enthusiastic people, with a polite queue personal or digital and everyone who could afford easily getting a ticket.
Good for them not doing so. But the oddity is that having based the price way below what the market could command they then renounce all that goodwill by acting like Ryanair and upping the price to non-wealthy people 10 hours into a million strong queue. Bad PR.
Could I suggest that if you really want hard core fans, not rich, to get decently priced tickets the old fashioned way is best: Box office and queue in the rain at one venue in Manchester in November, personal tickets only, 2 max per person.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
But the higher earner will save tax at 40, 45 or 60% on their earnings and only pay tax at 20% when they draw it and then only on 75% of it so an effective rate of 15%, assuming they never enter the 40% band, which they never should if they have any sense regarding managing their pension. A person on the basic rate band gets none of these tax breaks other than the tax being limited to 75% of the pension.
That is clearly mindbogglingly unfair.
Not really. If they draw their pension at the higher rate they will pay the higher rate. If they never draw a higher rate their pot will eventually expire or retire.
If you try double-taxing people they'll simply stop saving into pensions or stop working causing us far bigger problems.
Are you in favour of giving standard rate tax payers a 40% tax credit on their pension contributions to ensure they don't stop saving into pensions or stop working altogether?
Or is it just the wealthy who deserve big tax breaks to keep them saving and working?
PS You're losing this argument. I'd move onto something else.
No I'm not. The point of pension tax relief is to incentivise earners to defer current taxable income into future taxable income by creating a pensions pot they can draw down so they can provide for themselves in old age without being a burden on the State. That's in all our interests as taxpayers, because the alternative isn't that they happily pay more tax it's that they stop working, work less or move which would reduce our tax take and growth, and store up bigger demographic challenges for us in future.
We already subject pensions to a lifetime limit, which is calculated to not be absurdly generous, and that keeps people working hard and not quitting. And it's just starting to work in getting people ready for retirement.
Your ideas are bad ideas, and that's why they need to be called out. Particularly because you and your ilk don't seem intellectually able enough to spot it.
How about we reduce taxes on those working for a living all the time so they don't stop working, work less or move? Why should only those who are saving for a pension avoid that, shouldn't those saving for a deposit or paying a mortgage or any other cost in life be able to do that if that's their choice?
We have tax free savings regimes for people who want to save for deposits.
I have sympathy with CR’s point here - we need more people saving more money into private pensions, not less. There is a conversation around exactly where the bounds of generosity are set, perhaps, but pensions saving should not be discouraged generally.
We don't have tax free incomes for people who want to save for deposits.
If you're a basic rate taxpayer, the LISA is an approximation.
Absolute and utter bombshell news. Except to people like me who were always saying that self accusations by the depressed are not to be taken at face value.
Not it's not. She said herself at the trial that they were just jottings of random thoughts. The jury clearly didn't believe her or didn't think it made any difference if they did.
I see the PB Tories are back to publicly wallowing in their manifold stages of grief.
How one longs for the halcyon days of Guess Boris' Weight.
Looks more like PB’s right wingers are enjoying the chance to mock and deride this already-ludicrous and laughable government, which is now promising to nationalise concert ticketing because oasis are charging too much
Which again is a fucking stupid idea.
It will lead to more rationing, fewer concerts, more empty seats, and worse quality stadia experiences.
Under the National Gig Service, Oasis will be free at the point of use with a waiting list prioritised by need.
Is there a market where I can bet on a second set of gig dates for Oasis being announced.
It would be... unusual to leave so much evident money on the table.
This Oasis thing; I have no interest, my next ticket, not tricky to obtain is, for the Liszt B Flat piano sonata and I would pay good money to avoid hearing them; but there is an oddity.
Oasis and their agents could obviously charge £Nzillion more than they have for tickets given the instant resale price. Clearly they have kept prices way below what they could get if they went for the wealthiest/most enthusiastic people, with a polite queue personal or digital and everyone who could afford easily getting a ticket.
Good for them not doing so. But the oddity is that having based the price way below what the market could command they then renounce all that goodwill by acting like Ryanair and upping the price to non-wealthy people 10 hours into a million strong queue. Bad PR.
Could I suggest that if you really want hard core fans, not rich, to get decently priced tickets the old fashioned way is best: Box office and queue in the rain at one venue in Manchester in November, personal tickets only, 2 max per person.
Probably because they're thick ?
If they'd started the other way round, selling the best seats in the house at (say) £1500, and gradually brought prices down as demand dried up, they'd maximise their take, and avoid the overwhelmed system.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
But the higher earner will save tax at 40, 45 or 60% on their earnings and only pay tax at 20% when they draw it and then only on 75% of it so an effective rate of 15%, assuming they never enter the 40% band, which they never should if they have any sense regarding managing their pension. A person on the basic rate band gets none of these tax breaks other than the tax being limited to 75% of the pension.
That is clearly mindbogglingly unfair.
Not really. If they draw their pension at the higher rate they will pay the higher rate. If they never draw a higher rate their pot will eventually expire or retire.
If you try double-taxing people they'll simply stop saving into pensions or stop working causing us far bigger problems.
Are you in favour of giving standard rate tax payers a 40% tax credit on their pension contributions to ensure they don't stop saving into pensions or stop working altogether?
Or is it just the wealthy who deserve big tax breaks to keep them saving and working?
PS You're losing this argument. I'd move onto something else.
No I'm not. The point of pension tax relief is to incentivise earners to defer current taxable income into future taxable income by creating a pensions pot they can draw down so they can provide for themselves in old age without being a burden on the State. That's in all our interests as taxpayers, because the alternative isn't that they happily pay more tax it's that they stop working, work less or move which would reduce our tax take and growth, and store up bigger demographic challenges for us in future.
We already subject pensions to a lifetime limit, which is calculated to not be absurdly generous, and that keeps people working hard and not quitting. And it's just starting to work in getting people ready for retirement.
Your ideas are bad ideas, and that's why they need to be called out. Particularly because you and your ilk don't seem intellectually able enough to spot it.
How about we reduce taxes on those working for a living all the time so they don't stop working, work less or move? Why should only those who are saving for a pension avoid that, shouldn't those saving for a deposit or paying a mortgage or any other cost in life be able to do that if that's their choice?
We have tax free savings regimes for people who want to save for deposits.
I have sympathy with CR’s point here - we need more people saving more money into private pensions, not less. There is a conversation around exactly where the bounds of generosity are set, perhaps, but pensions saving should not be discouraged generally.
We don't have tax free incomes for people who want to save for deposits.
If you're a basic rate taxpayer, the LISA is an approximation.
An approximation that is strictly capped, has strict rules around it, and only applies at the basic rate and not other rates.
Quite different to an uncapped amount of savings with tax rebates at your full rate of tax and not basic rate only.
I don't see any reason why saving for a pension and saving for a deposit should have different tax implications. Both should be equally encouraged.
BREAKING: Former Republican Senator from the critical battleground state of Pennsylvania, Pat Toomey, has announced he will not endorse or vote for Donald Trump. This is huge.
BREAKING: Former Republican Senator from the critical battleground state of Pennsylvania, Pat Toomey, has announced he will not endorse or vote for Donald Trump. This is huge.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
But the higher earner will save tax at 40, 45 or 60% on their earnings and only pay tax at 20% when they draw it and then only on 75% of it so an effective rate of 15%, assuming they never enter the 40% band, which they never should if they have any sense regarding managing their pension. A person on the basic rate band gets none of these tax breaks other than the tax being limited to 75% of the pension.
That is clearly mindbogglingly unfair.
Not really. If they draw their pension at the higher rate they will pay the higher rate. If they never draw a higher rate their pot will eventually expire or retire.
If you try double-taxing people they'll simply stop saving into pensions or stop working causing us far bigger problems.
Are you in favour of giving standard rate tax payers a 40% tax credit on their pension contributions to ensure they don't stop saving into pensions or stop working altogether?
Or is it just the wealthy who deserve big tax breaks to keep them saving and working?
PS You're losing this argument. I'd move onto something else.
No I'm not. The point of pension tax relief is to incentivise earners to defer current taxable income into future taxable income by creating a pensions pot they can draw down so they can provide for themselves in old age without being a burden on the State. That's in all our interests as taxpayers, because the alternative isn't that they happily pay more tax it's that they stop working, work less or move which would reduce our tax take and growth, and store up bigger demographic challenges for us in future.
We already subject pensions to a lifetime limit, which is calculated to not be absurdly generous, and that keeps people working hard and not quitting. And it's just starting to work in getting people ready for retirement.
Your ideas are bad ideas, and that's why they need to be called out. Particularly because you and your ilk don't seem intellectually able enough to spot it.
How about we reduce taxes on those working for a living all the time so they don't stop working, work less or move? Why should only those who are saving for a pension avoid that, shouldn't those saving for a deposit or paying a mortgage or any other cost in life be able to do that if that's their choice?
We have tax free savings regimes for people who want to save for deposits.
I have sympathy with CR’s point here - we need more people saving more money into private pensions, not less. There is a conversation around exactly where the bounds of generosity are set, perhaps, but pensions saving should not be discouraged generally.
I agree, but the incentives are truly plentiful anyway. Extra incentives aren't needed for the wealthy. Of course the nutty PA claw back at £100k causes a huge number of additional pension contributions, but if that anomaly was sorted it would disappear.
Yes. If you fixed the 100k cliff edge you’d fix a lot of problems in the system.
Absolute and utter bombshell news. Except to people like me who were always saying that self accusations by the depressed are not to be taken at face value.
Not it's not. She said herself at the trial that they were just jottings of random thoughts. The jury clearly didn't believe her or didn't think it made any difference if they did.
"Jottings of random thoughts" is different from "my counsellors told me to write them down". Surely that is easy to understand?
Juries are composed of people of below average intelligence (this is trivially easy to prove, but I will leave it to you to work out).
Absolute and utter bombshell news. Except to people like me who were always saying that self accusations by the depressed are not to be taken at face value.
Guardian still on this. It's going to run and run. It presents as revelation stuff about the origin of the Letby written material which, assuming the story is accurate, was in the personal knowledge of the defendant and all of which they were fully entitled to explain in their evidence.
Material which could be self incriminating is put in evidence and is exactly what it is. The prosecution is not going to throw it away, it is highly relevant, and the defence is absolutely entitled to give their account of what it means, why it exists and why it isn't a confession.
This of course was just one of a multiple set of threads of evidence. The grounds of appeal made no mention of how the judge or prosecution had handled the written material, there was no complaint.
I see the PB Tories are back to publicly wallowing in their manifold stages of grief.
How one longs for the halcyon days of Guess Boris' Weight.
Looks more like PB’s right wingers are enjoying the chance to mock and deride this already-ludicrous and laughable government, which is now promising to nationalise concert ticketing because oasis are charging too much
Which again is a fucking stupid idea.
It will lead to more rationing, fewer concerts, more empty seats, and worse quality stadia experiences.
Under the National Gig Service, Oasis will be free at the point of use with a waiting list prioritised by need.
Is there a market where I can bet on a second set of gig dates for Oasis being announced.
It would be... unusual to leave so much evident money on the table.
This Oasis thing; I have no interest, my next ticket, not tricky to obtain is, for the Liszt B Flat piano sonata and I would pay good money to avoid hearing them; but there is an oddity.
Oasis and their agents could obviously charge £Nzillion more than they have for tickets given the instant resale price. Clearly they have kept prices way below what they could get if they went for the wealthiest/most enthusiastic people, with a polite queue personal or digital and everyone who could afford easily getting a ticket.
Good for them not doing so. But the oddity is that having based the price way below what the market could command they then renounce all that goodwill by acting like Ryanair and upping the price to non-wealthy people 10 hours into a million strong queue. Bad PR.
Could I suggest that if you really want hard core fans, not rich, to get decently priced tickets the old fashioned way is best: Box office and queue in the rain at one venue in Manchester in November, personal tickets only, 2 max per person.
Probably because they're thick ?
If they'd started the other way round, selling the best seats in the house at (say) £1500, and gradually brought prices down as demand dried up, they'd maximise their take, and avoid the overwhelmed system.
With you on the Lizst.
It's like the difference between a standard auction with price starting from below , and a Dutch auction which starts high. Economists know that the Dutch auction extracts all the consumer surplus - as your comment implies.
eta - this is not socially optimal. The second highest price (which is not realisable in this scheme) is that.
Absolute and utter bombshell news. Except to people like me who were always saying that self accusations by the depressed are not to be taken at face value.
Not it's not. She said herself at the trial that they were just jottings of random thoughts. The jury clearly didn't believe her or didn't think it made any difference if they did.
"Jottings of random thoughts" is different from "my counsellors told me to write them down". Surely that is easy to understand?
Juries are composed of people of below average intelligence (this is trivially easy to prove, but I will leave it to you to work out).
So her counsellor told her: 'I know you're feeling depressed, Lucy, because everyone thinks you're a serial killer. Go home, get a piece of paper and write down that you actually did it. You'll feel so much better after that.'?
BREAKING: Former Republican Senator from the critical battleground state of Pennsylvania, Pat Toomey, has announced he will not endorse or vote for Donald Trump. This is huge.
BREAKING: Former Republican Senator from the critical battleground state of Pennsylvania, Pat Toomey, has announced he will not endorse or vote for Donald Trump. This is huge.
I think if I'd had to put up with that exceptionally rude fellow interviewee, I'd have finished by saying, 'You know what? You're a bigger bellend than Trump so I've decided to vote for him to annoy you.'
Absolute and utter bombshell news. Except to people like me who were always saying that self accusations by the depressed are not to be taken at face value.
Guardian still on this. It's going to run and run. It presents as revelation stuff about the origin of the Letby written material which, assuming the story is accurate, was in the personal knowledge of the defendant and all of which they were fully entitled to explain in their evidence.
Material which could be self incriminating is put in evidence and is exactly what it is. The prosecution is not going to throw it away, it is highly relevant, and the defence is absolutely entitled to give their account of what it means, why it exists and why it isn't a confession.
This of course was just one of a multiple set of threads of evidence. The grounds of appeal made no mention of how the judge or prosecution had handled the written material, there was no complaint.
Nothing to see here.
I don't get the hatred for this woman. As for the "it was all gone over in court" stuff, the legal system works to a closed set of sometimes arbitrary rules which I probably know more about than you do - not a boast, a sober reflection of the fact that I qualified as a solicitor in 1987. Just for instance, her defence team were obliged to conform exactly to her instructions (unless they thought she was effectively insane). We have no idea what those instructions were. Another thing I hope for your sake I know more about than you do, is very severe depression. You can end up taking some pretty odd positions and thinking some pretty odd things which turn out not to be true.
Either engage with the underlying facts or don't, but just saying therjurysedinnit makes you look like the Milgram experiment. Or like the Life of Brian: OK but apart from {identifiable cases number 1 ... 9999 and that's before we get on to the post office} when has there ever been a miscarriage of justice? NEVER! Oh and Evans and the Birmingham six and ...
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
But the higher earner will save tax at 40, 45 or 60% on their earnings and only pay tax at 20% when they draw it and then only on 75% of it so an effective rate of 15%, assuming they never enter the 40% band, which they never should if they have any sense regarding managing their pension. A person on the basic rate band gets none of these tax breaks other than the tax being limited to 75% of the pension.
That is clearly mindbogglingly unfair.
Not really. If they draw their pension at the higher rate they will pay the higher rate. If they never draw a higher rate their pot will eventually expire or retire.
If you try double-taxing people they'll simply stop saving into pensions or stop working causing us far bigger problems.
Are you in favour of giving standard rate tax payers a 40% tax credit on their pension contributions to ensure they don't stop saving into pensions or stop working altogether?
Or is it just the wealthy who deserve big tax breaks to keep them saving and working?
PS You're losing this argument. I'd move onto something else.
No I'm not. The point of pension tax relief is to incentivise earners to defer current taxable income into future taxable income by creating a pensions pot they can draw down so they can provide for themselves in old age without being a burden on the State. That's in all our interests as taxpayers, because the alternative isn't that they happily pay more tax it's that they stop working, work less or move which would reduce our tax take and growth, and store up bigger demographic challenges for us in future.
We already subject pensions to a lifetime limit, which is calculated to not be absurdly generous, and that keeps people working hard and not quitting. And it's just starting to work in getting people ready for retirement.
Your ideas are bad ideas, and that's why they need to be called out. Particularly because you and your ilk don't seem intellectually able enough to spot it.
How about we reduce taxes on those working for a living all the time so they don't stop working, work less or move? Why should only those who are saving for a pension avoid that, shouldn't those saving for a deposit or paying a mortgage or any other cost in life be able to do that if that's their choice?
We have tax free savings regimes for people who want to save for deposits.
I have sympathy with CR’s point here - we need more people saving more money into private pensions, not less. There is a conversation around exactly where the bounds of generosity are set, perhaps, but pensions saving should not be discouraged generally.
I agree, but the incentives are truly plentiful anyway. Extra incentives aren't needed for the wealthy. Of course the nutty PA claw back at £100k causes a huge number of additional pension contributions, but if that anomaly was sorted it would disappear.
Yes. If you fixed the 100k cliff edge you’d fix a lot of problems in the system.
I would suggest fixing the cliff edge coming welcome would benefit 100x more people and bring more into full time work than fixing a cliffedge for the 1%
In the ultra-chic and tres parisienne “La manche” lounge and cocktail bar, where I am now hanging with the upper crust of Kosalin society, a gin and tonic is £2
Wow. Get pissed for a fiver. That's back to 1985.
£5.01 buys you three pints of Greene King IPA in my local Wetherspoons. Alternatively, half a litre of wine from a tap(!) for £5.90. Not ultra-chic though.
Does 3 pints of Greene King IPA get you pissed or just unpleasantly hungover?
In the ultra-chic and tres parisienne “La manche” lounge and cocktail bar, where I am now hanging with the upper crust of Kosalin society, a gin and tonic is £2
Wow. Get pissed for a fiver. That's back to 1985.
£5.01 buys you three pints of Greene King IPA in my local Wetherspoons. Alternatively, half a litre of wine from a tap(!) for £5.90. Not ultra-chic though.
Does 3 pints of Greene King IPA get you pissed or just unpleasantly hungover?
Neither, in my case. But it's not a pleasant beer, even when served well.
Ordinary ales in my branch are £2.74 a pint, regardless of strength. A couple of 7% stouts for £5.48 might be the better bet for the drinker on a budget.
The Premier League is surprised and disappointed by the independent Appeal Board’s decision to uphold an appeal lodged by Leicester City FC regarding the League’s jurisdiction over the club’s alleged breach of its Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSRs) when the club was a member of the Premier League.
Could the Premier League not close this loophole by mandating the accounting period for clubs?
Though given the manner in which PSR is being applied by PL and circumnavigated by the richer clubs, it seems to be increasingly pointless and unfair on the smaller/less successful clubs.
"National pride has declined sharply over the last decade, possibly because Britain is redefining itself as it becomes more diverse, researchers say.
Fewer Britons feel pride in the country’s history, economic achievements and democratic processes compared with 2013, the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) report found. Results showed that 64 per cent of respondents were proud of Britain’s history, down from 86 per cent in 2013 when the survey was last conducted."
I'd say it's probably down to a greater awareness of the complexities of our colonial past. People now are less likely to be 'rah rah all great' about it. They'll be more nuanced.
That will be part of the answer anyway. Also a more diverse population. That must have an impact too.
People's view of the past are always coloured by the present. In confident ages people are more enamoured of the nation's past. For example that spate of films and TV series about the Raj in the 80s.
National 'confidence' is an interesting concept. We've just done Brexit for example. Was that a sign of confidence or of loss of confidence? You could argue it either way but my sense is it was very much the latter.
As most people now think Brexit a mistake, I guess it was sign of (misplaced) confidence. As with most mistakes, people made assumptions they didn't verify and which didn't pan out.
It doesn't follow in the way you think it does.
Let's say we Rejoined. There would be stuff we didn't like and didn't work out about that too, not least of which would be being having our domestic politics dominated by European integration debates and regulation initiatives.
You'd then have polling showing most people now think Rejoin a mistake.
I suppose I was talking about the people who have changed their minds. Some people always thought Brexit was a mistake and others never have. But why did a bunch of people support it before and not support it now?
If you voted Brexit to bring down immigration and control the borders, as millions did, you are allowed to be severely dismayed that instead the rancid Tories TRIPLED immigration and showed themselves incapable of protecting our most important border of all: the Channel
These people are angry and I do not blame them
How simply awful for you. There must be a chance however remote that you'll bump into one of these people.
Comments
Leicester have won an appeal against a decision that could have led to a points deduction for an alleged breach of Premier League Profit and Sustainability rules.
An independent panel found the Premier League did not have the jurisdiction to punish the club.
The Premier League said it was "surprised and disappointed" by the panel's decision.
Leicester said they have "simply sought to ensure that the rules are applied based on how they are actually written".
The Foxes were charged by the Premier League for breaching spending rules. They appealed against this charge but an independent commission then ruled the top flight could take action.
Leicester then appealed against that decision – based on the fact they were in the English Football League (EFL) at the time the charge was issued – and the outcome was announced on Tuesday.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/ckg54xkqnzlo
BREAKING: Former Republican Senator from the critical battleground state of Pennsylvania, Pat Toomey, has announced he will not endorse or vote for Donald Trump. This is huge.
https://x.com/harris_wins/status/1831039155373244849
Former Republican Senator Pat Toomey says he won’t vote for Trump (or Harris) in November:
“When you lose an election and you try to overturn the results so that you can stay in power, you lose me. You lose me at that point."
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1830968824251981976
I have sympathy with CR’s point here - we need more people saving more money into private pensions, not less. There is a conversation around exactly where the bounds of generosity are set, perhaps, but pensions saving should not be discouraged generally.
Almost no 40% tax paid on exit. Average tax paid on exit about 15%.
Edit: plus tax free income from a lifetime of ISAs.
Oasis and their agents could obviously charge £Nzillion more than they have for tickets given the instant resale price. Clearly they have kept prices way below what they could get if they went for the wealthiest/most enthusiastic people, with a polite queue personal or digital and everyone who could afford easily getting a ticket.
Good for them not doing so. But the oddity is that having based the price way below what the market could command they then renounce all that goodwill by acting like Ryanair and upping the price to non-wealthy people 10 hours into a million strong queue. Bad PR.
Could I suggest that if you really want hard core fans, not rich, to get decently priced tickets the old fashioned way is best: Box office and queue in the rain at one venue in Manchester in November, personal tickets only, 2 max per person.
There's a world of difference between saying we'll waive taxes on interest on savings, versus saying we'll waive taxes so you can save more.
Yes pension saving should not be discouraged, but nor should work either. Taxes should be low and consistent.
Absolute and utter bombshell news. Except to people like me who were always saying that self accusations by the depressed are not to be taken at face value.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hi-pass
https://archive.ph/Z1XLC
If they'd started the other way round, selling the best seats in the house at (say) £1500, and gradually brought prices down as demand dried up, they'd maximise their take, and avoid the overwhelmed system.
With you on the Lizst.
Quite different to an uncapped amount of savings with tax rebates at your full rate of tax and not basic rate only.
I don't see any reason why saving for a pension and saving for a deposit should have different tax implications. Both should be equally encouraged.
Juries are composed of people of below average intelligence (this is trivially easy to prove, but I will leave it to you to work out).
Material which could be self incriminating is put in evidence and is exactly what it is. The prosecution is not going to throw it away, it is highly relevant, and the defence is absolutely entitled to give their account of what it means, why it exists and why it isn't a confession.
This of course was just one of a multiple set of threads of evidence. The grounds of appeal made no mention of how the judge or prosecution had handled the written material, there was no complaint.
Nothing to see here.
eta - this is not socially optimal. The second highest price (which is not realisable in this scheme) is that.
NEW THREAD
Worse than some of those twats on Fox News.
Either engage with the underlying facts or don't, but just saying therjurysedinnit makes you look like the Milgram experiment. Or like the Life of Brian: OK but apart from {identifiable cases number 1 ... 9999 and that's before we get on to the post office} when has there ever been a miscarriage of justice? NEVER! Oh and Evans and the Birmingham six and ...
Ordinary ales in my branch are £2.74 a pint, regardless of strength. A couple of 7% stouts for £5.48 might be the better bet for the drinker on a budget.
Though given the manner in which PSR is being applied by PL and circumnavigated by the richer clubs, it seems to be increasingly pointless and unfair on the smaller/less successful clubs.