Osborne's raid on middle England's pensions gets top billing in the Mail today.
He is in serious trouble.
I wonder why it's been trailed so heavily?
This is Osborne throwing his tin helmet above the trench to see how much fire there is and where it's coming from. If he was serious then it wouldn't have leaked. He will 'listen' if it's too much.
I expect 45p relief to definitely go for top rate taxpayers and possibly a flat rate of 30p with some jiggery pokery to ensure that earners between 43-80k on offsetting tax allowances so they don't lose out too much.
Trailed? I'm not sure. Osborne in the past has had a tin ear for the political consequences of otherwise rational changes proposed by the Treasury; why should this be different? It would be interesting to chart its passage through the media. Was it Antifrank@PB followed by the FT last week followed by the Mail, or does that do Fleet Street a disservice?
This has been 'trailed' for months. Steve Webb, ex-pensions minister, has been talking about this occasionally in the newspapers since leaving office.
I doubt Osborne will do it in the end. There's been talk of removing higher rate pension relief for as long as I've been interested in politics and yet nobody ever has the nerve to actually do it.
I'm still paying into a pension and I support this, although it would cost me personally. I have won from the recent changes re annuities, so I will be happy later.
There is a better argument to give those earning below the 40% threshold a larger tax relief as they can not afford such large contributions. We should encourage them to contribute with incentives, it will have a greater proportional effect on the standard of living they enjoy in old age. Those on the higher rate should have relief at the lower rate.
Tough on those who only just get into the higher rate, but fair in my opinion.
Osborne's raid on middle England's pensions gets top billing in the Mail today.
He is in serious trouble.
@Theuniondivvie listen to the programme. You will be surprised. It was a study, whichever or whenever it was, and no "oh things are much better now" really could or should negate, you know, a study.
More or Less is a great programme and usually doesn't shirk from probing and often dismantling prevailing myths. I think it probably tried to do that with the 20%/stroke stat (it has certainly done it about weekend mortality in general) but sadly found that it was accurate.
Is the fact that you are 20% more likely to die if you are admitted to hospital at the weekend with a stroke sufficient to determine the outcome of the junior doctors' dispute? Probably not, but it is all part of the 7-day NHS story so Cam can be forgiven for using it.
I did listen to it. I guess we all hear what we want to hear, but their conclusion seemed a lot more..well..inconclusive than you suggest.
The study data was more than 5 years old and which was confirmed by Charlotte McDonald, one of the presenters not a 'whining doctor', therefore you are statistically 20% more likely to die from a stroke if you are admitted to hospital at the weekend only if you can invent a time machine.
Did she quote the study that refuted and updated that one?
''Unless you've been asleep, there is no credible Opposition. The wreckage is busy squabbling over whether we have submarines armed with potato guns, or flags that spell 'Bang'.''
Correct, but I am advocating we replace George Osborne with a conservative.
In 2015 there was a huge change in the way people register to vote thanks to the introduction of Individual Electoral Registration. The polling companies made no changes to their methodology - in particular no effort was made to check whether respondents were registered to vote (in contrast for example to the US).
It's quite possible that the unforeseen difficulties with IER and the failure of the polling companies to react to it helped upset the polling applecart.
Osborne's raid on middle England's pensions gets top billing in the Mail today.
He is in serious trouble.
I wonder why it's been trailed so heavily?
This is Osborne throwing his tin helmet above the trench to see how much fire there is and where it's coming from. If he was serious then it wouldn't have leaked. He will 'listen' if it's too much.
I expect 45p relief to definitely go for top rate taxpayers and possibly a flat rate of 30p with some jiggery pokery to ensure that earners between 43-80k on offsetting tax allowances so they don't lose out too much.
Trailed? I'm not sure. Osborne in the past has had a tin ear for the political consequences of otherwise rational changes proposed by the Treasury; why should this be different? It would be interesting to chart its passage through the media. Was it Antifrank@PB followed by the FT last week followed by the Mail, or does that do Fleet Street a disservice?
This has been 'trailed' for months. Steve Webb, ex-pensions minister, has been talking about this occasionally in the newspapers since leaving office.
I doubt Osborne will do it in the end. There's been talk of removing higher rate pension relief for as long as I've been interested in politics and yet nobody ever has the nerve to actually do it.
I'm still paying into a pension and I support this, although it would cost me personally. I have won from the recent changes re annuities, so I will be happy later.
There is a better argument to give those earning below the 40% threshold a larger tax relief as they can not afford such large contributions. We should encourage them to contribute with incentives, it will have a greater proportional effect on the standard of living they enjoy in old age. Those on the higher rate should have relief at the lower rate.
Tough on those who only just get into the higher rate, but fair in my opinion.
I think you make a fair point. People who do not save end up costing the taxpayer in the long run. Some sort of big bang event would perhaps be best, but there would inevitably be losers. We do need to encourage pensions. Tax efficiency ought not to be the driver for savings. But that in turn is driven by high taxes and low thresholds
Osborne's raid on middle England's pensions gets top billing in the Mail today.
He is in serious trouble.
I wonder why it's been trailed so heavily?
This is Osborne throwing his tin helmet above the trench to see how much fire there is and where it's coming from. If he was serious then it wouldn't have leaked. He will 'listen' if it's too much.
I expect 45p relief to definitely go for top rate taxpayers and possibly a flat rate of 30p with some jiggery pokery to ensure that earners between 43-80k on offsetting tax allowances so they don't lose out too much.
Trailed? I'm not sure. Osborne in the past has had a tin ear for the political consequences of otherwise rational changes proposed by the Treasury; why should this be different? It would be interesting to chart its passage through the media. Was it Antifrank@PB followed by the FT last week followed by the Mail, or does that do Fleet Street a disservice?
This has been 'trailed' for months. Steve Webb, ex-pensions minister, has been talking about this occasionally in the newspapers since leaving office.
I doubt Osborne will do it in the end. There's been talk of removing higher rate pension relief for as long as I've been interested in politics and yet nobody ever has the nerve to actually do it.
Just like MIRAS eh? No one would dare abolish Mortgage Interest relief in our property owning democracy.
This is coming and those lucky enough to have a few quid for pensions might want to think about how soon they pay them in.
Osborne's raid on middle England's pensions gets top billing in the Mail today.
He is in serious trouble.
There is no raid. Osborne has made life better for middle England pensioners by changing the rules on pension pots and giving more flexibility. What is being suggested is taxing contributions but not taxing the pension itself.
Indeed - and removing the higher rate tax relief is long overdue and fair.
No it isn't. It's just another tax increase.
Paying income tax at 40% certainly doesn't make you rich.
Osborne's raid on middle England's pensions gets top billing in the Mail today.
He is in serious trouble.
@Theuniondivvie listen to the programme. You will be surprised. It was a study, whichever or whenever it was, and no "oh things are much better now" really could or should negate, you know, a study.
More or Less is a great programme and usually doesn't shirk from probing and often dismantling prevailing myths. I think it probably tried to do that with the 20%/stroke stat (it has certainly done it about weekend mortality in general) but sadly found that it was accurate.
Is the fact that you are 20% more likely to die if you are admitted to hospital at the weekend with a stroke sufficient to determine the outcome of the junior doctors' dispute? Probably not, but it is all part of the 7-day NHS story so Cam can be forgiven for using it.
I did listen to it. I guess we all hear what we want to hear, but their conclusion seemed a lot more..well..inconclusive than you suggest.
The study data was more than 5 years old and which was confirmed by Charlotte McDonald, one of the presenters not a 'whining doctor', therefore you are statistically 20% more likely to die from a stroke if you are admitted to hospital at the weekend only if you can invent a time machine.
Did she quote the study that refuted and updated that one?
Refuted the 5 year old William Palmer study that said you're 20% more likely to die from a stroke if you are admitted to hospital at the weekend? Well, she did mention another researcher that said it was the case mix that really mattered relating to weekend admissions, and that lack of specialist nurses may also be a major factor for these stroke outcomes.
Osborne's raid on middle England's pensions gets top billing in the Mail today.
He is in serious trouble.
I wonder why it's been trailed so heavily?
This is Osborne throwing his tin helmet above the trench to see how much fire there is and where it's coming from. If he was serious then it wouldn't have leaked. He will 'listen' if it's too much.
I expect 45p relief to definitely go for top rate taxpayers and possibly a flat rate of 30p with some jiggery pokery to ensure that earners between 43-80k on offsetting tax allowances so they don't lose out too much.
Trailed? I'm not sure. Osborne in the past has had a tin ear for the political consequences of otherwise rational changes proposed by the Treasury; why should this be different? It would be interesting to chart its passage through the media. Was it Antifrank@PB followed by the FT last week followed by the Mail, or does that do Fleet Street a disservice?
This has been 'trailed' for months. Steve Webb, ex-pensions minister, has been talking about this occasionally in the newspapers since leaving office.
I doubt Osborne will do it in the end. There's been talk of removing higher rate pension relief for as long as I've been interested in politics and yet nobody ever has the nerve to actually do it.
Just like MIRAS eh? No one would dare abolish Mortgage Interest relief in our property owning democracy.
This is coming and those lucky enough to have a few quid for pensions might want to think about how soon they pay them in.
They might wonder whether it's worth bothering with a private pension at all.
Osborne's raid on middle England's pensions gets top billing in the Mail today.
He is in serious trouble.
There is no raid. Osborne has made life better for middle England pensioners by changing the rules on pension pots and giving more flexibility. What is being suggested is taxing contributions but not taxing the pension itself.
That's fantastic spin. I would be heavily affected by these changes and stand to lose tens of thousands of pounds over the remainder of my working life. Nothing will offset that.
It's called a stealth tax for a reason.
You must be getting too much tax relief then, thatys why George has changed it. Frankly, rich people getting 40% tax relief was always something that had to go.. Now I am not affected any more I am happy to support the measure!
So you think anyone earning over £43k a year is rich?
well richer than I am.. and in any case its more than that, add 15% to that for the tax relief
That's where the 40p tax band kicks in. This would hit many middle earners between 40-70k doing jobs like teaching, middle management, hospital work, and in the service sector. There will be plenty more who aspire to that who won't be happy.
Consider someone on £60k. At the moment pensions contributions at 5% salary and matched by 5% from the employer would net £6k of contributions a year, well below the £40k annual cap.
On the new proposals for 25% relief, they would be a clear loser.
It's an eye-opener to see Conservative supporters filled with resentment towards people in that income bracket.
Osborne's raid on middle England's pensions gets top billing in the Mail today.
He is in serious trouble.
I wonder why it's been trailed so heavily?
This is Osborne throwing his tin helmet above the trench to see how much fire there is and where it's coming from. If he was serious then it wouldn't have leaked. He will 'listen' if it's too much.
I expect 45p relief to definitely go for top rate taxpayers and possibly a flat rate of 30p with some jiggery pokery to ensure that earners between 43-80k on offsetting tax allowances so they don't lose out too much.
Trailed? I'm not sure. Osborne in the past has had a tin ear for the political consequences of otherwise rational changes proposed by the Treasury; why should this be different? It would be interesting to chart its passage through the media. Was it Antifrank@PB followed by the FT last week followed by the Mail, or does that do Fleet Street a disservice?
This has been 'trailed' for months. Steve Webb, ex-pensions minister, has been talking about this occasionally in the newspapers since leaving office.
I doubt Osborne will do it in the end. There's been talk of removing higher rate pension relief for as long as I've been interested in politics and yet nobody ever has the nerve to actually do it.
Just like MIRAS eh? No one would dare abolish Mortgage Interest relief in our property owning democracy.
This is coming and those lucky enough to have a few quid for pensions might want to think about how soon they pay them in.
One wonders how anyone can save for their retirement. Returns are terrible. Osborne's clobbered the landlords saving through BTL, small businesses and now this.
One thing I noted is that someone on the official UK poverty line, a single adult, no kids, earning £13k a year, is in the world's richest ten percent, and making 12 times the global average.
The UK's poor, officially speaking, are, in global terms, rich.
Top 1% on my teacher pension alone - before counting any savings or property! Wow.
Have I missed some announcement by Osborne about pensions, or are people getting their moans in early on the off-chance that he might make an announcement they don't like?
Osborne's raid on middle England's pensions gets top billing in the Mail today.
He is in serious trouble.
I wonder why it's been trailed so heavily?
This is Osborne throwing his tin helmet above the trench to see how much fire there is and where it's coming from. If he was serious then it wouldn't have leaked. He will 'listen' if it's too much.
I expect 45p relief to definitely go for top rate taxpayers and possibly a flat rate of 30p with some jiggery pokery to ensure that earners between 43-80k on offsetting tax allowances so they don't lose out too much.
Trailed? I'm not sure. Osborne in the past has had a tin ear for the political consequences of otherwise rational changes proposed by the Treasury; why should this be different? It would be interesting to chart its passage through the media. Was it Antifrank@PB followed by the FT last week followed by the Mail, or does that do Fleet Street a disservice?
This has been 'trailed' for months. Steve Webb, ex-pensions minister, has been talking about this occasionally in the newspapers since leaving office.
I doubt Osborne will do it in the end. There's been talk of removing higher rate pension relief for as long as I've been interested in politics and yet nobody ever has the nerve to actually do it.
Just like MIRAS eh? No one would dare abolish Mortgage Interest relief in our property owning democracy.
This is coming and those lucky enough to have a few quid for pensions might want to think about how soon they pay them in.
They might wonder whether it's worth bothering with a private pension at all.
Hardly. Probably better off saving elsewhere now. Or just dying before 65.
''They might wonder whether it's worth bothering with a private pension at all.''
Absolutely. Give money over to some reckless 28-year old whose only real interest is where his next Ferrari and toot of coke are coming from?? with no tax breaks??? No way.
Osborne is not a conservative. His last budget showed that in spades.
Having spent 26 billion, he is now after the aspirational middle class for money.
Osborne's raid on middle England's pensions gets top billing in the Mail today.
He is in serious trouble.
There is no raid. Osborne has made life better for middle England pensioners by changing the rules on pension pots and giving more flexibility. What is being suggested is taxing contributions but not taxing the pension itself.
That's fantastic spin. I would be heavily affected by these changes and stand to lose tens of thousands of pounds over the remainder of my working life. Nothing will offset that.
It's called a stealth tax for a reason.
You must be getting too much tax relief then, thatys why George has changed it. Frankly, rich people getting 40% tax relief was always something that had to go.. Now I am not affected any more I am happy to support the measure!
So you think anyone earning over £43k a year is rich?
43k a year is more than 50% above the average. There is no reason to give them extra subsidies for pension payments.
There is no extra subsidy. This is removing existing reliefs from people working hard trying to do the right thing for their retirement.
You may well point out £43k is above the national average. I may point out that it doesn't go very far for aspirational workers in the south east paying £3-5k a year for a season ticket who are heavily mortgaged, and also trying to repay student loans.
We have a pensions savings crisis as it is. These proposals will make it worse and hit plenty of people in marginal seats.
Which is why I don't think they will be as advertised.
There are plenty working hard on half of 43k a year and it is right to focus on them in giving tax relief. If you choose to work in the southeast you live with the extra costs and benefit from the higher wages.
Have I missed some announcement by Osborne about pensions, or are people getting their moans in on the off-chance that he might make an announcement they don't like?
Just like MIRAS eh? No one would dare abolish Mortgage Interest relief in our property owning democracy.
This is coming and those lucky enough to have a few quid for pensions might want to think about how soon they pay them in.
One wonders how anyone can save for their retirement. Returns are terrible. Osborne's clobbered the landlords saving through BTL, small businesses and now this.
With a credible leader, Labour could win in 2020.
One wonders how anyone can save for their retirement. Returns are terrible. Osborne's clobbered the landlords saving through BTL, small businesses and now this.
With a credible leader, Labour could win in 2020
I said:
No they couldn't in the same way that the Tories could not win whilst Blair hogged the centre ground making the Tories look more right wing than they were.
You have to appreciate that Osborne is not going to do this because he is a nasty person who has a public sector pension himself. He is doing this because a HRT who gets the maximum pot of £1.4m (coming down) has saved, at 40%, £560K worth of tax. It is a staggering figure and frankly not affordable. I personally also question the morality of such relief at a time when benefits are being cut because there is no money.
The last point is key. Would such a hypothetical Labour government spend more or less? Tax more or less? Want to penalise the well off more or less? The choice is between bad and awful. As usual.
One thing I noted is that someone on the official UK poverty line, a single adult, no kids, earning £13k a year, is in the world's richest ten percent, and making 12 times the global average.
The UK's poor, officially speaking, are, in global terms, rich.
Top 1% on my teacher pension alone - before counting any savings or property! Wow.
Apparently, owning £573,000 puts you in the top 1% worldwide, £50,000 puts you in the top 10%.
Of course, the statistic's meaningless, given variances in property prices around the world. £573,000 will buy you a nice flat in central London. In Sri Lanka or Philippines, it would buy you an estate.
"The campaign to leave the European Union will be led by a Tory cabinet minister, former chancellor Lord Lawson said, as a new poll gave a six-point lead to the “Out” side.
The peer, who is president of Conservatives for Britain, a Eurosceptic group, said on Sunday he would not reveal the identity of the senior minister but it would emerge “in due course”."
In that case, I wonder if it might not be Theresa May. I think she'll wait until the outcome of the renegotiation.
I very much doubt it will be either IDS or Grayling. It obviously can't be Fox.
It could be Theresa Villiers, Whittingdale or Patel. Javid perhaps if Osborne is being particularly canny and has given him licence to dissent.
Or possibly even Greg Hands..
Is this the same Lord Lawson that secretly shadowed the deuchmark?
Yes, and your point is?
Lord Lawson has a history of being spectacularly wrong on the EU unlike Nick Herbert who opposed the Euro as Chief Exec of Business for Sterling.
Full disclosure. I've met Nick Herbert, top bloke. My kind of Tory and should be in the cabinet.
I have met Nick Herbert on more than one occasion and corresponded with him too, he is my MP. Very soon after he was first elected to Parliament he developed a serious case of SafeSeatitis which has only got worse in subsequent years. That said, I found him personally a very nice chap and politically very astute.
Probably the reason why he is not in the cabinet is that he couldn't hack the pressure as police minister. A lot of that pressure was straightforward, disgusting homophobia from the police representatives at all levels, not just the oiks in the Federation. It is to Herbert's credit that he has never gone public with what happened to him and the fact that Cameron refused to give him any support. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen was, essentially, Cameron's response.
Osborne's raid on middle England's pensions gets top billing in the Mail today.
He is in serious trouble.
There is no raid. Osborne has made life better for middle England pensioners by changing the rules on pension pots and giving more flexibility. What is being suggested is taxing contributions but not taxing the pension itself.
Indeed - and removing the higher rate tax relief is long overdue and fair.
No it isn't. It's just another tax increase.
Paying income tax at 40% certainly doesn't make you rich.
It makes you a lot richer than most which is the key point here. It is the lower paid who need the biggest incentive to save.
One thing I noted is that someone on the official UK poverty line, a single adult, no kids, earning £13k a year, is in the world's richest ten percent, and making 12 times the global average.
The UK's poor, officially speaking, are, in global terms, rich.
Top 1% on my teacher pension alone - before counting any savings or property! Wow.
Incredible, isn't it?
We forget how fantastically wealthy the UK is (likewise the rest of the US, western Europe, east Asia), compared to the great majority of the globe.
And it's not like extreme poverty is restricted to Africa and south Asia, south America, etc
The other day I read a tweet pointing out that a new teacher in Ukraine earns £55 a MONTH - that's £14 a week, £2 a day. In the Ukraine.
I am always surprised how low pay is in places like Argentina. Highly skilled professionals like doctors make peanuts in a country we think as "developed".
Osborne's raid on middle England's pensions gets top billing in the Mail today.
He is in serious trouble.
There is no raid. Osborne has made life better for middle England pensioners by changing the rules on pension pots and giving more flexibility. What is being suggested is taxing contributions but not taxing the pension itself.
That's fantastic spin. I would be heavily affected by these changes and stand to lose tens of thousands of pounds over the remainder of my working life. Nothing will offset that.
It's called a stealth tax for a reason.
Don't bother engaging with flightpath01, he or she has got to be a paid astroturfer.
I find it hard to believe political parties would waste resources on paying people to talk them up. It seems much easier to rely on enthusiastic amateurs, they are much better at that sort og thing and who also cannot be traced back to party HQ, who are not accountable if they cross a line beyond the occasional 'let us all be respectful now, and that includes our supporters'.
No they couldn't in the same way that the Tories could not win whilst Blair hogged the centre ground making the Tories look more right wing than they were.
You have to appreciate that Osborne is not going to do this because he is a nasty person who has a public sector pension himself. He is doing this because a HRT who gets the maximum pot of £1.4m (coming down) has saved, at 40%, £560K worth of tax. It is a staggering figure and frankly not affordable. I personally also question the morality of such relief at a time when benefits are being cut because there is no money.
The last point is key. Would such a hypothetical Labour government spend more or less? Tax more or less? Want to penalise the well off more or less? The choice is between bad and awful. As usual.
I think Labour could win with a credible leader, but not because of this.
Well, we'll have to see what, if anything, transpires. As I said at the time, I'm fairly sceptical - the practical problems would be immense, not least how you deal with final-salary schemes. Any change of the dramatic sort Alastair was discussing is not going to happen very quickly, and as always the devil is in the detail. What's the point of moaning about speculation?
Instead of moaning, my advice is take as much advantage of the tax relief before April as you can. The one certainty in the discussion is that tax treatment on pensions, for the higher-paid, is not going to get more generous.
Osborne's raid on middle England's pensions gets top billing in the Mail today.
He is in serious trouble.
There is no raid. Osborne has made life better for middle England pensioners by changing the rules on pension pots and giving more flexibility. What is being suggested is taxing contributions but not taxing the pension itself.
That's fantastic spin. I would be heavily affected by these changes and stand to lose tens of thousands of pounds over the remainder of my working life. Nothing will offset that.
It's called a stealth tax for a reason.
You must be getting too much tax relief then, thatys why George has changed it. Frankly, rich people getting 40% tax relief was always something that had to go.. Now I am not affected any more I am happy to support the measure!
So you think anyone earning over £43k a year is rich?
well richer than I am.. and in any case its more than that, add 15% to that for the tax relief
That's where the 40p tax band kicks in. This would hit many middle earners between 40-70k doing jobs like teaching, middle management, hospital work, and in the service sector. There will be plenty more who aspire to that who won't be happy.
Consider someone on £60k. At the moment pensions contributions at 5% salary and matched by 5% from the employer would net £6k of contributions a year, well below the £40k annual cap.
On the new proposals for 25% relief, they would be a clear loser.
It's an eye-opener to see Conservative supporters filled with resentment towards people in that income bracket.
It's an eye opener to see kippers blatantly supporting extras for the better off.
There's a body of evidence that shows that the size of a tax break is less important for changing behaviours than the existence of that tax break. The Treasury is well aware of this.
One thing I noted is that someone on the official UK poverty line, a single adult, no kids, earning £13k a year, is in the world's richest ten percent, and making 12 times the global average.
The UK's poor, officially speaking, are, in global terms, rich.
Top 1% on my teacher pension alone - before counting any savings or property! Wow.
Really? £100K after tax in the UK puts you in the top 1.3% of the world.
It says that if someone on £100K after tax donated 10% (presumably £10K although I am not sure what they are doing about tax relief) you are still in the top 1.7% so that is presumably £90K.
Osborne's raid on middle England's pensions gets top billing in the Mail today.
He is in serious trouble.
There is no raid. Osborne has made life better for middle England pensioners by changing the rules on pension pots and giving more flexibility. What is being suggested is taxing contributions but not taxing the pension itself.
That's fantastic spin. I would be heavily affected by these changes and stand to lose tens of thousands of pounds over the remainder of my working life. Nothing will offset that.
It's called a stealth tax for a reason.
You must be getting too much tax relief then, thatys why George has changed it. Frankly, rich people getting 40% tax relief was always something that had to go.. Now I am not affected any more I am happy to support the measure!
So you think anyone earning over £43k a year is rich?
well richer than I am.. and in any case its more than that, add 15% to that for the tax relief
That's where the 40p tax band kicks in. This would hit many middle earners between 40-70k doing jobs like teaching, middle management, hospital work, and in the service sector. There will be plenty more who aspire to that who won't be happy.
Consider someone on £60k. At the moment pensions contributions at 5% salary and matched by 5% from the employer would net £6k of contributions a year, well below the £40k annual cap.
On the new proposals for 25% relief, they would be a clear loser.
It's an eye-opener to see Conservative supporters filled with resentment towards people in that income bracket.
It's an eye opener to see kippers blatantly supporting extras for the better off.
'I am always surprised how low pay is in places like Argentina. Highly skilled professionals like doctors make peanuts in a country we think as "developed".'
If you think that about Argentina you are about 80 years out of date I'm afraid.
One thing I noted is that someone on the official UK poverty line, a single adult, no kids, earning £13k a year, is in the world's richest ten percent, and making 12 times the global average.
The UK's poor, officially speaking, are, in global terms, rich.
Top 1% on my teacher pension alone - before counting any savings or property! Wow.
The authors of that site need to brush up on their Dickens. Mr Micawber realised quite rightly that it is income relative to outgoings which is the stat that matters.
It's useless earning in the top 10% globally with UK costs. It is meaningless. Or the other way round, incomes which would make you poor here may allow you to live very comfortably in other places.
One thing I noted is that someone on the official UK poverty line, a single adult, no kids, earning £13k a year, is in the world's richest ten percent, and making 12 times the global average.
The UK's poor, officially speaking, are, in global terms, rich.
Top 1% on my teacher pension alone - before counting any savings or property! Wow.
Really? £100K after tax in the UK puts you in the top 1.3% of the world.
It says that if someone on £100K after tax donated 10% (presumably £10K although I am not sure what they are doing about tax relief) you are still in the top 1.7% so that is presumably £90K.
Am I doing this wrong?
It's household wealth, not personal wealth - so adding spouse and kids will create varying results?
Its household income rather than wealth but you are right. I had put in dependents.
Edit. Removing 2 children from the £100K puts you in the top 0.3%.
In 2015 there was a huge change in the way people register to vote thanks to the introduction of Individual Electoral Registration. The polling companies made no changes to their methodology - in particular no effort was made to check whether respondents were registered to vote (in contrast for example to the US).
It's quite possible that the unforeseen difficulties with IER and the failure of the polling companies to react to it helped upset the polling applecart.
My suggestion is that polling companies should throw their databases in the bin and solely recruit from people leaving polling booths on GE day. Perhaps include a few that claim to have voted by post at least 2 weeks prior to the date of the election.
Osborne's raid on middle England's pensions gets top billing in the Mail today.
He is in serious trouble.
@Theuniondivvie listen to the programme. You will be surprised. It was a study, whichever or whenever it was, and no "oh things are much better now" really could or should negate, you know, a study.
More or Less is a great programme and usually doesn't shirk from probing and often dismantling prevailing myths. I think it probably tried to do that with the 20%/stroke stat (it has certainly done it about weekend mortality in general) but sadly found that it was accurate.
Is the fact that you are 20% more likely to die if you are admitted to hospital at the weekend with a stroke sufficient to determine the outcome of the junior doctors' dispute? Probably not, but it is all part of the 7-day NHS story so Cam can be forgiven for using it.
I did listen to it. I guess we all hear what we want to hear, but their conclusion seemed a lot more..well..inconclusive than you suggest.
The study data was more than 5 years old which was confirmed by Charlotte McDonald, one of the presenters not a 'whining doctor', therefore you are statistically 20% more likely to die from a stroke if you are admitted to hospital at the weekend only if you can invent a time machine.
From what I have heard the junior doctors accept that mortality rates are worse at the weekend.
However, they don't agree that it is due to fewer junior doctors on duty at the weekend and that changing the weekend shifts of junior doctors is the solution.
Osborne's raid on middle England's pensions gets top billing in the Mail today.
He is in serious trouble.
There is no raid. Osborne has made life better for middle England pensioners by changing the rules on pension pots and giving more flexibility. What is being suggested is taxing contributions but not taxing the pension itself.
That's fantastic spin. I would be heavily affected by these changes and stand to lose tens of thousands of pounds over the remainder of my working life. Nothing will offset that.
It's called a stealth tax for a reason.
You must be getting too much tax relief then, thatys why George has changed it. Frankly, rich people getting 40% tax relief was always something that had to go.. Now I am not affected any more I am happy to support the measure!
So you think anyone earning over £43k a year is rich?
43k a year is more than 50% above the average. There is no reason to give them extra subsidies for pension payments.
There is no extra subsidy. This is removing existing reliefs from people working hard trying to do the right thing for their retirement.
You may well point out £43k is above the national average. I may point out that it doesn't go very far for aspirational workers in the south east paying £3-5k a year for a season ticket who are heavily mortgaged, and also trying to repay student loans.
We have a pensions savings crisis as it is. These proposals will make it worse and hit plenty of people in marginal seats.
Which is why I don't think they will be as advertised.
There are plenty working hard on half of 43k a year and it is right to focus on them in giving tax relief. If you choose to work in the southeast you live with the extra costs and benefit from the higher wages.
This is a very left-wing argument.
Conservatives belief in aspiration: people working hard, getting on, and being rewarded for it. They do not agree that those who have climbed half-way up the ladder and are trying to do the best for themselves, their families and communities should have a run removed to subsidise others.
One thing I noted is that someone on the official UK poverty line, a single adult, no kids, earning £13k a year, is in the world's richest ten percent, and making 12 times the global average.
The UK's poor, officially speaking, are, in global terms, rich.
Top 1% on my teacher pension alone - before counting any savings or property! Wow.
Really? £100K after tax in the UK puts you in the top 1.3% of the world.
It says that if someone on £100K after tax donated 10% (presumably £10K although I am not sure what they are doing about tax relief) you are still in the top 1.7% so that is presumably £90K.
Am I doing this wrong?
It's household wealth, not personal wealth - so adding spouse and kids will create varying results?
Yes. As I am a single-person household it puts me in the top 0.9% on less than that (sadly )
One thing I noted is that someone on the official UK poverty line, a single adult, no kids, earning £13k a year, is in the world's richest ten percent, and making 12 times the global average.
The UK's poor, officially speaking, are, in global terms, rich.
Top 1% on my teacher pension alone - before counting any savings or property! Wow.
Incredible, isn't it?
We forget how fantastically wealthy the UK is (likewise the rest of the US, western Europe, east Asia), compared to the great majority of the globe.
And it's not like extreme poverty is restricted to Africa and south Asia, south America, etc
The other day I read a tweet pointing out that a new teacher in Ukraine earns £55 a MONTH - that's £14 a week, £2 a day. In the Ukraine.
I am always surprised how low pay is in places like Argentina. Highly skilled professionals like doctors make peanuts in a country we think as "developed".
Two thoughts on this: it's thoroughly misleading if it doesnt consider purchasing power parity considerations. Second, if you think that, other than in a few countries, declared income for tax purposes equals actual income....
Well if you would prefer the SNP policy to be based on reparations to put right Scotland's economic position and put it on parity to Norway, the point is still moot. Either Scotland is given the money stolen and joins Norway as one of the worlds super-wealthy country, or it does not and spends an average level on Military expenditure.
Neither is a bad thing for Scotland and neither situation is unacceptable in any way.
No money has been stolen. I am in favour of an independent Scotland but the lunatic fringe of the nationalist movement like yourself do no favours to the cause by repeating these myths.
Osborne's raid on middle England's pensions gets top billing in the Mail today.
He is in serious trouble.
There is no raid. Osborne has made life better for middle England pensioners by changing the rules on pension pots and giving more flexibility. What is being suggested is taxing contributions but not taxing the pension itself.
That's fantastic spin. I would be heavily affected by these changes and stand to lose tens of thousands of pounds over the remainder of my working life. Nothing will offset that.
It's called a stealth tax for a reason.
You must be getting too much tax relief then, thatys why George has changed it. Frankly, rich people getting 40% tax relief was always something that had to go.. Now I am not affected any more I am happy to support the measure!
So you think anyone earning over £43k a year is rich?
well richer than I am.. and in any case its more than that, add 15% to that for the tax relief
That's where the 40p tax band kicks in. This would hit many middle earners between 40-70k doing jobs like teaching, middle management, hospital work, and in the service sector. There will be plenty more who aspire to that who won't be happy.
Consider someone on £60k. At the moment pensions contributions at 5% salary and matched by 5% from the employer would net £6k of contributions a year, well below the £40k annual cap.
On the new proposals for 25% relief, they would be a clear loser.
It's an eye-opener to see Conservative supporters filled with resentment towards people in that income bracket.
It's unsurprising from those who struggle to think for themselves and take their cue on the line to take from whatever this Government proposes.
Osborne's raid on middle England's pensions gets top billing in the Mail today.
He is in serious trouble.
I wonder why it's been trailed so heavily?
This is Osborne throwing his tin helmet above the trench to see how much fire there is and where it's coming from. If he was serious then it wouldn't have leaked. He will 'listen' if it's too much.
I expect 45p relief to definitely go for top rate taxpayers and possibly a flat rate of 30p with some jiggery pokery to ensure that earners between 43-80k on offsetting tax allowances so they don't lose out too much.
Trailed? I'm not sure. Osborne in the past has had a tin ear for the political consequences of otherwise rational changes proposed by the Treasury; why should this be different? It would be interesting to chart its passage through the media. Was it Antifrank@PB followed by the FT last week followed by the Mail, or does that do Fleet Street a disservice?
This has been 'trailed' for months. Steve Webb, ex-pensions minister, has been talking about this occasionally in the newspapers since leaving office.
I doubt Osborne will do it in the end. There's been talk of removing higher rate pension relief for as long as I've been interested in politics and yet nobody ever has the nerve to actually do it.
I know next to nothing about this, but if you put money in your pension, it's deferred income isn't it?
When you draw your pension, it is subject to income tax. So taxing the contributions AND the pension when you draw it is taxing us twice surely? I have put my bonus into my company pension more than once in order to avoid the tax (and particularly to avoid having to pay back ALL my family's child benefit). I won't see that money until i retire, when it will THEN be taxed as I receive it.
Is this really what Osborne is proposing?! sheesh. Totally removes the incentive to save, might as well take the money now and may tax only once. As long as inflation stays at zero i only need invest in a mattress and the money is safe to be drawn down at 0% tax in 25 years :-)
Osborne's raid on middle England's pensions gets top billing in the Mail today.
He is in serious trouble.
There is no raid. Osborne has made life better for middle England pensioners by changing the rules on pension pots and giving more flexibility. What is being suggested is taxing contributions but not taxing the pension itself.
That's fantastic spin. I would be heavily affected by these changes and stand to lose tens of thousands of pounds over the remainder of my working life. Nothing will offset that.
It's called a stealth tax for a reason.
You must be getting too much tax relief then, thatys why George has changed it. Frankly, rich people getting 40% tax relief was always something that had to go.. Now I am not affected any more I am happy to support the measure!
So you think anyone earning over £43k a year is rich?
well richer than I am.. and in any case its more than that, add 15% to that for the tax relief
That's where the 40p tax band kicks in. This would hit many middle earners between 40-70k doing jobs like teaching, middle management, hospital work, and in the service sector. There will be plenty more who aspire to that who won't be happy.
Consider someone on £60k. At the moment pensions contributions at 5% salary and matched by 5% from the employer would net £6k of contributions a year, well below the £40k annual cap.
On the new proposals for 25% relief, they would be a clear loser.
It's an eye-opener to see Conservative supporters filled with resentment towards people in that income bracket.
It's an eye opener to see kippers blatantly supporting extras for the better off.
It's a socialist mentality to view tax reductions as "extras".
When you draw your pension, it is subject to income tax. So taxing the contributions AND the pension when you draw it is taxing us twice surely? I have put my bonus into my company pension more than once in order to avoid the tax (and particularly to avoid having to pay back ALL my family's child benefit). I won't see that money until i retire, when it will THEN be taxed as I receive it.
Is this really what Osborne is proposing?! sheesh. Totally removes the incentive to save, might as well take the money now and may tax only once. As long as inflation stays at zero i only need invest in a mattress and the money is safe to be drawn down at 0% tax in 25 years :-)
No, the suggestion is that (in the future) pensions would be from taxed income on the way in but tax free on the way out (i.e. just like an ISA). There's quite a strong body of opinion that this is a better way of doing it. However, even if one accepts that argument, getting there from here is not easy (although it would produce a nice chunky one-off windfall for the Treasury, since tax relief would effectively be deferred).
Osborne's raid on middle England's pensions gets top billing in the Mail today.
He is in serious trouble.
I wonder why it's been trailed so heavily?
This is Osborne throwing his tin helmet above the trench to see how much fire there is and where it's coming from. If he was serious then it wouldn't have leaked. He will 'listen' if it's too much.
I expect 45p relief to definitely go for top rate taxpayers and possibly a flat rate of 30p with some jiggery pokery to ensure that earners between 43-80k on offsetting tax allowances so they don't lose out too much.
Trailed? I'm not sure. Osborne in the past has had a tin ear for the political consequences of otherwise rational changes proposed by the Treasury; why should this be different? It would be interesting to chart its passage through the media. Was it Antifrank@PB followed by the FT last week followed by the Mail, or does that do Fleet Street a disservice?
This has been 'trailed' for months. Steve Webb, ex-pensions minister, has been talking about this occasionally in the newspapers since leaving office.
I doubt Osborne will do it in the end. There's been talk of removing higher rate pension relief for as long as I've been interested in politics and yet nobody ever has the nerve to actually do it.
I know next to nothing about this, but if you put money in your pension, it's deferred income isn't it?
When you draw your pension, it is subject to income tax. So taxing the contributions AND the pension when you draw it is taxing us twice surely? I have put my bonus into my company pension more than once in order to avoid the tax (and particularly to avoid having to pay back ALL my family's child benefit). I won't see that money until i retire, when it will THEN be taxed as I receive it.
Is this really what Osborne is proposing?! sheesh. Totally removes the incentive to save, might as well take the money now and may tax only once. As long as inflation stays at zero i only need invest in a mattress and the money is safe to be drawn down at 0% tax in 25 years :-)
But you still get a hefty wedge tax free - but it's not unlimited on the upside and only applies to those with very high salaries for a long time.
Not sure what the problem is - unless you are a minted public sector luvvie.
Osborne's raid on middle England's pensions gets top billing in the Mail today.
He is in serious trouble.
There is no raid. Osborne has made life better for middle England pensioners by changing the rules on pension pots and giving more flexibility. What is being suggested is taxing contributions but not taxing the pension itself.
Indeed - and removing the higher rate tax relief is long overdue and fair.
No it isn't. It's just another tax increase.
Paying income tax at 40% certainly doesn't make you rich.
Osborne has made a political calculation to retain a higher level of tax credit and welfare payments, breaching his welfare cap, and pay for it - to ensure he doesn't miss his budget surplus target - with higher taxes through reducing pension entitlements. Just like Brown, except without the deficit reduction bit.
I don't think this would have happened were it not for the election of Jeremy Corbyn and, also, I think Osborne is more sensitive than he lets on and is personally hurt by criticism of him. Like when he was booed at the Olympics.
This lets him genuflex his caring side, which I think is him partly trying to rehabilitate his public reputation.
Osborne's raid on middle England's pensions gets top billing in the Mail today.
He is in serious trouble.
There is no raid. Osborne has made life better for middle England pensioners by changing the rules on pension pots and giving more flexibility. What is being suggested is taxing contributions but not taxing the pension itself.
That's fantastic spin. I would be heavily affected by these changes and stand to lose tens of thousands of pounds over the remainder of my working life. Nothing will offset that.
It's called a stealth tax for a reason.
You must be getting too much tax relief then, thatys why George has changed it. Frankly, rich people getting 40% tax relief was always something that had to go.. Now I am not affected any more I am happy to support the measure!
So you think anyone earning over £43k a year is rich?
43k a year is more than 50% above the average. There is no reason to give them extra subsidies for pension payments.
There is no extra subsidy. This is removing existing reliefs from people working hard trying to do the right thing for their retirement.
You may well point out £43k is above the national average. I may point out that it doesn't go very far for aspirational workers in the south east paying £3-5k a year for a season ticket who are heavily mortgaged, and also trying to repay student loans.
We have a pensions savings crisis as it is. These proposals will make it worse and hit plenty of people in marginal seats.
Which is why I don't think they will be as advertised.
There are plenty working hard on half of 43k a year and it is right to focus on them in giving tax relief. If you choose to work in the southeast you live with the extra costs and benefit from the higher wages.
This is a very left-wing argument.
Conservatives belief in aspiration: people working hard, getting on, and being rewarded for it. They do not agree that those who have climbed half-way up the ladder and are trying to do the best for themselves, their families and communities should have a run removed to subsidise others.
It's a common sense middle of the road progressive conservative argument. It's also practical. Those on lowest pay have the most difficulty in saving for a pension.
We spend too much. We run a deficit that is not sustainable. So we need to spend less or tax more. Or both. I don't think the UK's problem is that it is undertaxed but that it overspends. More tax will kill economic growth. Others may argue.
But...do we anywhere have a detailed comparison of what we are now spending money on vs say 2008? I don't remember 2008 as being the death of civilisation and tumbleweed rolling down the streets. Or how about 2005? If Osborne said: 'OK. We're going to reset all spending to 2008 levels next week' then (+/- inflation and ignoring debt service) what would that mean? Doctors would get a large pay cut - but then they got an an unreasonbaly large pay rise under Gordo. In other words in precisely what areas did Gordo engorge the state that could or should now be reset to the status quo ante?
Osborne's raid on middle England's pensions gets top billing in the Mail today.
He is in serious trouble.
There is no raid. Osborne has made life better for middle England pensioners by changing the rules on pension pots and giving more flexibility. What is being suggested is taxing contributions but not taxing the pension itself.
That's fantastic spin. I would be heavily affected by these changes and stand to lose tens of thousands of pounds over the remainder of my working life. Nothing will offset that.
It's called a stealth tax for a reason.
You must be getting too much tax relief then, thatys why George has changed it. Frankly, rich people getting 40% tax relief was always something that had to go.. Now I am not affected any more I am happy to support the measure!
So you think anyone earning over £43k a year is rich?
well richer than I am.. and in any case its more than that, add 15% to that for the tax relief
That's where the 40p tax band kicks in. This would hit many middle earners between 40-70k doing jobs like teaching, middle management, hospital work, and in the service sector. There will be plenty more who aspire to that who won't be happy.
Consider someone on £60k. At the moment pensions contributions at 5% salary and matched by 5% from the employer would net £6k of contributions a year, well below the £40k annual cap.
On the new proposals for 25% relief, they would be a clear loser.
It's an eye-opener to see Conservative supporters filled with resentment towards people in that income bracket.
It's an eye opener to see kippers blatantly supporting extras for the better off.
It's a socialist mentality to view tax reductions as "extras".
The lowest paid merit the greatest encouragement to save for pension. If that is socialism I'll keep the red flag flying high and vote Conservative as always
Osborne's raid on middle England's pensions gets top billing in the Mail today.
He is in serious trouble.
I wonder why it's been trailed so heavily?
This is Osborne throwing his tin helmet above the trench to see how much fire there is and where it's coming from. If he was serious then it wouldn't have leaked. He will 'listen' if it's too much.
I expect 45p relief to definitely go for top rate taxpayers and possibly a flat rate of 30p with some jiggery pokery to ensure that earners between 43-80k on offsetting tax allowances so they don't lose out too much.
Trailed? I'm not sure. Osborne in the past has had a tin ear for the political consequences of otherwise rational changes proposed by the Treasury; why should this be different? It would be interesting to chart its passage through the media. Was it Antifrank@PB followed by the FT last week followed by the Mail, or does that do Fleet Street a disservice?
This has been 'trailed' for months. Steve Webb, ex-pensions minister, has been talking about this occasionally in the newspapers since leaving office.
I doubt Osborne will do it in the end. There's been talk of removing higher rate pension relief for as long as I've been interested in politics and yet nobody ever has the nerve to actually do it.
I know next to nothing about this, but if you put money in your pension, it's deferred income isn't it?
When you draw your pension, it is subject to income tax. So taxing the contributions AND the pension when you draw it is taxing us twice surely? I have put my bonus into my company pension more than once in order to avoid the tax (and particularly to avoid having to pay back ALL my family's child benefit). I won't see that money until i retire, when it will THEN be taxed as I receive it.
Is this really what Osborne is proposing?! sheesh. Totally removes the incentive to save, might as well take the money now and may tax only once. As long as inflation stays at zero i only need invest in a mattress and the money is safe to be drawn down at 0% tax in 25 years :-)
Lots of double taxes occur already - vat, petrol tax, Tec.
No they couldn't in the same way that the Tories could not win whilst Blair hogged the centre ground making the Tories look more right wing than they were.
You have to appreciate that Osborne is not going to do this because he is a nasty person who has a public sector pension himself. He is doing this because a HRT who gets the maximum pot of £1.4m (coming down) has saved, at 40%, £560K worth of tax. It is a staggering figure and frankly not affordable. I personally also question the morality of such relief at a time when benefits are being cut because there is no money.
The last point is key. Would such a hypothetical Labour government spend more or less? Tax more or less? Want to penalise the well off more or less? The choice is between bad and awful. As usual.
I think Labour could win with a credible leader, but not because of this.
The Tories are complacement, and Osborne is despised. They could be in for a very nasty surprise if he's leader.
Well if you would prefer the SNP policy to be based on reparations to put right Scotland's economic position and put it on parity to Norway, the point is still moot. Either Scotland is given the money stolen and joins Norway as one of the worlds super-wealthy country, or it does not and spends an average level on Military expenditure.
Neither is a bad thing for Scotland and neither situation is unacceptable in any way.
No money has been stolen. I am in favour of an independent Scotland but the lunatic fringe of the nationalist movement like yourself do no favours to the cause by repeating these myths.
The lunatic fringe also ignore the fact that Scotland has no negotiating leg to stand on. It will depend on the rUK for its trade, as well as for physical access to other countries. There is no game of negotiation hardball that Scotland could play that would not be won by the rUK.
Osborne's raid on middle England's pensions gets top billing in the Mail today.
He is in serious trouble.
There is no raid. Osborne has made life better for middle England pensioners by changing the rules on pension pots and giving more flexibility. What is being suggested is taxing contributions but not taxing the pension itself.
That's fantastic spin. I would be heavily affected by these changes and stand to lose tens of thousands of pounds over the remainder of my working life. Nothing will offset that.
It's called a stealth tax for a reason.
You must be getting too much tax relief then, thatys why George has changed it. Frankly, rich people getting 40% tax relief was always something that had to go.. Now I am not affected any more I am happy to support the measure!
So you think anyone earning over £43k a year is rich?
well richer than I am.. and in any case its more than that, add 15% to that for the tax relief
That's where the 40p tax band kicks in. This would hit many middle earners between 40-70k doing jobs like teaching, middle management, hospital work, and in the service sector. There will be plenty more who aspire to that who won't be happy.
Consider someone on £60k. At the moment pensions contributions at 5% salary and matched by 5% from the employer would net £6k of contributions a year, well below the £40k annual cap.
On the new proposals for 25% relief, they would be a clear loser.
It's an eye-opener to see Conservative supporters filled with resentment towards people in that income bracket.
It's an eye opener to see kippers blatantly supporting extras for the better off.
It's a socialist mentality to view tax reductions as "extras".
The lowest paid merit the greatest encouragement to save for pension. If that is socialism I'll keep the red flag flying high and vote Conservative as always
Hammering people earning above the average salary does nothing to help the lower paid.
When you draw your pension, it is subject to income tax. So taxing the contributions AND the pension when you draw it is taxing us twice surely?
That would clearly be unfair, and the proposal is in a nutshell to make the pension tax-free. In my case (And everyone else on a DC scheme whether basic, higher or nil tax) it would require starting a second pension.
The tricky part is how the lucky buggers on a defined benefit scheme would manage. I assume they'd start a new DB pension pot on the same terms as the old but with the tax parts swapped (As they would be for DC).
The old pensions would of course accrue and be paid on retirement.
Maybe I'm totally misunderstanding this - but this looks like those paying HRT are squawking about their perks being shaved, whilst those who earn half their income are potentially getting a better deal, or the same one.
If we want the deficit paid down, well that's one of the areas that stand out for trimming.
Public sector pensions are particularly egregious in many sectors.
Osborne's raid on middle England's pensions gets top billing in the Mail today.
He is in serious trouble.
snip
I expect 45p relief to definitely go for top rate taxpayers and possibly a flat rate of 30p with some jiggery pokery to ensure that earners between 43-80k on offsetting tax allowances so they don't lose out too much.
Trailed? I'm not sure. Osborne in the past has had a tin ear for the political consequences of otherwise rational changes proposed by the Treasury; why should this be different? It would be interesting to chart its passage through the media. Was it Antifrank@PB followed by the FT last week followed by the Mail, or does that do Fleet Street a disservice?
This has been 'trailed' for months. Steve Webb, ex-pensions minister, has been talking about this occasionally in the newspapers since leaving office.
I doubt Osborne will do it in the end. There's been talk of removing higher rate pension relief for as long as I've been interested in politics and yet nobody ever has the nerve to actually do it.
I know next to nothing about this, but if you put money in your pension, it's deferred income isn't it?
When you draw your pension, it is subject to income tax. So taxing the contributions AND the pension when you draw it is taxing us twice surely? I have put my bonus into my company pension more than once in order to avoid the tax (and particularly to avoid having to pay back ALL my family's child benefit). I won't see that money until i retire, when it will THEN be taxed as I receive it.
Is this really what Osborne is proposing?! sheesh. Totally removes the incentive to save, might as well take the money now and may tax only once. As long as inflation stays at zero i only need invest in a mattress and the money is safe to be drawn down at 0% tax in 25 years :-)
But you still get a hefty wedge tax free - but it's not unlimited on the upside and only applies to those with very high salaries for a long time.
Not sure what the problem is - unless you are a minted public sector luvvie.
No they couldn't in the same way that the Tories could not win whilst Blair hogged the centre ground making the Tories look more right wing than they were.
You have to appreciate that Osborne is not going to do this because he is a nasty person who has a public sector pension himself. He is doing this because a HRT who gets the maximum pot of £1.4m (coming down) has saved, at 40%, £560K worth of tax. It is a staggering figure and frankly not affordable. I personally also question the morality of such relief at a time when benefits are being cut because there is no money.
The last point is key. Would such a hypothetical Labour government spend more or less? Tax more or less? Want to penalise the well off more or less? The choice is between bad and awful. As usual.
I think Labour could win with a credible leader, but not because of this.
The Tories are complacement, and Osborne is despised. They could be in for a very nasty surprise if he's leader.
Not if Corbyn is in charge of Labour. A credible leader, though, would at least give Labour a decent chance to deny the Tories an overall majority.
although it would produce a nice chunky one-off windfall for the Treasury, since tax relief would effectively be deferred
Of course the Gov't should bear in mind that the 'windfall' now will be taken back by a reduction in future years. Overall due to time value of money, the Gov't is up - but it's not a completely free lunch.
I thought Conservatism was about self-reliance, aspiration and looking after your fellow man by encouraging them to do the same/respect themselves. Not protecting the interests of those with the most.
Those with the most are often Conservatives because they embody self-reliance, aspiration and respect themselves - and encourage their offspring to share their values.
Osborne's raid on middle England's pensions gets top billing in the Mail today.
He is in serious trouble.
There is no raid. Osborne has made life better for middle England pensioners by changing the rules on pension pots and giving more flexibility. What is being suggested is taxing contributions but not taxing the pension itself.
That's fantastic spin. I would be heavily affected by these changes and stand to lose tens of thousands of pounds over the remainder of my working life. Nothing will offset that.
It's called a stealth tax for a reason.
You must be getting too much tax relief then, thatys why George has changed it. Frankly, rich people getting 40% tax relief was always something that had to go.. Now I am not affected any more I am happy to support the measure!
So you think anyone earning over £43k a year is rich?
well richer than I am.. and in any case its more than that, add 15% to that for the tax relief
That's where the 40p tax band kicks in. This would hit many middle earners between 40-70k doing jobs like teaching, middle management, hospital work, and in the service sector. There will be plenty more who aspire to that who won't be happy.
Consider someone on £60k. At the moment pensions contributions at 5% salary and matched by 5% from the employer would net £6k of contributions a year, well below the £40k annual cap.
On the new proposals for 25% relief, they would be a clear loser.
It's an eye-opener to see Conservative supporters filled with resentment towards people in that income bracket.
It's an eye opener to see kippers blatantly supporting extras for the better off.
It's a socialist mentality to view tax reductions as "extras".
The lowest paid merit the greatest encouragement to save for pension. If that is socialism I'll keep the red flag flying high and vote Conservative as always
although it would produce a nice chunky one-off windfall for the Treasury, since tax relief would effectively be deferred
Of course the Gov't should bear in mind that the 'windfall' now will be taken back by a reduction in future years. Overall due to time value of money, the Gov't is up - but it's not a completely free lunch.
It's not a completely free lunch, true, but it's a free glass of champagne, since few people pay high rates of tax on their pension. And of course the bill for the lunch will be paid by some other Chancellor in the distant future.
those who earn half their income are potentially getting a better deal, or the same one.
No, I don't think the deal is any better for a basic rate taxpayer on say £20k. Say you're a cleaner so you'll basically be earning that your whole life (Or as tax thresholds are adjusted, you'll be paying basic rate). But you pay 5% into your pension pot... your annuity from the pot could very well be tax free anyway.
There is no raid. Osborne has made life better for middle England pensioners by changing the rules on pension pots and giving more flexibility. What is being suggested is taxing contributions but not taxing the pension itself.
That's fantastic spin. I would be heavily affected by these changes and stand to lose tens of thousands of pounds over the remainder of my working life. Nothing will offset that.
It's called a stealth tax for a reason.
You must be getting too much tax relief then, thatys why George has changed it. Frankly, rich people getting 40% tax relief was always something that had to go.. Now I am not affected any more I am happy to support the measure!
So you think anyone earning over £43k a year is rich?
well richer than I am.. and in any case its more than that, add 15% to that for the tax relief
That's where the 40p tax band kicks in. This would hit many middle earners between 40-70k doing jobs like teaching, middle management, hospital work, and in the service sector. There will be plenty more who aspire to that who won't be happy.
Consider someone on £60k. At the moment pensions contributions at 5% salary and matched by 5% from the employer would net £6k of contributions a year, well below the £40k annual cap.
On the new proposals for 25% relief, they would be a clear loser.
It's an eye-opener to see Conservative supporters filled with resentment towards people in that income bracket.
It's an eye opener to see kippers blatantly supporting extras for the better off.
It's a socialist mentality to view tax reductions as "extras".
The lowest paid merit the greatest encouragement to save for pension. If that is socialism I'll keep the red flag flying high and vote Conservative as always
Hammering people earning above the average salary does nothing to help the lower paid.
Depends if you call giving HRT the same tax benefit as basic rate tax payers a hammering. That implies you are already hammering the basic rate tax payer.
Reverse the position, assume in a fictitious world there was no tax relief on pension contributions, and a generous government was going to introduce them.
There is no way you would offer the biggest incentive to those who could afford to contribute most.
Osborne's raid on middle England's pensions gets top billing in the Mail today.
He is in serious trouble.
There is no raid. Osborne has made life better for middle England pensioners by changing the rules on pension pots and giving more flexibility. What is being suggested is taxing contributions but not taxing the pension itself.
That's fantastic spin. I would be heavily affected by these changes and stand to lose tens of thousands of pounds over the remainder of my working life. Nothing will offset that.
It's called a stealth tax for a reason.
You must be getting too much tax relief then, thatys why George has changed it. Frankly, rich people getting 40% tax relief was always something that had to go.. Now I am not affected any more I am happy to support the measure!
So you think anyone earning over £43k a year is rich?
well richer than I am.. and in any case its more than that, add 15% to that for the tax relief
That's where the 40p tax band kicks in. This would hit many middle earners between 40-70k doing jobs like teaching, middle management, hospital work, and in the service sector. There will be plenty more who aspire to that who won't be happy.
Consider someone on £60k. At the moment pensions contributions at 5% salary and matched by 5% from the employer would net £6k of contributions a year, well below the £40k annual cap.
On the new proposals for 25% relief, they would be a clear loser.
It's an eye-opener to see Conservative supporters filled with resentment towards people in that income bracket.
It's an eye opener to see kippers blatantly supporting extras for the better off.
It's a socialist mentality to view tax reductions as "extras".
The lowest paid merit the greatest encouragement to save for pension. If that is socialism I'll keep the red flag flying high and vote Conservative as always
Hammering people earning above the average salary does nothing to help the lower paid.
There is no raid. Osborne has made life better for middle England pensioners by changing the rules on pension pots and giving more flexibility. What is being suggested is taxing contributions but not taxing the pension itself.
nip
It's called a stealth tax for a reason.
nip
So you think anyone earning over £43k a year is rich?
well richer than I am.. and in any case its more than that, add 15% to that for the tax relief
That's where the 40p tax band kicks in. This would hit many middle earners between 40-70k doing jobs like teaching, middle management, hospital work, and in the service sector. There will be plenty more who aspire to that who won't be happy.
Consider someone on £60k. At the moment pensions contributions at 5% salary and matched by 5% from the employer would net £6k of contributions a year, well below the £40k annual cap.
On the new proposals for 25% relief, they would be a clear loser.
It's an eye-opener to see Conservative supporters filled with resentment towards people in that income bracket.
It's an eye opener to see kippers blatantly supporting extras for the better off.
It's a socialist mentality to view tax reductions as "extras".
The lowest paid merit the greatest encouragement to save for pension. If that is socialism I'll keep the red flag flying high and vote Conservative as always
Hammering people earning above the average salary does nothing to help the lower paid.
Depends if you call giving HRT the same tax benefit as basic rate tax payers a hammering. That implies you are already hammering the basic rate tax payer.
Reverse the position, assume in a fictitious world there was no tax relief on pension contributions, and a generous government was going to introduce them.
There is no way you would offer the biggest incentive to those who could afford to contribute most.
When you draw your pension, it is subject to income tax. So taxing the contributions AND the pension when you draw it is taxing us twice surely?
That would clearly be unfair, and the proposal is in a nutshell to make the pension tax-free. In my case (And everyone else on a DC scheme whether basic, higher or nil tax) it would require starting a second pension.
The tricky part is how the lucky buggers on a defined benefit scheme would manage. I assume they'd start a new DB pension pot on the same terms as the old but with the tax parts swapped (As they would be for DC).
The old pensions would of course accrue and be paid on retirement.
The issue with this, I'd have thought is one of trust and a lack of trust in politicians, who appear to see private sector pensions as a glorified sweetie jar, to not decide to tax cash out as well as cash in. The death of the tax free lump sum, while appealing to the Treasury, would be unhelpful to those relying on it as part of their retirement planning.
although it would produce a nice chunky one-off windfall for the Treasury, since tax relief would effectively be deferred
Of course the Gov't should bear in mind that the 'windfall' now will be taken back by a reduction in future years. Overall due to time value of money, the Gov't is up - but it's not a completely free lunch.
It's not a completely free lunch, true, but it's a free glass of champagne, since few people pay high rates of tax on their pension.
There is no raid. Osborne has made life better for middle England pensioners by changing the rules on pension pots and giving more flexibility. What is being suggested is taxing contributions but not taxing the pension itself.
That's fantastic spin. I would be heavily affected by these changes and stand to lose tens of thousands of pounds over the remainder of my working life. Nothing will offset that.
It's called a stealth tax for a reason.
You must be getting too much tax relief then, thatys why George has changed it. Frankly, rich people getting 40% tax relief was always something that had to go.. Now I am not affected any more I am happy to support the measure!
So you think anyone earning over £43k a year is rich?
well richer than I am.. and in any case its more than that, add 15% to that for the tax relief
On the new proposals for 25% relief, they would be a clear loser.
It's an eye-opener to see Conservative supporters filled with resentment towards people in that income bracket.
It's an eye opener to see kippers blatantly supporting extras for the better off.
It's a socialist mentality to view tax reductions as "extras".
The lowest paid merit the greatest encouragement to save for pension. If that is socialism I'll keep the red flag flying high and vote Conservative as always
Hammering people earning above the average salary does nothing to help the lower paid.
Depends if you call giving HRT the same tax benefit as basic rate tax payers a hammering. That implies you are already hammering the basic rate tax payer.
Reverse the position, assume in a fictitious world there was no tax relief on pension contributions, and a generous government was going to introduce them.
There is no way you would offer the biggest incentive to those who could afford to contribute most.
If I were starting with a blank slate, I would want there to be as few tax reliefs as possible, with marginal tax rates being kept as low as possible, in turn. But, we aren't starting with such a blank slate. This proposal is an increase in the overall tax burden, pure and simple.
although it would produce a nice chunky one-off windfall for the Treasury, since tax relief would effectively be deferred
Of course the Gov't should bear in mind that the 'windfall' now will be taken back by a reduction in future years. Overall due to time value of money, the Gov't is up - but it's not a completely free lunch.
It's not a completely free lunch, true, but it's a free glass of champagne, since few people pay high rates of tax on their pension.
Most of those junior doctors will.
Well, quite. Just imagine the outrage if they are told that they'd have to pay income tax now on the notional value of their final-salary pension scheme contributions. It would be a massive pay cut for anyone on a final-salary scheme (nowadays, largely the public sector), which is why I don't think it's politically feasible.
OTOH Alastair Meeks is in a better position than anyone else here to know, and he thinks something is probably in the offing. I wonder if perhaps it will start as an optional add-on scheme (i.e. a new type of 'Pension ISA'), with tax relief on current pensions very gradually squeezed out?
@benrileysmith: Industry source says GMB believe Corbyn non-nuclear subs idea is incoherent. "Are we going to start dishing out cricket bats for the army?”
although it would produce a nice chunky one-off windfall for the Treasury, since tax relief would effectively be deferred
Of course the Gov't should bear in mind that the 'windfall' now will be taken back by a reduction in future years. Overall due to time value of money, the Gov't is up - but it's not a completely free lunch.
It's not a completely free lunch, true, but it's a free glass of champagne, since few people pay high rates of tax on their pension.
Most of those junior doctors will.
Well, quite. Just imagine the outrage if they are told that they'd have to pay income tax now on the notional value of their final-salary pension scheme contributions. It would be a massive pay cut for anyone on a final-salary scheme (nowadays, largely the public sector), which is why I don't think it's politically feasible.
OTOH Alastair Meeks is in a better position than anyone else here to know, and he thinks something is probably in the offing. I wonder if perhaps it will start as an optional add-on scheme (i.e. a new type of 'Pension ISA'), with tax relief on current pensions very gradually squeezed out?
I think what we will see is reductions in the quantity of HRT relief available, reducing caps for the life time total relief and a longer term plan to reduce contribution relief to basic rate.
Even that sort of change is going to result in significant tax increases for the better paid on FS schemes. At the moment the notional contributions by the employer (usually the State) can amount to £30-40K a year for those earning over £100K. If that benefit was restricted to basic rate the additional tax bill could amount to £6-10K.
Possibly the most boring debate in the history of Political Betting, or indeed humanity.
PENSIONS
Can we talk about AV?
That's how people get us though, by making things so boring they can slip things through. They should make it so they can pass laws by getting people to click on the iTunes user agreement or something, they could pass anything.
As Mr Nabavi points out, having been shown the jar of boiling tar, people will be invited into the swimming pool all set at a nice, cosy 30 Celsius....
@benrileysmith: Industry source says GMB believe Corbyn non-nuclear subs idea is incoherent. "Are we going to start dishing out cricket bats for the army?”
Osborne's raid on middle England's pensions gets top billing in the Mail today.
He is in serious trouble.
@Theuniondivvie listen to the programme. You will be surprised. It was a study, whichever or whenever it was, and no "oh things are much better now" really could or should negate, you know, a study.
More or Less is a great programme and usually doesn't shirk from probing and often dismantling prevailing myths. I think it probably tried to do that with the 20%/stroke stat (it has certainly done it about weekend mortality in general) but sadly found that it was accurate.
Is the fact that you are 20% more likely to die if you are admitted to hospital at the weekend with a stroke sufficient to determine the outcome of the junior doctors' dispute? Probably not, but it is all part of the 7-day NHS story so Cam can be forgiven for using it.
I did listen to it. I guess we all hear what we want to hear, but their conclusion seemed a lot more..well..inconclusive than you suggest.
The study data was more than 5 years old and which was confirmed by Charlotte McDonald, one of the presenters not a 'whining doctor', therefore you are statistically 20% more likely to die from a stroke if you are admitted to hospital at the weekend only if you can invent a time machine.
Did she quote the study that refuted and updated that one?
Refuted the 5 year old William Palmer study that said you're 20% more likely to die from a stroke if you are admitted to hospital at the weekend? Well, she did mention another researcher that said it was the case mix that really mattered relating to weekend admissions, and that lack of specialist nurses may also be a major factor for these stroke outcomes.
Osborne's raid on middle England's pensions gets top billing in the Mail today.
He is in serious trouble.
@Theuniondivvie listen to the programme. You will be surprised. It was a study, whichever or whenever it was, and no "oh things are much better now" really could or should negate, you know, a study.
More or Less is a great programme and usually doesn't shirk from probing and often dismantling prevailing myths. I think it probably tried to do that with the 20%/stroke stat (it has certainly done it about weekend mortality in general) but sadly found that it was accurate.
Is the fact that you are 20% more likely to die if you are admitted to hospital at the weekend with a stroke sufficient to determine the outcome of the junior doctors' dispute? Probably not, but it is all part of the 7-day NHS story so Cam can be forgiven for using it.
I did listen to it. I guess we all hear what we want to hear, but their conclusion seemed a lot more..well..inconclusive than you suggest.
The study data was more than 5 years old and which was confirmed by Charlotte McDonald, one of the presenters not a 'whining doctor', therefore you are statistically 20% more likely to die from a stroke if you are admitted to hospital at the weekend only if you can invent a time machine.
Did she quote the study that refuted and updated that one?
Refuted the 5 year old William Palmer study that said you're 20% more likely to die from a stroke if you are admitted to hospital at the weekend? Well, she did mention another researcher that said it was the case mix that really mattered relating to weekend admissions, and that lack of specialist nurses may also be a major factor for these stroke outcomes.
Case mix!!!?? A stroke is a stroke. Duh...
Yeah, definitely no difference in types of strokes people have at all.
@benrileysmith: Industry source says GMB believe Corbyn non-nuclear subs idea is incoherent. "Are we going to start dishing out cricket bats for the army?”
anyone been watching the french political drama on more4 "Spin", the "bad guy" acting president reminds me of Gordon Brown. good drama if you can put up with subtitles
Comments
Is there anyone more unsuited for the role of Shadow Defence Minister, bar Corbyn and McDonnell?
There is a better argument to give those earning below the 40% threshold a larger tax relief as they can not afford such large contributions. We should encourage them to contribute with incentives, it will have a greater proportional effect on the standard of living they enjoy in old age. Those on the higher rate should have relief at the lower rate.
Tough on those who only just get into the higher rate, but fair in my opinion.
What is the normal attendance record for a leader?
It's quite possible that the unforeseen difficulties with IER and the failure of the polling companies to react to it helped upset the polling applecart.
This is coming and those lucky enough to have a few quid for pensions might want to think about how soon they pay them in.
Paying income tax at 40% certainly doesn't make you rich.
With a credible leader, Labour could win in 2020.
The Pensions Industry is another Rip Off Racket.
Absolutely. Give money over to some reckless 28-year old whose only real interest is where his next Ferrari and toot of coke are coming from?? with no tax breaks??? No way.
Osborne is not a conservative. His last budget showed that in spades.
Having spent 26 billion, he is now after the aspirational middle class for money.
To be fair, what has Corbyn got in common with the PLP? They'll just want to moan at him....
Of course, the statistic's meaningless, given variances in property prices around the world. £573,000 will buy you a nice flat in central London. In Sri Lanka or Philippines, it would buy you an estate.
Probably the reason why he is not in the cabinet is that he couldn't hack the pressure as police minister. A lot of that pressure was straightforward, disgusting homophobia from the police representatives at all levels, not just the oiks in the Federation. It is to Herbert's credit that he has never gone public with what happened to him and the fact that Cameron refused to give him any support. If you can't take the heat get out of the kitchen was, essentially, Cameron's response.
Instead of moaning, my advice is take as much advantage of the tax relief before April as you can. The one certainty in the discussion is that tax treatment on pensions, for the higher-paid, is not going to get more generous.
It says that if someone on £100K after tax donated 10% (presumably £10K although I am not sure what they are doing about tax relief) you are still in the top 1.7% so that is presumably £90K.
Am I doing this wrong?
If you think that about Argentina you are about 80 years out of date I'm afraid.
It's useless earning in the top 10% globally with UK costs. It is meaningless. Or the other way round, incomes which would make you poor here may allow you to live very comfortably in other places.
Edit. Removing 2 children from the £100K puts you in the top 0.3%.
However, they don't agree that it is due to fewer junior doctors on duty at the weekend and that changing the weekend shifts of junior doctors is the solution.
Conservatives belief in aspiration: people working hard, getting on, and being rewarded for it. They do not agree that those who have climbed half-way up the ladder and are trying to do the best for themselves, their families and communities should have a run removed to subsidise others.
When you draw your pension, it is subject to income tax. So taxing the contributions AND the pension when you draw it is taxing us twice surely? I have put my bonus into my company pension more than once in order to avoid the tax (and particularly to avoid having to pay back ALL my family's child benefit). I won't see that money until i retire, when it will THEN be taxed as I receive it.
Is this really what Osborne is proposing?! sheesh. Totally removes the incentive to save, might as well take the money now and may tax only once. As long as inflation stays at zero i only need invest in a mattress and the money is safe to be drawn down at 0% tax in 25 years :-)
Not sure what the problem is - unless you are a minted public sector luvvie.
I don't think this would have happened were it not for the election of Jeremy Corbyn and, also,
I think Osborne is more sensitive than he lets on and is personally hurt by criticism of him. Like when he was booed at the Olympics.
This lets him genuflex his caring side, which I think is him partly trying to rehabilitate his public reputation.
But...do we anywhere have a detailed comparison of what we are now spending money on vs say 2008? I don't remember 2008 as being the death of civilisation and tumbleweed rolling down the streets. Or how about 2005? If Osborne said: 'OK. We're going to reset all spending to 2008 levels next week' then (+/- inflation and ignoring debt service) what would that mean? Doctors would get a large pay cut - but then they got an an unreasonbaly large pay rise under Gordo. In other words in precisely what areas did Gordo engorge the state that could or should now be reset to the status quo ante?
The tricky part is how the lucky buggers on a defined benefit scheme would manage. I assume they'd start a new DB pension pot on the same terms as the old but with the tax parts swapped (As they would be for DC).
The old pensions would of course accrue and be paid on retirement.
If we want the deficit paid down, well that's one of the areas that stand out for trimming.
Public sector pensions are particularly egregious in many sectors.
Those with the most are often Conservatives because they embody self-reliance, aspiration and respect themselves - and encourage their offspring to share their values.
It's current workers looking to retire in 20-30 years' time, who'll be hit.
Reverse the position, assume in a fictitious world there was no tax relief on pension contributions, and a generous government was going to introduce them.
There is no way you would offer the biggest incentive to those who could afford to contribute most.
Jeremy Corbyn is no pacifist – he wants to see Britain defeated
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12105376/Jeremy-Corbyn-is-no-pacifist-he-wants-to-see-Britain-defeated.html
OTOH Alastair Meeks is in a better position than anyone else here to know, and he thinks something is probably in the offing. I wonder if perhaps it will start as an optional add-on scheme (i.e. a new type of 'Pension ISA'), with tax relief on current pensions very gradually squeezed out?
https://twitter.com/wallaceme/status/689057951965917184
@benrileysmith: Industry source says GMB believe Corbyn non-nuclear subs idea is incoherent. "Are we going to start dishing out cricket bats for the army?”
Even that sort of change is going to result in significant tax increases for the better paid on FS schemes. At the moment the notional contributions by the employer (usually the State) can amount to £30-40K a year for those earning over £100K. If that benefit was restricted to basic rate the additional tax bill could amount to £6-10K.