Okay so I'm going to be boring and return back to pensions tax relief as I missed it earlier:
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
- I think "tax relief" is better described as "tax deferral". Excluding the lump sum described above, all money paid into pensions is taxed at someone's marginal tax rate at the point of receiving their income. Which feels intuitively correct, as pension savings is deferred income. Tax it when it is realised or when it is accrued, not both. Yes some people accrued when they are on a 40% band and receive when they are on a 20% band, but that is merely a reflection of their tax bracket at the point of receiving income.
- Removal of higher-rate tax relief would probably just stop many people using the pension concept altogether. You pay 20% to 25% tax on the way in, and 20%+ on the way out, with the added bonus of future tax uncertainty and not being able to access your money if needed for 30 years or so. Far simpler to just pay the 40%/45% tax up front and put it in an stocks and shares ISA. There is no difference in end outcome (all return compounding and tax rates are multiplicative so it doesn't matter in which order they are done).
- The 25% tax free lump sum would be the only remaining marginal benefit of pension savings for higher income earners. What's the likelihood of that lasting 20-30 years?
... So I think those proposing this should realise it's a step very close to destroying the concept of a pension for many people altogether. I'm not sure that's in the long-term interest of the country.
Hmm.
Two thoughts.
1. ISAs aren't *specifically* designed as deferral systems. So what's to stop a future chancellor cancelling all ISAs? 2. They give tax relief up front and also during the duration, so not entirely different from a pension relief system.
1. ISAs are explicitly tax free systems as you pay into them out of post-tax income. Any future government retrospectively adding tax on withdrawals would effectively be implementing an arbitrary one-off wealth tax. I can imagine reducing maximum contributions in the future, but not taxing what is in there. 2. ISAs don't give tax relief up front, you pay into them out of post-tax earnings and pay no tax on withdrawals. Pensions you have no up front tax and pay tax when you receive income.
As I say, other than the tax free lump sum they are identical in premise: for one you pay tax on the way in, the other you pay tax on the way out. In neither do you pay tax when money is kept in savings.
The proposal is for a system where higher rate tax payers pay money on the way in and on the way out.
Don't be surprised if many opt out of such a system.
Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.
Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.
In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever
The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look
He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile
If it takes an act of parliament so be it
He hasn’t actually broken UK law though. The accusations are all events that took place on British soil with a woman over the age of consent.
His actions are sleazy and reprehensible, but if we started punishing people for that…
You seem to be trying to excuse him
Have you read Virginia Giuffre book ?
Does innocent until proven guilty not apply to him?
Coffee pouring fine cancelled because it was making the council look like total idiots a minor infraction with no realistic possibility of being upheld:
She breached Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, more them just caving to media pressure but the enforcement officers followed the law with the fixed penalty notice as it stands
I highly doubt most people have any idea about this law covers such an act. The sensible thing to do would have been to just say to her btw that's against the law, please don't do it again. Its not like she was pouring galloons of paint down the drain which is really what the law is really targetting. She was doing this rather than taking liquids on a bus (which Singapore bans in order to keep their public transport spotless).
Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 makes it an offence to deposit or dispose of waste in a way likely to pollute land or water, including pouring liquids into street drains.
The question is - is a quarter cup of coffee likely to pollute land or water?
Water pollution is the contamination of bodies of water, such as lakes, rivers, oceans, and groundwater, by harmful substances that degrade water quality and harm living organisms.
Does a very small amount of coffee with no grounds in it do that? If I were her lawyer I'd argue that it was not an offence if it came to court.
The (THREE) enforcement officials need training in discretion. I hope the Council will insist on that.
I suspect the officials get commission on the fines, so they go for easy pickings. A large negative commission (I.e. a penalty) should be charged on all fines that are revoked on appeal.
Surely the question is, would it be an issue if someone did it via their kitchen/bathroom sink? Clearly not in this case.
Different drainage system. I believe the street drains aren't given the same degree of treatment.
In London they are all the same drainage system.
Hence why the Thames is almost as full of shit as the board of a utility company.
The Thames is one of the cleanest rivers going through a major city in the world.
Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.
Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.
In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever
The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look
He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile
If it takes an act of parliament so be it
He hasn’t actually broken UK law though. The accusations are all events that took place on British soil with a woman over the age of consent.
His actions are sleazy and reprehensible, but if we started punishing people for that…
You seem to be trying to excuse him
Have you read Virginia Giuffre book ?
Does innocent until proven guilty not apply to him?
Innocent men often pay their accusers £12 million to shut up and drop their allegations.
Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.
Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.
In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever
The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look
He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile
If it takes an act of parliament so be it
He hasn’t actually broken UK law though. The accusations are all events that took place on British soil with a woman over the age of consent.
His actions are sleazy and reprehensible, but if we started punishing people for that…
You seem to be trying to excuse him
Have you read Virginia Giuffre book ?
Does innocent until proven guilty not apply to him?
Innocent men often pay their accusers £12 million to shut up and drop their allegations.
Yes, because there are situations in which you are trying to limit damage.
Okay so I'm going to be boring and return back to pensions tax relief as I missed it earlier:
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
- I think "tax relief" is better described as "tax deferral". Excluding the lump sum described above, all money paid into pensions is taxed at someone's marginal tax rate at the point of receiving their income. Which feels intuitively correct, as pension savings is deferred income. Tax it when it is realised or when it is accrued, not both. Yes some people accrued when they are on a 40% band and receive when they are on a 20% band, but that is merely a reflection of their tax bracket at the point of receiving income.
- Removal of higher-rate tax relief would probably just stop many people using the pension concept altogether. You pay 20% to 25% tax on the way in, and 20%+ on the way out, with the added bonus of future tax uncertainty and not being able to access your money if needed for 30 years or so. Far simpler to just pay the 40%/45% tax up front and put it in an stocks and shares ISA. There is no difference in end outcome (all return compounding and tax rates are multiplicative so it doesn't matter in which order they are done).
- The 25% tax free lump sum would be the only remaining marginal benefit of pension savings for higher income earners. What's the likelihood of that lasting 20-30 years?
... So I think those proposing this should realise it's a step very close to destroying the concept of a pension for many people altogether. I'm not sure that's in the long-term interest of the country.
I think you forget one big thing driving pension contributions: the employer contribution, which may well come with a required employee contribution or some kind of matching arrangement. If higher rate tax relief was removed I might put less in versus other options, but the employer contribution is "free money" so I would keep doing at least the minimum requirement to get that. People far enough up the income curve may also run into their ISA allowance limit, but IDK how big a slice of higher rate earners that affects.
As it is now, incidentally, for basic rate taxpayers the choice between ISA and pension is a bit of a tossup tax-wise, so the pension being only marginally beneficial for a chunk of the population is not new.
What do you think of the proposal to provide 30% relief to everyone, so basic rate taxpayers get a better deal on paying in and higher rate payers a worse one (but still better than ISAs) ?
(The thing we really want to avoid I think is people switching from a basically mostly equities by default pension to an ISA where I think many people will be likely to go for the cash ISA rather than the shares one when presented with the choice.)
I just think if you want to tax high earners more you should increase the 40% or 45% rate of income tax, not complicate pension savings.
Coffee pouring fine cancelled because it was making the council look like total idiots a minor infraction with no realistic possibility of being upheld:
She breached Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, more them just caving to media pressure but the enforcement officers followed the law with the fixed penalty notice as it stands
I highly doubt most people have any idea about this law covers such an act. The sensible thing to do would have been to just say to her btw that's against the law, please don't do it again. Its not like she was pouring galloons of paint down the drain which is really what the law is really targetting. She was doing this rather than taking liquids on a bus (which Singapore bans in order to keep their public transport spotless).
Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 makes it an offence to deposit or dispose of waste in a way likely to pollute land or water, including pouring liquids into street drains.
The question is - is a quarter cup of coffee likely to pollute land or water?
Water pollution is the contamination of bodies of water, such as lakes, rivers, oceans, and groundwater, by harmful substances that degrade water quality and harm living organisms.
Does a very small amount of coffee with no grounds in it do that? If I were her lawyer I'd argue that it was not an offence if it came to court.
The (THREE) enforcement officials need training in discretion. I hope the Council will insist on that.
I suspect the officials get commission on the fines, so they go for easy pickings. A large negative commission (I.e. a penalty) should be charged on all fines that are revoked on appeal.
Surely the question is, would it be an issue if someone did it via their kitchen/bathroom sink? Clearly not in this case.
Different drainage system. I believe the street drains aren't given the same degree of treatment.
In London they are all the same drainage system.
Hence why the Thames is almost as full of shit as the board of a utility company.
The Thames is one of the cleanest rivers going through a major city in the world.
Most of the time. It's only when there is a heavy flash flood that the system is overwhelmed and the heavy metal flaps open up into the river pouring out a mixture of rainwater and shit.
Thames Water has dumped large volumes of sewage into the Thames, with one estimate suggesting over 72 billion litres between 2020 and 2023 alone. That's about 72 million tons.
They absolutely have not realised that they are allowed to discharge in extremis and incorporated it into a working practice of storing shit up.
Grim, the biblical rain has started and wind picking up. Forecasts are awful for wind from tonight through tomorrow F8/9.
It was v sunny today and still and I watched the sea from home as the wall of cloud started rolling in from the Atlantic, was quite cool knowing what is coming in behind it.
Okay so I'm going to be boring and return back to pensions tax relief as I missed it earlier:
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
- I think "tax relief" is better described as "tax deferral". Excluding the lump sum described above, all money paid into pensions is taxed at someone's marginal tax rate at the point of receiving their income. Which feels intuitively correct, as pension savings is deferred income. Tax it when it is realised or when it is accrued, not both. Yes some people accrued when they are on a 40% band and receive when they are on a 20% band, but that is merely a reflection of their tax bracket at the point of receiving income.
- Removal of higher-rate tax relief would probably just stop many people using the pension concept altogether. You pay 20% to 25% tax on the way in, and 20%+ on the way out, with the added bonus of future tax uncertainty and not being able to access your money if needed for 30 years or so. Far simpler to just pay the 40%/45% tax up front and put it in an stocks and shares ISA. There is no difference in end outcome (all return compounding and tax rates are multiplicative so it doesn't matter in which order they are done).
- The 25% tax free lump sum would be the only remaining marginal benefit of pension savings for higher income earners. What's the likelihood of that lasting 20-30 years?
... So I think those proposing this should realise it's a step very close to destroying the concept of a pension for many people altogether. I'm not sure that's in the long-term interest of the country.
Hmm.
Two thoughts.
1. ISAs aren't *specifically* designed as deferral systems. So what's to stop a future chancellor cancelling all ISAs? 2. They give tax relief up front and also during the duration, so not entirely different from a pension relief system.
1. ISAs are explicitly tax free systems as you pay into them out of post-tax income. Any future government retrospectively adding tax on withdrawals would effectively be implementing an arbitrary one-off wealth tax. I can imagine reducing maximum contributions in the future, but not taxing what is in there. 2. ISAs don't give tax relief up front, you pay into them out of post-tax earnings and pay no tax on withdrawals. Pensions you have no up front tax and pay tax when you receive income.
As I say, other than the tax free lump sum they are identical in premise: for one you pay tax on the way in, the other you pay tax on the way out. In neither do you pay tax when money is kept in savings.
The proposal is for a system where higher rate tax payers pay money on the way in and on the way out.
Don't be surprised if many opt out of such a system.
The complication is that the current setup allows people to switch from paying tax when they are on a higher marginal rate to when they are potentially on a lower marginal rate. That specific boon isn't available to 90% of the nation.
The problem with the "on average, we're not saving enough" factor is that the average covers some people possibly saving more than is helpful and lots of people who struggle to save anything at all.
Stephen Jay Gould once headlined one of his pop science articles "The Median Is Not The Message", and he was right. About that, anyway.
Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.
Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.
In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever
The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look
He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile
If it takes an act of parliament so be it
He hasn’t actually broken UK law though. The accusations are all events that took place on British soil with a woman over the age of consent.
His actions are sleazy and reprehensible, but if we started punishing people for that…
You seem to be trying to excuse him
Have you read Virginia Giuffre book ?
Does innocent until proven guilty not apply to him?
Innocent men often pay their accusers £12 million to shut up and drop their allegations.
Do we now have to accept any out of court settlement that has been made by individuals or corporations are an admission of guilt by the settlor?
Okay so I'm going to be boring and return back to pensions tax relief as I missed it earlier:
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
- I think "tax relief" is better described as "tax deferral". Excluding the lump sum described above, all money paid into pensions is taxed at someone's marginal tax rate at the point of receiving their income. Which feels intuitively correct, as pension savings is deferred income. Tax it when it is realised or when it is accrued, not both. Yes some people accrued when they are on a 40% band and receive when they are on a 20% band, but that is merely a reflection of their tax bracket at the point of receiving income.
- Removal of higher-rate tax relief would probably just stop many people using the pension concept altogether. You pay 20% to 25% tax on the way in, and 20%+ on the way out, with the added bonus of future tax uncertainty and not being able to access your money if needed for 30 years or so. Far simpler to just pay the 40%/45% tax up front and put it in an stocks and shares ISA. There is no difference in end outcome (all return compounding and tax rates are multiplicative so it doesn't matter in which order they are done).
- The 25% tax free lump sum would be the only remaining marginal benefit of pension savings for higher income earners. What's the likelihood of that lasting 20-30 years?
... So I think those proposing this should realise it's a step very close to destroying the concept of a pension for many people altogether. I'm not sure that's in the long-term interest of the country.
Hmm.
Two thoughts.
1. ISAs aren't *specifically* designed as deferral systems. So what's to stop a future chancellor cancelling all ISAs? 2. They give tax relief up front and also during the duration, so not entirely different from a pension relief system.
1. ISAs are explicitly tax free systems as you pay into them out of post-tax income. Any future government retrospectively adding tax on withdrawals would effectively be implementing an arbitrary one-off wealth tax. I can imagine reducing maximum contributions in the future, but not taxing what is in there. 2. ISAs don't give tax relief up front, you pay into them out of post-tax earnings and pay no tax on withdrawals. Pensions you have no up front tax and pay tax when you receive income.
As I say, other than the tax free lump sum they are identical in premise: for one you pay tax on the way in, the other you pay tax on the way out. In neither do you pay tax when money is kept in savings.
The proposal is for a system where higher rate tax payers pay money on the way in and on the way out.
Don't be surprised if many opt out of such a system.
If you defer tax for 30 years whilst it is invested in shares you are saving a fortune. If higher rate taxpayers don't understand that, that will be on them. It is like interest free borrowing which can be invested. And that is not to mention that you can take 25% out tax free up to £268k.
Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.
Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.
In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever
The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look
He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile
If it takes an act of parliament so be it
He hasn’t actually broken UK law though. The accusations are all events that took place on British soil with a woman over the age of consent.
His actions are sleazy and reprehensible, but if we started punishing people for that…
You seem to be trying to excuse him
Have you read Virginia Giuffre book ?
Does innocent until proven guilty not apply to him?
Innocent men often pay their accusers £12 million to shut up and drop their allegations.
Do we now have to accept any out of court settlement that has been made by individuals or corporations are an admission of guilt by the settlor?
No, but £12m is not a typical out of court settlement. And there is corroboration he has lied.
Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.
Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.
In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever
The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look
He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile
If it takes an act of parliament so be it
He hasn’t actually broken UK law though. The accusations are all events that took place on British soil with a woman over the age of consent.
His actions are sleazy and reprehensible, but if we started punishing people for that…
You seem to be trying to excuse him
Have you read Virginia Giuffre book ?
Does innocent until proven guilty not apply to him?
Innocent men often pay their accusers £12 million to shut up and drop their allegations.
Yes, because there are situations in which you are trying to limit damage.
Hey. Welcome. I've been to the Cumberland Gap. It was interesting to me because I started out on a road trip from Bluegrass Country (Lexington) and I travelled south. I don't think there is/was a better illustration of the wealth disparity than such a road trip through KY.
Okay so I'm going to be boring and return back to pensions tax relief as I missed it earlier:
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
- I think "tax relief" is better described as "tax deferral". Excluding the lump sum described above, all money paid into pensions is taxed at someone's marginal tax rate at the point of receiving their income. Which feels intuitively correct, as pension savings is deferred income. Tax it when it is realised or when it is accrued, not both. Yes some people accrued when they are on a 40% band and receive when they are on a 20% band, but that is merely a reflection of their tax bracket at the point of receiving income.
- Removal of higher-rate tax relief would probably just stop many people using the pension concept altogether. You pay 20% to 25% tax on the way in, and 20%+ on the way out, with the added bonus of future tax uncertainty and not being able to access your money if needed for 30 years or so. Far simpler to just pay the 40%/45% tax up front and put it in an stocks and shares ISA. There is no difference in end outcome (all return compounding and tax rates are multiplicative so it doesn't matter in which order they are done).
- The 25% tax free lump sum would be the only remaining marginal benefit of pension savings for higher income earners. What's the likelihood of that lasting 20-30 years?
... So I think those proposing this should realise it's a step very close to destroying the concept of a pension for many people altogether. I'm not sure that's in the long-term interest of the country.
I think you forget one big thing driving pension contributions: the employer contribution, which may well come with a required employee contribution or some kind of matching arrangement. If higher rate tax relief was removed I might put less in versus other options, but the employer contribution is "free money" so I would keep doing at least the minimum requirement to get that. People far enough up the income curve may also run into their ISA allowance limit, but IDK how big a slice of higher rate earners that affects.
As it is now, incidentally, for basic rate taxpayers the choice between ISA and pension is a bit of a tossup tax-wise, so the pension being only marginally beneficial for a chunk of the population is not new.
What do you think of the proposal to provide 30% relief to everyone, so basic rate taxpayers get a better deal on paying in and higher rate payers a worse one (but still better than ISAs) ?
(The thing we really want to avoid I think is people switching from a basically mostly equities by default pension to an ISA where I think many people will be likely to go for the cash ISA rather than the shares one when presented with the choice.)
I just think if you want to tax high earners more you should put up the 40% or 45% rate of income tax, not complicating pension savings.
Of course, if they want to raise more money NI, VAT and income tax are the three least economically damaging ways of doing so, though screwing people over on the higher rate can have an impact. But, for some reason only they can explain they panicked at a general election, that wasnt really about tax, and blocked those routes off.
Coffee pouring fine cancelled because it was making the council look like total idiots a minor infraction with no realistic possibility of being upheld:
She breached Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, more them just caving to media pressure but the enforcement officers followed the law with the fixed penalty notice as it stands
I highly doubt most people have any idea about this law covers such an act. The sensible thing to do would have been to just say to her btw that's against the law, please don't do it again. Its not like she was pouring galloons of paint down the drain which is really what the law is really targetting. She was doing this rather than taking liquids on a bus (which Singapore bans in order to keep their public transport spotless).
Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 makes it an offence to deposit or dispose of waste in a way likely to pollute land or water, including pouring liquids into street drains.
The question is - is a quarter cup of coffee likely to pollute land or water?
Water pollution is the contamination of bodies of water, such as lakes, rivers, oceans, and groundwater, by harmful substances that degrade water quality and harm living organisms.
Does a very small amount of coffee with no grounds in it do that? If I were her lawyer I'd argue that it was not an offence if it came to court.
The (THREE) enforcement officials need training in discretion. I hope the Council will insist on that.
I suspect the officials get commission on the fines, so they go for easy pickings. A large negative commission (I.e. a penalty) should be charged on all fines that are revoked on appeal.
Surely the question is, would it be an issue if someone did it via their kitchen/bathroom sink? Clearly not in this case.
Different drainage system. I believe the street drains aren't given the same degree of treatment.
In London they are all the same drainage system.
Hence why the Thames is almost as full of shit as the board of a utility company.
The Thames is one of the cleanest rivers going through a major city in the world.
Most of the time. It's only when there is a heavy flash flood that the system is overwhelmed and the heavy metal flaps open up into the river pouring out a mixture of rainwater and shit.
Thames Water has dumped large volumes of sewage into the Thames, with one estimate suggesting over 72 billion litres between 2020 and 2023 alone. That's about 72 million tons.
There has been an exceptionally wet period, which is outside the normal. The 'sewage' isnt really what people think, its mostly just run off water.
People also forget that Andrew York was one of the most hardworking Royals, pre-fall, and would regularly be a strong second to the Princess Royal in numbers of engagements he undertook in service of his country.
I'm sure he has flaws, as do the Rolling Stones, but he was a very diligent working Royal when he was one.
Okay so I'm going to be boring and return back to pensions tax relief as I missed it earlier:
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
- I think "tax relief" is better described as "tax deferral". Excluding the lump sum described above, all money paid into pensions is taxed at someone's marginal tax rate at the point of receiving their income. Which feels intuitively correct, as pension savings is deferred income. Tax it when it is realised or when it is accrued, not both. Yes some people accrued when they are on a 40% band and receive when they are on a 20% band, but that is merely a reflection of their tax bracket at the point of receiving income.
- Removal of higher-rate tax relief would probably just stop many people using the pension concept altogether. You pay 20% to 25% tax on the way in, and 20%+ on the way out, with the added bonus of future tax uncertainty and not being able to access your money if needed for 30 years or so. Far simpler to just pay the 40%/45% tax up front and put it in an stocks and shares ISA. There is no difference in end outcome (all return compounding and tax rates are multiplicative so it doesn't matter in which order they are done).
- The 25% tax free lump sum would be the only remaining marginal benefit of pension savings for higher income earners. What's the likelihood of that lasting 20-30 years?
... So I think those proposing this should realise it's a step very close to destroying the concept of a pension for many people altogether. I'm not sure that's in the long-term interest of the country.
I can see the benefit to society in encouraging people to save say 500k to pay for retirement so the taxpayer doesnt have to for everyone.
What on earth is the benefit to society in encouraging people who already have saved 500k, or £1m to save further money? Why should we forego tax to do this?
I am yet to come up with a better answer than it suits the powers that be, who are wealthy enough to take advantage, including MPs.
Anyone?
It's generous and most of the recipients are in any case comfortably off. Keeping this at a time of fiscal difficulty would be odd from a Labour government.
Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.
Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.
In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever
The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look
He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile
If it takes an act of parliament so be it
He hasn’t actually broken UK law though. The accusations are all events that took place on British soil with a woman over the age of consent.
His actions are sleazy and reprehensible, but if we started punishing people for that…
You seem to be trying to excuse him
Have you read Virginia Giuffre book ?
Does innocent until proven guilty not apply to him?
Innocent men often pay their accusers £12 million to shut up and drop their allegations.
Do we now have to accept any out of court settlement that has been made by individuals or corporations are an admission of guilt by the settlor?
No, but £12m is not a typical out of court settlement. And there is corroboration he has lied.
Is there a handy guide for what is typical for different alleged crimes factoring who is settling? Do we have other examples of famous people settling with accusers to compare to? Or are we just saying things because Andrew is unpleasant and shitty (he really is very)?
Okay so I'm going to be boring and return back to pensions tax relief as I missed it earlier:
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
- I think "tax relief" is better described as "tax deferral". Excluding the lump sum described above, all money paid into pensions is taxed at someone's marginal tax rate at the point of receiving their income. Which feels intuitively correct, as pension savings is deferred income. Tax it when it is realised or when it is accrued, not both. Yes some people accrued when they are on a 40% band and receive when they are on a 20% band, but that is merely a reflection of their tax bracket at the point of receiving income.
- Removal of higher-rate tax relief would probably just stop many people using the pension concept altogether. You pay 20% to 25% tax on the way in, and 20%+ on the way out, with the added bonus of future tax uncertainty and not being able to access your money if needed for 30 years or so. Far simpler to just pay the 40%/45% tax up front and put it in an stocks and shares ISA. There is no difference in end outcome (all return compounding and tax rates are multiplicative so it doesn't matter in which order they are done).
- The 25% tax free lump sum would be the only remaining marginal benefit of pension savings for higher income earners. What's the likelihood of that lasting 20-30 years?
... So I think those proposing this should realise it's a step very close to destroying the concept of a pension for many people altogether. I'm not sure that's in the long-term interest of the country.
Hmm.
Two thoughts.
1. ISAs aren't *specifically* designed as deferral systems. So what's to stop a future chancellor cancelling all ISAs? 2. They give tax relief up front and also during the duration, so not entirely different from a pension relief system.
1. ISAs are explicitly tax free systems as you pay into them out of post-tax income. Any future government retrospectively adding tax on withdrawals would effectively be implementing an arbitrary one-off wealth tax. I can imagine reducing maximum contributions in the future, but not taxing what is in there. 2. ISAs don't give tax relief up front, you pay into them out of post-tax earnings and pay no tax on withdrawals. Pensions you have no up front tax and pay tax when you receive income.
As I say, other than the tax free lump sum they are identical in premise: for one you pay tax on the way in, the other you pay tax on the way out. In neither do you pay tax when money is kept in savings.
The proposal is for a system where higher rate tax payers pay money on the way in and on the way out.
Don't be surprised if many opt out of such a system.
If you defer tax for 30 years whilst it is invested in shares you are saving a fortune. If higher rate taxpayers don't understand that, that will be on them. It is like interest free borrowing which can be invested.
That's simply not true.
Let's say you generate 400% returns over 30 years, cumulatively, from investing in shares.
£500,000 invested out of pre-tax income becomes £2,000,000. If you pay tax at 40% average rate on retirement, you earn £1,200,000.
If you were taxed 40% average rate at the outset then you start with £300,000. The same 400% returns over 30-years means you end up with £1,200,000.
It doesn't matter in which order multiplicative factors apply, whether investment returns or tax rates.
Coffee pouring fine cancelled because it was making the council look like total idiots a minor infraction with no realistic possibility of being upheld:
She breached Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, more them just caving to media pressure but the enforcement officers followed the law with the fixed penalty notice as it stands
Okay so I'm going to be boring and return back to pensions tax relief as I missed it earlier:
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
- I think "tax relief" is better described as "tax deferral". Excluding the lump sum described above, all money paid into pensions is taxed at someone's marginal tax rate at the point of receiving their income. Which feels intuitively correct, as pension savings is deferred income. Tax it when it is realised or when it is accrued, not both. Yes some people accrued when they are on a 40% band and receive when they are on a 20% band, but that is merely a reflection of their tax bracket at the point of receiving income.
- Removal of higher-rate tax relief would probably just stop many people using the pension concept altogether. You pay 20% to 25% tax on the way in, and 20%+ on the way out, with the added bonus of future tax uncertainty and not being able to access your money if needed for 30 years or so. Far simpler to just pay the 40%/45% tax up front and put it in an stocks and shares ISA. There is no difference in end outcome (all return compounding and tax rates are multiplicative so it doesn't matter in which order they are done).
- The 25% tax free lump sum would be the only remaining marginal benefit of pension savings for higher income earners. What's the likelihood of that lasting 20-30 years?
... So I think those proposing this should realise it's a step very close to destroying the concept of a pension for many people altogether. I'm not sure that's in the long-term interest of the country.
Hmm.
Two thoughts.
1. ISAs aren't *specifically* designed as deferral systems. So what's to stop a future chancellor cancelling all ISAs? 2. They give tax relief up front and also during the duration, so not entirely different from a pension relief system.
1. ISAs are explicitly tax free systems as you pay into them out of post-tax income. Any future government retrospectively adding tax on withdrawals would effectively be implementing an arbitrary one-off wealth tax. I can imagine reducing maximum contributions in the future, but not taxing what is in there. 2. ISAs don't give tax relief up front, you pay into them out of post-tax earnings and pay no tax on withdrawals. Pensions you have no up front tax and pay tax when you receive income.
As I say, other than the tax free lump sum they are identical in premise: for one you pay tax on the way in, the other you pay tax on the way out. In neither do you pay tax when money is kept in savings.
The proposal is for a system where higher rate tax payers pay money on the way in and on the way out.
Don't be surprised if many opt out of such a system.
If you defer tax for 30 years whilst it is invested in shares you are saving a fortune. If higher rate taxpayers don't understand that, that will be on them. It is like interest free borrowing which can be invested.
That's simply not true.
Let's say you generate 500% returns over 30 years, cumulatively, from investing in shares.
£500,000 invested out of pre-tax income becomes £2,000,000. If you pay tax at 40% average rate on retirement, you earn £1,200,000.
If you were taxed 40% average rate at the outset then you start with £300,000. The same 500% returns over 30-years means you end up with £1,200,000.
It doesn't matter in which order multiplicative factors apply, whether investment returns or tax rates.
You are not counting your personal tax allowances, £38k each year can be withdrawn at 20% going out instead of 40% going in.
People also forget that Andrew York was one of the most hardworking Royals, pre-fall, and would regularly be a strong second to the Princess Royal in numbers of engagements he undertook in service of his country.
I'm sure he has flaws, as do the Rolling Stones, but he was a very diligent working Royal when he was one.
Prince Andrew is I think wanted for questioning in the USA, and the US authorities have alleged is not cooperating. Reportedly he is too scared to go to USA or even third party because he's scared of being arrested.
I suppose we'll never know if he's guilty in a court of law, because he's doing everything he can to avoid it.
How many Americans do the US authorities want to question in association with Epstein ?
Two US presidents best buds with Epstein but its two Brits who take the flak. I guess Andrew and Lord M are dispensable, but still. A strange business all round.
Isn't this Prince Andrew stuff rather flogging a dead horse? Look, we know the guys a twat, but haven't we been through all this? The proposal of the Tories' 'rising star' to impose 'cultural cohesion' by forcible repatriations is a bit more deserving of scrutiny to my mind.
The Lam thing is definitely worth more scrutiny, as is pretty much everything at the moment such as the economy, Ukraine etc etc. unfortunately you don’t get to look so worthy going on the tv and radio and tik tok saying how awful Prince Andrew is and spouting about living in a “30 room mansion” at the taxpayers expense and all that.
Margaret Hodge was worryingly excitable about it all this morning on Today with quite a lot of guesswork about the status of his lease leading to some pretty absolute conclusions on her part.
She was very open that she is using this to demand more scrutiny of the Royals’ funding and thought it awful that he was living it up in Royal Lodge at the taxpayers expense despite not knowing if it was the Royal Family’s own money paying for it, the sovereign grant, the duchy of Cornwall or Lancaster, or even (regardless of how he earns it) his own money.
I’m still trying to think of one person, Hodge, Helena Kennedy the other morning, for examples who have made a large point about the vast number of men, especially in the US who are slipping under the radar for doing what Prince Andrew did. This is an easy kicking now, let’s see them go for other people who are alleged to have also been up to no good.
Most of the Royal Family's "own" money belongs to the crown, ie the state, not the family as individuals though.
If we became a republic then the Crown Estates would become our republic's estates, not disappear as the personal private fiefdom of an individual.
The Crown Estate and Duchies have belonged to the Crown since Norman and Medieval times, they are not public sector nor taxpayer funded.
That’s exactly the point.
They belong to the *Crown* not the *King*
If we became a republic (and I don’t believe that is a good idea) then the State and the Crown merge. (At the moment they are distinct which is why you have the fiction of the Government merely being the Crown-in-Parliament)
They belong to the monarch as corporation sole they are not nationalised public sector lands.
Indeed they existed for centuries when the State effectively was the King and his advisers and the aristocrats and wealthy gentry and burgesses who made up parliament. The state as we now know it with an NHS, welfare state and social homes, state education, a state police force, legal aid, state railways, sizeable civil service and local government etc only really developed in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Indeed even Prime Ministers only emerged in the 18th century with their Cabinets
I never said they were nationalised public sector lands. They are owned by the institution not the individual or family and would be transferred to the state in the event that the UK became a republic
(As an aside would we become the Republic of the UK?)
Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.
Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.
In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever
The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look
He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile
If it takes an act of parliament so be it
He hasn’t actually broken UK law though. The accusations are all events that took place on British soil with a woman over the age of consent.
His actions are sleazy and reprehensible, but if we started punishing people for that…
You seem to be trying to excuse him
Have you read Virginia Giuffre book ?
Does innocent until proven guilty not apply to him?
Innocent men often pay their accusers £12 million to shut up and drop their allegations.
Do we now have to accept any out of court settlement that has been made by individuals or corporations are an admission of guilt by the settlor?
No, but £12m is not a typical out of court settlement. And there is corroboration he has lied.
Is there a handy guide for what is typical for different alleged crimes factoring who is settling? Do we have other examples of famous people settling with accusers to compare to? Or are we just saying things because Andrew is unpleasant and shitty (he really is very)?
Okay so I'm going to be boring and return back to pensions tax relief as I missed it earlier:
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
- I think "tax relief" is better described as "tax deferral". Excluding the lump sum described above, all money paid into pensions is taxed at someone's marginal tax rate at the point of receiving their income. Which feels intuitively correct, as pension savings is deferred income. Tax it when it is realised or when it is accrued, not both. Yes some people accrued when they are on a 40% band and receive when they are on a 20% band, but that is merely a reflection of their tax bracket at the point of receiving income.
- Removal of higher-rate tax relief would probably just stop many people using the pension concept altogether. You pay 20% to 25% tax on the way in, and 20%+ on the way out, with the added bonus of future tax uncertainty and not being able to access your money if needed for 30 years or so. Far simpler to just pay the 40%/45% tax up front and put it in an stocks and shares ISA. There is no difference in end outcome (all return compounding and tax rates are multiplicative so it doesn't matter in which order they are done).
- The 25% tax free lump sum would be the only remaining marginal benefit of pension savings for higher income earners. What's the likelihood of that lasting 20-30 years?
... So I think those proposing this should realise it's a step very close to destroying the concept of a pension for many people altogether. I'm not sure that's in the long-term interest of the country.
Yes exactly right. If the higher rate tax deduction is eliminated, it’s bye bye monthly SIPP direct debit for me.
And people will invest elsewhere, traditionally in bricks and mortar, bidding up house prices even further.
Okay so I'm going to be boring and return back to pensions tax relief as I missed it earlier:
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
- I think "tax relief" is better described as "tax deferral". Excluding the lump sum described above, all money paid into pensions is taxed at someone's marginal tax rate at the point of receiving their income. Which feels intuitively correct, as pension savings is deferred income. Tax it when it is realised or when it is accrued, not both. Yes some people accrued when they are on a 40% band and receive when they are on a 20% band, but that is merely a reflection of their tax bracket at the point of receiving income.
- Removal of higher-rate tax relief would probably just stop many people using the pension concept altogether. You pay 20% to 25% tax on the way in, and 20%+ on the way out, with the added bonus of future tax uncertainty and not being able to access your money if needed for 30 years or so. Far simpler to just pay the 40%/45% tax up front and put it in an stocks and shares ISA. There is no difference in end outcome (all return compounding and tax rates are multiplicative so it doesn't matter in which order they are done).
- The 25% tax free lump sum would be the only remaining marginal benefit of pension savings for higher income earners. What's the likelihood of that lasting 20-30 years?
... So I think those proposing this should realise it's a step very close to destroying the concept of a pension for many people altogether. I'm not sure that's in the long-term interest of the country.
I think you forget one big thing driving pension contributions: the employer contribution, which may well come with a required employee contribution or some kind of matching arrangement. If higher rate tax relief was removed I might put less in versus other options, but the employer contribution is "free money" so I would keep doing at least the minimum requirement to get that. People far enough up the income curve may also run into their ISA allowance limit, but IDK how big a slice of higher rate earners that affects.
As it is now, incidentally, for basic rate taxpayers the choice between ISA and pension is a bit of a tossup tax-wise, so the pension being only marginally beneficial for a chunk of the population is not new.
What do you think of the proposal to provide 30% relief to everyone, so basic rate taxpayers get a better deal on paying in and higher rate payers a worse one (but still better than ISAs) ?
(The thing we really want to avoid I think is people switching from a basically mostly equities by default pension to an ISA where I think many people will be likely to go for the cash ISA rather than the shares one when presented with the choice.)
I just think if you want to tax high earners more you should put up the 40% or 45% rate of income tax, not complicating pension savings.
Of course, if they want to raise more money NI, VAT and income tax are the three least economically damaging ways of doing so, though screwing people over on the higher rate can have an impact. But, for some reason only they can explain they panicked at a general election, that wasnt really about tax, and blocked those routes off.
NI is the most economically damaging way of doing so.
It is a tax solely on people who work for a living. Work is not something we should want to discourage or penalise.
It is politically less damaging, through enabling the pretence that taxes are lower than they actually are, masking how high real tax rates are, and enabling some to shelter their income from the tax altogether.
Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.
Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.
In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever
The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look
He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile
If it takes an act of parliament so be it
He hasn’t actually broken UK law though. The accusations are all events that took place on British soil with a woman over the age of consent.
His actions are sleazy and reprehensible, but if we started punishing people for that…
You seem to be trying to excuse him
Have you read Virginia Giuffre book ?
Does innocent until proven guilty not apply to him?
Innocent men often pay their accusers £12 million to shut up and drop their allegations.
Do we now have to accept any out of court settlement that has been made by individuals or corporations are an admission of guilt by the settlor?
No, but £12m is not a typical out of court settlement. And there is corroboration he has lied.
Is there a handy guide for what is typical for different alleged crimes factoring who is settling? Do we have other examples of famous people settling with accusers to compare to? Or are we just saying things because Andrew is unpleasant and shitty (he really is very)?
Okay so I'm going to be boring and return back to pensions tax relief as I missed it earlier:
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
- I think "tax relief" is better described as "tax deferral". Excluding the lump sum described above, all money paid into pensions is taxed at someone's marginal tax rate at the point of receiving their income. Which feels intuitively correct, as pension savings is deferred income. Tax it when it is realised or when it is accrued, not both. Yes some people accrued when they are on a 40% band and receive when they are on a 20% band, but that is merely a reflection of their tax bracket at the point of receiving income.
- Removal of higher-rate tax relief would probably just stop many people using the pension concept altogether. You pay 20% to 25% tax on the way in, and 20%+ on the way out, with the added bonus of future tax uncertainty and not being able to access your money if needed for 30 years or so. Far simpler to just pay the 40%/45% tax up front and put it in an stocks and shares ISA. There is no difference in end outcome (all return compounding and tax rates are multiplicative so it doesn't matter in which order they are done).
- The 25% tax free lump sum would be the only remaining marginal benefit of pension savings for higher income earners. What's the likelihood of that lasting 20-30 years?
... So I think those proposing this should realise it's a step very close to destroying the concept of a pension for many people altogether. I'm not sure that's in the long-term interest of the country.
Hmm.
Two thoughts.
1. ISAs aren't *specifically* designed as deferral systems. So what's to stop a future chancellor cancelling all ISAs? 2. They give tax relief up front and also during the duration, so not entirely different from a pension relief system.
1. ISAs are explicitly tax free systems as you pay into them out of post-tax income. Any future government retrospectively adding tax on withdrawals would effectively be implementing an arbitrary one-off wealth tax. I can imagine reducing maximum contributions in the future, but not taxing what is in there. 2. ISAs don't give tax relief up front, you pay into them out of post-tax earnings and pay no tax on withdrawals. Pensions you have no up front tax and pay tax when you receive income.
As I say, other than the tax free lump sum they are identical in premise: for one you pay tax on the way in, the other you pay tax on the way out. In neither do you pay tax when money is kept in savings.
The proposal is for a system where higher rate tax payers pay money on the way in and on the way out.
Don't be surprised if many opt out of such a system.
If you defer tax for 30 years whilst it is invested in shares you are saving a fortune. If higher rate taxpayers don't understand that, that will be on them. It is like interest free borrowing which can be invested.
That's simply not true.
Let's say you generate 500% returns over 30 years, cumulatively, from investing in shares.
£500,000 invested out of pre-tax income becomes £2,000,000. If you pay tax at 40% average rate on retirement, you earn £1,200,000.
If you were taxed 40% average rate at the outset then you start with £300,000. The same 500% returns over 30-years means you end up with £1,200,000.
It doesn't matter in which order multiplicative factors apply, whether investment returns or tax rates.
You are not counting your personal tax allowances, £38k each year can be withdrawn at 20% going out instead of 40% going in.
But that is because it is deferred income. Everyone is paying tax at the correct marginal rate for the income they are receiving at the time of receipt.
Except for the 25% lump sum which I agree distorts incentives and should be abolished.
Let's not add more distortions to our tax system. Increase income tax rates on high earnings if you want to increase tax rates on high earners.
Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.
Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.
In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever
The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look
He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile
If it takes an act of parliament so be it
He hasn’t actually broken UK law though. The accusations are all events that took place on British soil with a woman over the age of consent.
His actions are sleazy and reprehensible, but if we started punishing people for that…
You seem to be trying to excuse him
Have you read Virginia Giuffre book ?
Does innocent until proven guilty not apply to him?
Innocent men often pay their accusers £12 million to shut up and drop their allegations.
Do we now have to accept any out of court settlement that has been made by individuals or corporations are an admission of guilt by the settlor?
No, but £12m is not a typical out of court settlement. And there is corroboration he has lied.
Is there a handy guide for what is typical for different alleged crimes factoring who is settling? Do we have other examples of famous people settling with accusers to compare to? Or are we just saying things because Andrew is unpleasant and shitty (he really is very)?
Okay so I'm going to be boring and return back to pensions tax relief as I missed it earlier:
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
- I think "tax relief" is better described as "tax deferral". Excluding the lump sum described above, all money paid into pensions is taxed at someone's marginal tax rate at the point of receiving their income. Which feels intuitively correct, as pension savings is deferred income. Tax it when it is realised or when it is accrued, not both. Yes some people accrued when they are on a 40% band and receive when they are on a 20% band, but that is merely a reflection of their tax bracket at the point of receiving income.
- Removal of higher-rate tax relief would probably just stop many people using the pension concept altogether. You pay 20% to 25% tax on the way in, and 20%+ on the way out, with the added bonus of future tax uncertainty and not being able to access your money if needed for 30 years or so. Far simpler to just pay the 40%/45% tax up front and put it in an stocks and shares ISA. There is no difference in end outcome (all return compounding and tax rates are multiplicative so it doesn't matter in which order they are done).
- The 25% tax free lump sum would be the only remaining marginal benefit of pension savings for higher income earners. What's the likelihood of that lasting 20-30 years?
... So I think those proposing this should realise it's a step very close to destroying the concept of a pension for many people altogether. I'm not sure that's in the long-term interest of the country.
Hmm.
Two thoughts.
1. ISAs aren't *specifically* designed as deferral systems. So what's to stop a future chancellor cancelling all ISAs? 2. They give tax relief up front and also during the duration, so not entirely different from a pension relief system.
1. ISAs are explicitly tax free systems as you pay into them out of post-tax income. Any future government retrospectively adding tax on withdrawals would effectively be implementing an arbitrary one-off wealth tax. I can imagine reducing maximum contributions in the future, but not taxing what is in there. 2. ISAs don't give tax relief up front, you pay into them out of post-tax earnings and pay no tax on withdrawals. Pensions you have no up front tax and pay tax when you receive income.
As I say, other than the tax free lump sum they are identical in premise: for one you pay tax on the way in, the other you pay tax on the way out. In neither do you pay tax when money is kept in savings.
The proposal is for a system where higher rate tax payers pay money on the way in and on the way out.
Don't be surprised if many opt out of such a system.
Employee Pension contributions are subject to employee Ni, which for high earners is usually 2%.
It may make sense to keep that at 8% including for salary sacrifice contributions but anything beyond that is going to have entertaining consequences.
One similar example I found today - because I employ someone so qualify for Employment Allowance it's more tax efficient to pay myself PAYE then the old fashioned way of profits and dividends...
I couldn't care less about what title or honours that Andrew has, as they are meaningless baubles.
He should be tried in court, or at least forced to appear at a public enquiry into the allegations.
What are the allegations though? That he had sex with a woman over the age of consent? The under-age part is Virginia Giuffre having been flown across the country but that was not by his Princeliness. There is some financial stuff that looks bad but the common factor might be his sense of entitlement.
Disclaimer: I've not read Virginia's autobiography or the Lownie book.
There are issues of coercion and consent, as in other trafficking cases.
Okay so I'm going to be boring and return back to pensions tax relief as I missed it earlier:
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
- I think "tax relief" is better described as "tax deferral". Excluding the lump sum described above, all money paid into pensions is taxed at someone's marginal tax rate at the point of receiving their income. Which feels intuitively correct, as pension savings is deferred income. Tax it when it is realised or when it is accrued, not both. Yes some people accrued when they are on a 40% band and receive when they are on a 20% band, but that is merely a reflection of their tax bracket at the point of receiving income.
- Removal of higher-rate tax relief would probably just stop many people using the pension concept altogether. You pay 20% to 25% tax on the way in, and 20%+ on the way out, with the added bonus of future tax uncertainty and not being able to access your money if needed for 30 years or so. Far simpler to just pay the 40%/45% tax up front and put it in an stocks and shares ISA. There is no difference in end outcome (all return compounding and tax rates are multiplicative so it doesn't matter in which order they are done).
- The 25% tax free lump sum would be the only remaining marginal benefit of pension savings for higher income earners. What's the likelihood of that lasting 20-30 years?
... So I think those proposing this should realise it's a step very close to destroying the concept of a pension for many people altogether. I'm not sure that's in the long-term interest of the country.
Hmm.
Two thoughts.
1. ISAs aren't *specifically* designed as deferral systems. So what's to stop a future chancellor cancelling all ISAs? 2. They give tax relief up front and also during the duration, so not entirely different from a pension relief system.
1. ISAs are explicitly tax free systems as you pay into them out of post-tax income. Any future government retrospectively adding tax on withdrawals would effectively be implementing an arbitrary one-off wealth tax. I can imagine reducing maximum contributions in the future, but not taxing what is in there. 2. ISAs don't give tax relief up front, you pay into them out of post-tax earnings and pay no tax on withdrawals. Pensions you have no up front tax and pay tax when you receive income.
As I say, other than the tax free lump sum they are identical in premise: for one you pay tax on the way in, the other you pay tax on the way out. In neither do you pay tax when money is kept in savings.
The proposal is for a system where higher rate tax payers pay money on the way in and on the way out.
Don't be surprised if many opt out of such a system.
If you defer tax for 30 years whilst it is invested in shares you are saving a fortune. If higher rate taxpayers don't understand that, that will be on them. It is like interest free borrowing which can be invested.
That's simply not true.
Let's say you generate 500% returns over 30 years, cumulatively, from investing in shares.
£500,000 invested out of pre-tax income becomes £2,000,000. If you pay tax at 40% average rate on retirement, you earn £1,200,000.
If you were taxed 40% average rate at the outset then you start with £300,000. The same 500% returns over 30-years means you end up with £1,200,000.
It doesn't matter in which order multiplicative factors apply, whether investment returns or tax rates.
You are not counting your personal tax allowances, £38k each year can be withdrawn at 20% going out instead of 40% going in.
But that is because it is deferred income. Everyone is paying tax at the correct marginal rate for the income they are receiving at the time of receipt.
Except for the 25% lump sum which I agree distorts incentives and should be abolished.
Let's not add more distortions to our tax system. Increase income tax rates on high earnings if you want to increase tax rates on high earners.
The distortion is the pension system. Reducing its use, reduces the distortion.
As yet, no-one has come up with a single good answer why we are foregoing this tax, for those who have already got savings enough for a comfortable retirement but want to save more, in the first place.
Prince Andrew is I think wanted for questioning in the USA, and the US authorities have alleged is not cooperating. Reportedly he is too scared to go to USA or even third party because he's scared of being arrested.
I suppose we'll never know if he's guilty in a court of law, because he's doing everything he can to avoid it.
How many Americans do the US authorities want to question in association with Epstein ?
Two US presidents best buds with Epstein but its two Brits who take the flak. I guess Andrew and Lord M are dispensable, but still. A strange business all round.
Very 2020s, I guess. While Epstein was very 90s.
Coincidentally, two of the three US Presidents to be impeached.
And the third died in 1875 so couldn't have been implicated with Epstein anyway.
Prince Andrew is I think wanted for questioning in the USA, and the US authorities have alleged is not cooperating. Reportedly he is too scared to go to USA or even third party because he's scared of being arrested.
I suppose we'll never know if he's guilty in a court of law, because he's doing everything he can to avoid it.
How many Americans do the US authorities want to question in association with Epstein ?
Two US presidents best buds with Epstein but its two Brits who take the flak. I guess Andrew and Lord M are dispensable, but still. A strange business all round.
Very 2020s, I guess. While Epstein was very 90s.
Coincidentally, two of the three US Presidents to be impeached.
And the third died in 1875 so couldn't have been implicated with Epstein anyway.
Okay so I'm going to be boring and return back to pensions tax relief as I missed it earlier:
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
- I think "tax relief" is better described as "tax deferral". Excluding the lump sum described above, all money paid into pensions is taxed at someone's marginal tax rate at the point of receiving their income. Which feels intuitively correct, as pension savings is deferred income. Tax it when it is realised or when it is accrued, not both. Yes some people accrued when they are on a 40% band and receive when they are on a 20% band, but that is merely a reflection of their tax bracket at the point of receiving income.
- Removal of higher-rate tax relief would probably just stop many people using the pension concept altogether. You pay 20% to 25% tax on the way in, and 20%+ on the way out, with the added bonus of future tax uncertainty and not being able to access your money if needed for 30 years or so. Far simpler to just pay the 40%/45% tax up front and put it in an stocks and shares ISA. There is no difference in end outcome (all return compounding and tax rates are multiplicative so it doesn't matter in which order they are done).
- The 25% tax free lump sum would be the only remaining marginal benefit of pension savings for higher income earners. What's the likelihood of that lasting 20-30 years?
... So I think those proposing this should realise it's a step very close to destroying the concept of a pension for many people altogether. I'm not sure that's in the long-term interest of the country.
Hmm.
Two thoughts.
1. ISAs aren't *specifically* designed as deferral systems. So what's to stop a future chancellor cancelling all ISAs? 2. They give tax relief up front and also during the duration, so not entirely different from a pension relief system.
1. ISAs are explicitly tax free systems as you pay into them out of post-tax income. Any future government retrospectively adding tax on withdrawals would effectively be implementing an arbitrary one-off wealth tax. I can imagine reducing maximum contributions in the future, but not taxing what is in there. 2. ISAs don't give tax relief up front, you pay into them out of post-tax earnings and pay no tax on withdrawals. Pensions you have no up front tax and pay tax when you receive income.
As I say, other than the tax free lump sum they are identical in premise: for one you pay tax on the way in, the other you pay tax on the way out. In neither do you pay tax when money is kept in savings.
The proposal is for a system where higher rate tax payers pay money on the way in and on the way out.
Don't be surprised if many opt out of such a system.
If you defer tax for 30 years whilst it is invested in shares you are saving a fortune. If higher rate taxpayers don't understand that, that will be on them. It is like interest free borrowing which can be invested.
That's simply not true.
Let's say you generate 500% returns over 30 years, cumulatively, from investing in shares.
£500,000 invested out of pre-tax income becomes £2,000,000. If you pay tax at 40% average rate on retirement, you earn £1,200,000.
If you were taxed 40% average rate at the outset then you start with £300,000. The same 500% returns over 30-years means you end up with £1,200,000.
It doesn't matter in which order multiplicative factors apply, whether investment returns or tax rates.
You are not counting your personal tax allowances, £38k each year can be withdrawn at 20% going out instead of 40% going in.
But that is because it is deferred income. Everyone is paying tax at the correct marginal rate for the income they are receiving at the time of receipt.
Except for the 25% lump sum which I agree distorts incentives and should be abolished.
Let's not add more distortions to our tax system. Increase income tax rates on high earnings if you want to increase tax rates on high earners.
The distortion is the pension system. Reducing its use, reduces the distortion.
As yet, no-one has come up with a single good answer why we are foregoing this tax, for those who have already got savings enough for a comfortable retirement but want to save more, in the first place.
foregoing what tax? If you are talking about the 25% allowance the issue is that that was the deal that was agreed when people were putting the money into their pension
Okay so I'm going to be boring and return back to pensions tax relief as I missed it earlier:
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
- I think "tax relief" is better described as "tax deferral". Excluding the lump sum described above, all money paid into pensions is taxed at someone's marginal tax rate at the point of receiving their income. Which feels intuitively correct, as pension savings is deferred income. Tax it when it is realised or when it is accrued, not both. Yes some people accrued when they are on a 40% band and receive when they are on a 20% band, but that is merely a reflection of their tax bracket at the point of receiving income.
- Removal of higher-rate tax relief would probably just stop many people using the pension concept altogether. You pay 20% to 25% tax on the way in, and 20%+ on the way out, with the added bonus of future tax uncertainty and not being able to access your money if needed for 30 years or so. Far simpler to just pay the 40%/45% tax up front and put it in an stocks and shares ISA. There is no difference in end outcome (all return compounding and tax rates are multiplicative so it doesn't matter in which order they are done).
- The 25% tax free lump sum would be the only remaining marginal benefit of pension savings for higher income earners. What's the likelihood of that lasting 20-30 years?
... So I think those proposing this should realise it's a step very close to destroying the concept of a pension for many people altogether. I'm not sure that's in the long-term interest of the country.
Hmm.
Two thoughts.
1. ISAs aren't *specifically* designed as deferral systems. So what's to stop a future chancellor cancelling all ISAs? 2. They give tax relief up front and also during the duration, so not entirely different from a pension relief system.
1. ISAs are explicitly tax free systems as you pay into them out of post-tax income. Any future government retrospectively adding tax on withdrawals would effectively be implementing an arbitrary one-off wealth tax. I can imagine reducing maximum contributions in the future, but not taxing what is in there. 2. ISAs don't give tax relief up front, you pay into them out of post-tax earnings and pay no tax on withdrawals. Pensions you have no up front tax and pay tax when you receive income.
As I say, other than the tax free lump sum they are identical in premise: for one you pay tax on the way in, the other you pay tax on the way out. In neither do you pay tax when money is kept in savings.
The proposal is for a system where higher rate tax payers pay money on the way in and on the way out.
Don't be surprised if many opt out of such a system.
If you defer tax for 30 years whilst it is invested in shares you are saving a fortune. If higher rate taxpayers don't understand that, that will be on them. It is like interest free borrowing which can be invested.
That's simply not true.
Let's say you generate 500% returns over 30 years, cumulatively, from investing in shares.
£500,000 invested out of pre-tax income becomes £2,000,000. If you pay tax at 40% average rate on retirement, you earn £1,200,000.
If you were taxed 40% average rate at the outset then you start with £300,000. The same 500% returns over 30-years means you end up with £1,200,000.
It doesn't matter in which order multiplicative factors apply, whether investment returns or tax rates.
You are not counting your personal tax allowances, £38k each year can be withdrawn at 20% going out instead of 40% going in.
But that is because it is deferred income. Everyone is paying tax at the correct marginal rate for the income they are receiving at the time of receipt.
Except for the 25% lump sum which I agree distorts incentives and should be abolished.
Let's not add more distortions to our tax system. Increase income tax rates on high earnings if you want to increase tax rates on high earners.
The distortion is the pension system. Reducing its use, reduces the distortion.
As yet, no-one has come up with a single good answer why we are foregoing this tax, for those who have already got savings enough for a comfortable retirement but want to save more, in the first place.
Then the question does become- why am I saving more? Because at some point, it becomes about a number on a spreadsheet and a line on a graph, rather than whatever aspects of a Good Life I might value.
Okay so I'm going to be boring and return back to pensions tax relief as I missed it earlier:
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
- I think "tax relief" is better described as "tax deferral". Excluding the lump sum described above, all money paid into pensions is taxed at someone's marginal tax rate at the point of receiving their income. Which feels intuitively correct, as pension savings is deferred income. Tax it when it is realised or when it is accrued, not both. Yes some people accrued when they are on a 40% band and receive when they are on a 20% band, but that is merely a reflection of their tax bracket at the point of receiving income.
- Removal of higher-rate tax relief would probably just stop many people using the pension concept altogether. You pay 20% to 25% tax on the way in, and 20%+ on the way out, with the added bonus of future tax uncertainty and not being able to access your money if needed for 30 years or so. Far simpler to just pay the 40%/45% tax up front and put it in an stocks and shares ISA. There is no difference in end outcome (all return compounding and tax rates are multiplicative so it doesn't matter in which order they are done).
- The 25% tax free lump sum would be the only remaining marginal benefit of pension savings for higher income earners. What's the likelihood of that lasting 20-30 years?
... So I think those proposing this should realise it's a step very close to destroying the concept of a pension for many people altogether. I'm not sure that's in the long-term interest of the country.
Hmm.
Two thoughts.
1. ISAs aren't *specifically* designed as deferral systems. So what's to stop a future chancellor cancelling all ISAs? 2. They give tax relief up front and also during the duration, so not entirely different from a pension relief system.
1. ISAs are explicitly tax free systems as you pay into them out of post-tax income. Any future government retrospectively adding tax on withdrawals would effectively be implementing an arbitrary one-off wealth tax. I can imagine reducing maximum contributions in the future, but not taxing what is in there. 2. ISAs don't give tax relief up front, you pay into them out of post-tax earnings and pay no tax on withdrawals. Pensions you have no up front tax and pay tax when you receive income.
As I say, other than the tax free lump sum they are identical in premise: for one you pay tax on the way in, the other you pay tax on the way out. In neither do you pay tax when money is kept in savings.
The proposal is for a system where higher rate tax payers pay money on the way in and on the way out.
Don't be surprised if many opt out of such a system.
If you defer tax for 30 years whilst it is invested in shares you are saving a fortune. If higher rate taxpayers don't understand that, that will be on them. It is like interest free borrowing which can be invested.
That's simply not true.
Let's say you generate 500% returns over 30 years, cumulatively, from investing in shares.
£500,000 invested out of pre-tax income becomes £2,000,000. If you pay tax at 40% average rate on retirement, you earn £1,200,000.
If you were taxed 40% average rate at the outset then you start with £300,000. The same 500% returns over 30-years means you end up with £1,200,000.
It doesn't matter in which order multiplicative factors apply, whether investment returns or tax rates.
You are not counting your personal tax allowances, £38k each year can be withdrawn at 20% going out instead of 40% going in.
But that is because it is deferred income. Everyone is paying tax at the correct marginal rate for the income they are receiving at the time of receipt.
Except for the 25% lump sum which I agree distorts incentives and should be abolished.
Let's not add more distortions to our tax system. Increase income tax rates on high earnings if you want to increase tax rates on high earners.
The distortion is the pension system. Reducing its use, reduces the distortion.
As yet, no-one has come up with a single good answer why we are foregoing this tax, for those who have already got savings enough for a comfortable retirement but want to save more, in the first place.
foregoing what tax? If you are talking about the 25% allowance the issue is that that was the deal that was agreed when people were putting the money into their pension
The tax relief paid out now. It is not fully paid back later because 25% is offered tax free, and £38k each year is taxed at 20% instead of 40%. Some is also passed tax free to inheritors if in SIPPS.
And we could do with that money now not potentially in 30+ years.
People also forget that Andrew York was one of the most hardworking Royals, pre-fall, and would regularly be a strong second to the Princess Royal in numbers of engagements he undertook in service of his country.
I'm sure he has flaws, as do the Rolling Stones, but he was a very diligent working Royal when he was one.
A high percentage of those working engagements were playing golf with foreign despots, while staying in 5* hotels. We didn't even get formulaic travel article puffery to show for it.
Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.
Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.
In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever
The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look
He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile
If it takes an act of parliament so be it
He hasn’t actually broken UK law though. The accusations are all events that took place on British soil with a woman over the age of consent.
His actions are sleazy and reprehensible, but if we started punishing people for that…
You seem to be trying to excuse him
Have you read Virginia Giuffre book ?
Does innocent until proven guilty not apply to him?
Innocent men often pay their accusers £12 million to shut up and drop their allegations.
Okay so I'm going to be boring and return back to pensions tax relief as I missed it earlier:
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
- I think "tax relief" is better described as "tax deferral". Excluding the lump sum described above, all money paid into pensions is taxed at someone's marginal tax rate at the point of receiving their income. Which feels intuitively correct, as pension savings is deferred income. Tax it when it is realised or when it is accrued, not both. Yes some people accrued when they are on a 40% band and receive when they are on a 20% band, but that is merely a reflection of their tax bracket at the point of receiving income.
- Removal of higher-rate tax relief would probably just stop many people using the pension concept altogether. You pay 20% to 25% tax on the way in, and 20%+ on the way out, with the added bonus of future tax uncertainty and not being able to access your money if needed for 30 years or so. Far simpler to just pay the 40%/45% tax up front and put it in an stocks and shares ISA. There is no difference in end outcome (all return compounding and tax rates are multiplicative so it doesn't matter in which order they are done).
- The 25% tax free lump sum would be the only remaining marginal benefit of pension savings for higher income earners. What's the likelihood of that lasting 20-30 years?
... So I think those proposing this should realise it's a step very close to destroying the concept of a pension for many people altogether. I'm not sure that's in the long-term interest of the country.
Hmm.
Two thoughts.
1. ISAs aren't *specifically* designed as deferral systems. So what's to stop a future chancellor cancelling all ISAs? 2. They give tax relief up front and also during the duration, so not entirely different from a pension relief system.
1. ISAs are explicitly tax free systems as you pay into them out of post-tax income. Any future government retrospectively adding tax on withdrawals would effectively be implementing an arbitrary one-off wealth tax. I can imagine reducing maximum contributions in the future, but not taxing what is in there. 2. ISAs don't give tax relief up front, you pay into them out of post-tax earnings and pay no tax on withdrawals. Pensions you have no up front tax and pay tax when you receive income.
As I say, other than the tax free lump sum they are identical in premise: for one you pay tax on the way in, the other you pay tax on the way out. In neither do you pay tax when money is kept in savings.
The proposal is for a system where higher rate tax payers pay money on the way in and on the way out.
Don't be surprised if many opt out of such a system.
If you defer tax for 30 years whilst it is invested in shares you are saving a fortune. If higher rate taxpayers don't understand that, that will be on them. It is like interest free borrowing which can be invested.
That's simply not true.
Let's say you generate 500% returns over 30 years, cumulatively, from investing in shares.
£500,000 invested out of pre-tax income becomes £2,000,000. If you pay tax at 40% average rate on retirement, you earn £1,200,000.
If you were taxed 40% average rate at the outset then you start with £300,000. The same 500% returns over 30-years means you end up with £1,200,000.
It doesn't matter in which order multiplicative factors apply, whether investment returns or tax rates.
You are not counting your personal tax allowances, £38k each year can be withdrawn at 20% going out instead of 40% going in.
But that is because it is deferred income. Everyone is paying tax at the correct marginal rate for the income they are receiving at the time of receipt.
Except for the 25% lump sum which I agree distorts incentives and should be abolished.
Let's not add more distortions to our tax system. Increase income tax rates on high earnings if you want to increase tax rates on high earners.
The distortion is the pension system. Reducing its use, reduces the distortion.
As yet, no-one has come up with a single good answer why we are foregoing this tax, for those who have already got savings enough for a comfortable retirement but want to save more, in the first place.
Then the question does become- why am I saving more? Because at some point, it becomes about a number on a spreadsheet and a line on a graph, rather than whatever aspects of a Good Life I might value.
Often the moderately well-paid are salary sacrificing extra pension payments in order to artificially reduce their nominal salaries and preserve various child benefits. Win-win for them.
Okay so I'm going to be boring and return back to pensions tax relief as I missed it earlier:
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
- I think "tax relief" is better described as "tax deferral". Excluding the lump sum described above, all money paid into pensions is taxed at someone's marginal tax rate at the point of receiving their income. Which feels intuitively correct, as pension savings is deferred income. Tax it when it is realised or when it is accrued, not both. Yes some people accrued when they are on a 40% band and receive when they are on a 20% band, but that is merely a reflection of their tax bracket at the point of receiving income.
- Removal of higher-rate tax relief would probably just stop many people using the pension concept altogether. You pay 20% to 25% tax on the way in, and 20%+ on the way out, with the added bonus of future tax uncertainty and not being able to access your money if needed for 30 years or so. Far simpler to just pay the 40%/45% tax up front and put it in an stocks and shares ISA. There is no difference in end outcome (all return compounding and tax rates are multiplicative so it doesn't matter in which order they are done).
- The 25% tax free lump sum would be the only remaining marginal benefit of pension savings for higher income earners. What's the likelihood of that lasting 20-30 years?
... So I think those proposing this should realise it's a step very close to destroying the concept of a pension for many people altogether. I'm not sure that's in the long-term interest of the country.
Hmm.
Two thoughts.
1. ISAs aren't *specifically* designed as deferral systems. So what's to stop a future chancellor cancelling all ISAs? 2. They give tax relief up front and also during the duration, so not entirely different from a pension relief system.
1. ISAs are explicitly tax free systems as you pay into them out of post-tax income. Any future government retrospectively adding tax on withdrawals would effectively be implementing an arbitrary one-off wealth tax. I can imagine reducing maximum contributions in the future, but not taxing what is in there. 2. ISAs don't give tax relief up front, you pay into them out of post-tax earnings and pay no tax on withdrawals. Pensions you have no up front tax and pay tax when you receive income.
As I say, other than the tax free lump sum they are identical in premise: for one you pay tax on the way in, the other you pay tax on the way out. In neither do you pay tax when money is kept in savings.
The proposal is for a system where higher rate tax payers pay money on the way in and on the way out.
Don't be surprised if many opt out of such a system.
If you defer tax for 30 years whilst it is invested in shares you are saving a fortune. If higher rate taxpayers don't understand that, that will be on them. It is like interest free borrowing which can be invested.
That's simply not true.
Let's say you generate 500% returns over 30 years, cumulatively, from investing in shares.
£500,000 invested out of pre-tax income becomes £2,000,000. If you pay tax at 40% average rate on retirement, you earn £1,200,000.
If you were taxed 40% average rate at the outset then you start with £300,000. The same 500% returns over 30-years means you end up with £1,200,000.
It doesn't matter in which order multiplicative factors apply, whether investment returns or tax rates.
You are not counting your personal tax allowances, £38k each year can be withdrawn at 20% going out instead of 40% going in.
But that is because it is deferred income. Everyone is paying tax at the correct marginal rate for the income they are receiving at the time of receipt.
Except for the 25% lump sum which I agree distorts incentives and should be abolished.
Let's not add more distortions to our tax system. Increase income tax rates on high earnings if you want to increase tax rates on high earners.
The distortion is the pension system. Reducing its use, reduces the distortion.
As yet, no-one has come up with a single good answer why we are foregoing this tax, for those who have already got savings enough for a comfortable retirement but want to save more, in the first place.
Because the UK's saving rate is by far the lowest in the G7 and you're proposing a change that would discourage people earning £50k a year living in London - hardly the super rich - from bothering anymore?
Prince Andrew is I think wanted for questioning in the USA, and the US authorities have alleged is not cooperating. Reportedly he is too scared to go to USA or even third party because he's scared of being arrested.
I suppose we'll never know if he's guilty in a court of law, because he's doing everything he can to avoid it.
How many Americans do the US authorities want to question in association with Epstein ?
Two US presidents best buds with Epstein but its two Brits who take the flak. I guess Andrew and Lord M are dispensable, but still. A strange business all round.
Very 2020s, I guess. While Epstein was very 90s.
Coincidentally, two of the three US Presidents to be impeached.
And the third died in 1875 so couldn't have been implicated with Epstein anyway.
On the subject of Presidents I’ve just seen that there is an upcoming (November) Netflix series called Death by Lightning about the short presidency and assassination of James A Garfield. Based on a very well received book and v good cast.
Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.
Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.
In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever
The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look
He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile
If it takes an act of parliament so be it
He hasn’t actually broken UK law though. The accusations are all events that took place on British soil with a woman over the age of consent.
His actions are sleazy and reprehensible, but if we started punishing people for that…
You seem to be trying to excuse him
Have you read Virginia Giuffre book ?
Does innocent until proven guilty not apply to him?
Innocent men often pay their accusers £12 million to shut up and drop their allegations.
When the reputational damage is greater yes
Phew, thank goodness Andrew has preserved his reputation, total bargain.
Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.
Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.
In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever
The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look
He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile
If it takes an act of parliament so be it
He hasn’t actually broken UK law though. The accusations are all events that took place on British soil with a woman over the age of consent.
His actions are sleazy and reprehensible, but if we started punishing people for that…
You seem to be trying to excuse him
Have you read Virginia Giuffre book ?
Does innocent until proven guilty not apply to him?
Innocent men often pay their accusers £12 million to shut up and drop their allegations.
When the reputational damage is greater yes
Phew, thank goodness Andrew has preserved his reputation, total bargain.
Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.
Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.
In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever
The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look
He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile
If it takes an act of parliament so be it
He hasn’t actually broken UK law though. The accusations are all events that took place on British soil with a woman over the age of consent.
His actions are sleazy and reprehensible, but if we started punishing people for that…
You seem to be trying to excuse him
Have you read Virginia Giuffre book ?
Does innocent until proven guilty not apply to him?
Innocent men often pay their accusers £12 million to shut up and drop their allegations.
Do we now have to accept any out of court settlement that has been made by individuals or corporations are an admission of guilt by the settlor?
No, but £12m is not a typical out of court settlement. And there is corroboration he has lied.
Is there a handy guide for what is typical for different alleged crimes factoring who is settling? Do we have other examples of famous people settling with accusers to compare to? Or are we just saying things because Andrew is unpleasant and shitty (he really is very)?
Whatever, it's been a fall of mighty proportions. We all remember that handsome young pilot, back from the Falklands, walking in the victory parade with a twinkle in his eye and a rose between his teeth. And now look. Old, fat, disgraced. No twinkles. No roses.
Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.
Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.
In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever
The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look
He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile
If it takes an act of parliament so be it
He hasn’t actually broken UK law though. The accusations are all events that took place on British soil with a woman over the age of consent.
His actions are sleazy and reprehensible, but if we started punishing people for that…
You seem to be trying to excuse him
Have you read Virginia Giuffre book ?
Does innocent until proven guilty not apply to him?
Innocent men often pay their accusers £12 million to shut up and drop their allegations.
When the reputational damage is greater yes
Phew, thank goodness Andrew has preserved his reputation, total bargain.
It makes Liverpool’s spending over the summer look like a bargain.
Okay so I'm going to be boring and return back to pensions tax relief as I missed it earlier:
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
- I think "tax relief" is better described as "tax deferral". Excluding the lump sum described above, all money paid into pensions is taxed at someone's marginal tax rate at the point of receiving their income. Which feels intuitively correct, as pension savings is deferred income. Tax it when it is realised or when it is accrued, not both. Yes some people accrued when they are on a 40% band and receive when they are on a 20% band, but that is merely a reflection of their tax bracket at the point of receiving income.
- Removal of higher-rate tax relief would probably just stop many people using the pension concept altogether. You pay 20% to 25% tax on the way in, and 20%+ on the way out, with the added bonus of future tax uncertainty and not being able to access your money if needed for 30 years or so. Far simpler to just pay the 40%/45% tax up front and put it in an stocks and shares ISA. There is no difference in end outcome (all return compounding and tax rates are multiplicative so it doesn't matter in which order they are done).
- The 25% tax free lump sum would be the only remaining marginal benefit of pension savings for higher income earners. What's the likelihood of that lasting 20-30 years?
... So I think those proposing this should realise it's a step very close to destroying the concept of a pension for many people altogether. I'm not sure that's in the long-term interest of the country.
Hmm.
Two thoughts.
1. ISAs aren't *specifically* designed as deferral systems. So what's to stop a future chancellor cancelling all ISAs? 2. They give tax relief up front and also during the duration, so not entirely different from a pension relief system.
1. ISAs are explicitly tax free systems as you pay into them out of post-tax income. Any future government retrospectively adding tax on withdrawals would effectively be implementing an arbitrary one-off wealth tax. I can imagine reducing maximum contributions in the future, but not taxing what is in there. 2. ISAs don't give tax relief up front, you pay into them out of post-tax earnings and pay no tax on withdrawals. Pensions you have no up front tax and pay tax when you receive income.
As I say, other than the tax free lump sum they are identical in premise: for one you pay tax on the way in, the other you pay tax on the way out. In neither do you pay tax when money is kept in savings.
The proposal is for a system where higher rate tax payers pay money on the way in and on the way out.
Don't be surprised if many opt out of such a system.
If you defer tax for 30 years whilst it is invested in shares you are saving a fortune. If higher rate taxpayers don't understand that, that will be on them. It is like interest free borrowing which can be invested.
That's simply not true.
Let's say you generate 400% returns over 30 years, cumulatively, from investing in shares.
£500,000 invested out of pre-tax income becomes £2,000,000. If you pay tax at 40% average rate on retirement, you earn £1,200,000.
If you were taxed 40% average rate at the outset then you start with £300,000. The same 400% returns over 30-years means you end up with £1,200,000.
It doesn't matter in which order multiplicative factors apply, whether investment returns or tax rates.
But in the second (outside the pension) case you pay capital gains tax on the gains
Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.
Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.
In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever
The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look
He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile
If it takes an act of parliament so be it
He hasn’t actually broken UK law though. The accusations are all events that took place on British soil with a woman over the age of consent.
His actions are sleazy and reprehensible, but if we started punishing people for that…
You seem to be trying to excuse him
Have you read Virginia Giuffre book ?
Does innocent until proven guilty not apply to him?
Innocent men often pay their accusers £12 million to shut up and drop their allegations.
When the reputational damage is greater yes
Phew, thank goodness Andrew has preserved his reputation, total bargain.
Okay so I'm going to be boring and return back to pensions tax relief as I missed it earlier:
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
- I think "tax relief" is better described as "tax deferral". Excluding the lump sum described above, all money paid into pensions is taxed at someone's marginal tax rate at the point of receiving their income. Which feels intuitively correct, as pension savings is deferred income. Tax it when it is realised or when it is accrued, not both. Yes some people accrued when they are on a 40% band and receive when they are on a 20% band, but that is merely a reflection of their tax bracket at the point of receiving income.
- Removal of higher-rate tax relief would probably just stop many people using the pension concept altogether. You pay 20% to 25% tax on the way in, and 20%+ on the way out, with the added bonus of future tax uncertainty and not being able to access your money if needed for 30 years or so. Far simpler to just pay the 40%/45% tax up front and put it in an stocks and shares ISA. There is no difference in end outcome (all return compounding and tax rates are multiplicative so it doesn't matter in which order they are done).
- The 25% tax free lump sum would be the only remaining marginal benefit of pension savings for higher income earners. What's the likelihood of that lasting 20-30 years?
... So I think those proposing this should realise it's a step very close to destroying the concept of a pension for many people altogether. I'm not sure that's in the long-term interest of the country.
Hmm.
Two thoughts.
1. ISAs aren't *specifically* designed as deferral systems. So what's to stop a future chancellor cancelling all ISAs? 2. They give tax relief up front and also during the duration, so not entirely different from a pension relief system.
1. ISAs are explicitly tax free systems as you pay into them out of post-tax income. Any future government retrospectively adding tax on withdrawals would effectively be implementing an arbitrary one-off wealth tax. I can imagine reducing maximum contributions in the future, but not taxing what is in there. 2. ISAs don't give tax relief up front, you pay into them out of post-tax earnings and pay no tax on withdrawals. Pensions you have no up front tax and pay tax when you receive income.
As I say, other than the tax free lump sum they are identical in premise: for one you pay tax on the way in, the other you pay tax on the way out. In neither do you pay tax when money is kept in savings.
The proposal is for a system where higher rate tax payers pay money on the way in and on the way out.
Don't be surprised if many opt out of such a system.
If you defer tax for 30 years whilst it is invested in shares you are saving a fortune. If higher rate taxpayers don't understand that, that will be on them. It is like interest free borrowing which can be invested.
That's simply not true.
Let's say you generate 500% returns over 30 years, cumulatively, from investing in shares.
£500,000 invested out of pre-tax income becomes £2,000,000. If you pay tax at 40% average rate on retirement, you earn £1,200,000.
If you were taxed 40% average rate at the outset then you start with £300,000. The same 500% returns over 30-years means you end up with £1,200,000.
It doesn't matter in which order multiplicative factors apply, whether investment returns or tax rates.
You are not counting your personal tax allowances, £38k each year can be withdrawn at 20% going out instead of 40% going in.
But that is because it is deferred income. Everyone is paying tax at the correct marginal rate for the income they are receiving at the time of receipt.
Except for the 25% lump sum which I agree distorts incentives and should be abolished.
Let's not add more distortions to our tax system. Increase income tax rates on high earnings if you want to increase tax rates on high earners.
The distortion is the pension system. Reducing its use, reduces the distortion.
As yet, no-one has come up with a single good answer why we are foregoing this tax, for those who have already got savings enough for a comfortable retirement but want to save more, in the first place.
Because the UK's saving rate is by far the lowest in the G7 and you're proposing a change that would discourage people earning £50k a year living in London - hardly the super rich - from bothering anymore?
People earning £50k a year living in London typically can't afford big pensions. They are rarely the ones who already with £500k or £1m pension pots already accumulated and still benefitting from 40% tax relief.
30% for everyone is a better option than the status quo.
Personally I would do that plus reduce it further at the level when the private pension pot annuity equivalent at retirement plus state pension equated to average earnings.
Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.
Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.
In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever
The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look
He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile
If it takes an act of parliament so be it
He hasn’t actually broken UK law though. The accusations are all events that took place on British soil with a woman over the age of consent.
His actions are sleazy and reprehensible, but if we started punishing people for that…
You seem to be trying to excuse him
Have you read Virginia Giuffre book ?
Does innocent until proven guilty not apply to him?
Innocent men often pay their accusers £12 million to shut up and drop their allegations.
Do we now have to accept any out of court settlement that has been made by individuals or corporations are an admission of guilt by the settlor?
No, but £12m is not a typical out of court settlement. And there is corroboration he has lied.
Is there a handy guide for what is typical for different alleged crimes factoring who is settling? Do we have other examples of famous people settling with accusers to compare to? Or are we just saying things because Andrew is unpleasant and shitty (he really is very)?
Whatever, it's been a fall of mighty proportions. We all remember that handsome young pilot, back from the Falklands, walking in the victory parade with a twinkle in his eye and a rose between his teeth. And now look. Old, fat, disgraced. No twinkles. No roses.
Okay so I'm going to be boring and return back to pensions tax relief as I missed it earlier:
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
- I think "tax relief" is better described as "tax deferral". Excluding the lump sum described above, all money paid into pensions is taxed at someone's marginal tax rate at the point of receiving their income. Which feels intuitively correct, as pension savings is deferred income. Tax it when it is realised or when it is accrued, not both. Yes some people accrued when they are on a 40% band and receive when they are on a 20% band, but that is merely a reflection of their tax bracket at the point of receiving income.
- Removal of higher-rate tax relief would probably just stop many people using the pension concept altogether. You pay 20% to 25% tax on the way in, and 20%+ on the way out, with the added bonus of future tax uncertainty and not being able to access your money if needed for 30 years or so. Far simpler to just pay the 40%/45% tax up front and put it in an stocks and shares ISA. There is no difference in end outcome (all return compounding and tax rates are multiplicative so it doesn't matter in which order they are done).
- The 25% tax free lump sum would be the only remaining marginal benefit of pension savings for higher income earners. What's the likelihood of that lasting 20-30 years?
... So I think those proposing this should realise it's a step very close to destroying the concept of a pension for many people altogether. I'm not sure that's in the long-term interest of the country.
Hmm.
Two thoughts.
1. ISAs aren't *specifically* designed as deferral systems. So what's to stop a future chancellor cancelling all ISAs? 2. They give tax relief up front and also during the duration, so not entirely different from a pension relief system.
1. ISAs are explicitly tax free systems as you pay into them out of post-tax income. Any future government retrospectively adding tax on withdrawals would effectively be implementing an arbitrary one-off wealth tax. I can imagine reducing maximum contributions in the future, but not taxing what is in there. 2. ISAs don't give tax relief up front, you pay into them out of post-tax earnings and pay no tax on withdrawals. Pensions you have no up front tax and pay tax when you receive income.
As I say, other than the tax free lump sum they are identical in premise: for one you pay tax on the way in, the other you pay tax on the way out. In neither do you pay tax when money is kept in savings.
The proposal is for a system where higher rate tax payers pay money on the way in and on the way out.
Don't be surprised if many opt out of such a system.
If you defer tax for 30 years whilst it is invested in shares you are saving a fortune. If higher rate taxpayers don't understand that, that will be on them. It is like interest free borrowing which can be invested.
That's simply not true.
Let's say you generate 500% returns over 30 years, cumulatively, from investing in shares.
£500,000 invested out of pre-tax income becomes £2,000,000. If you pay tax at 40% average rate on retirement, you earn £1,200,000.
If you were taxed 40% average rate at the outset then you start with £300,000. The same 500% returns over 30-years means you end up with £1,200,000.
It doesn't matter in which order multiplicative factors apply, whether investment returns or tax rates.
You are not counting your personal tax allowances, £38k each year can be withdrawn at 20% going out instead of 40% going in.
But that is because it is deferred income. Everyone is paying tax at the correct marginal rate for the income they are receiving at the time of receipt.
Except for the 25% lump sum which I agree distorts incentives and should be abolished.
Let's not add more distortions to our tax system. Increase income tax rates on high earnings if you want to increase tax rates on high earners.
The distortion is the pension system. Reducing its use, reduces the distortion.
As yet, no-one has come up with a single good answer why we are foregoing this tax, for those who have already got savings enough for a comfortable retirement but want to save more, in the first place.
Then the question does become- why am I saving more? Because at some point, it becomes about a number on a spreadsheet and a line on a graph, rather than whatever aspects of a Good Life I might value.
How much of the higher rate tax relief is going to those "already got enough for a comfortable retirement" people, vs to people who aren't there yet, but happen to be higher rate taxpayers? (Also, figuring out how much is "enough" is tricky, because you don't know how long you're going to live or if you're going to have big care expenses later. So some people save more than they "need to" because they're risk averse.)
We already don't give the full relief to really high earners -- the amount you can sock away each year without paying tax tapers down to 10K as your income rises.
Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.
Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.
In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever
The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look
He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile
If it takes an act of parliament so be it
He hasn’t actually broken UK law though. The accusations are all events that took place on British soil with a woman over the age of consent.
His actions are sleazy and reprehensible, but if we started punishing people for that…
You seem to be trying to excuse him
Have you read Virginia Giuffre book ?
Does innocent until proven guilty not apply to him?
Innocent men often pay their accusers £12 million to shut up and drop their allegations.
When the reputational damage is greater yes
Phew, thank goodness Andrew has preserved his reputation, total bargain.
Okay so I'm going to be boring and return back to pensions tax relief as I missed it earlier:
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
- I think "tax relief" is better described as "tax deferral". Excluding the lump sum described above, all money paid into pensions is taxed at someone's marginal tax rate at the point of receiving their income. Which feels intuitively correct, as pension savings is deferred income. Tax it when it is realised or when it is accrued, not both. Yes some people accrued when they are on a 40% band and receive when they are on a 20% band, but that is merely a reflection of their tax bracket at the point of receiving income.
- Removal of higher-rate tax relief would probably just stop many people using the pension concept altogether. You pay 20% to 25% tax on the way in, and 20%+ on the way out, with the added bonus of future tax uncertainty and not being able to access your money if needed for 30 years or so. Far simpler to just pay the 40%/45% tax up front and put it in an stocks and shares ISA. There is no difference in end outcome (all return compounding and tax rates are multiplicative so it doesn't matter in which order they are done).
- The 25% tax free lump sum would be the only remaining marginal benefit of pension savings for higher income earners. What's the likelihood of that lasting 20-30 years?
... So I think those proposing this should realise it's a step very close to destroying the concept of a pension for many people altogether. I'm not sure that's in the long-term interest of the country.
Hmm.
Two thoughts.
1. ISAs aren't *specifically* designed as deferral systems. So what's to stop a future chancellor cancelling all ISAs? 2. They give tax relief up front and also during the duration, so not entirely different from a pension relief system.
1. ISAs are explicitly tax free systems as you pay into them out of post-tax income. Any future government retrospectively adding tax on withdrawals would effectively be implementing an arbitrary one-off wealth tax. I can imagine reducing maximum contributions in the future, but not taxing what is in there. 2. ISAs don't give tax relief up front, you pay into them out of post-tax earnings and pay no tax on withdrawals. Pensions you have no up front tax and pay tax when you receive income.
As I say, other than the tax free lump sum they are identical in premise: for one you pay tax on the way in, the other you pay tax on the way out. In neither do you pay tax when money is kept in savings.
The proposal is for a system where higher rate tax payers pay money on the way in and on the way out.
Don't be surprised if many opt out of such a system.
If you defer tax for 30 years whilst it is invested in shares you are saving a fortune. If higher rate taxpayers don't understand that, that will be on them. It is like interest free borrowing which can be invested.
That's simply not true.
Let's say you generate 400% returns over 30 years, cumulatively, from investing in shares.
£500,000 invested out of pre-tax income becomes £2,000,000. If you pay tax at 40% average rate on retirement, you earn £1,200,000.
If you were taxed 40% average rate at the outset then you start with £300,000. The same 400% returns over 30-years means you end up with £1,200,000.
It doesn't matter in which order multiplicative factors apply, whether investment returns or tax rates.
But in the second (outside the pension) case you pay capital gains tax on the gains
Not within a stocks and shares ISA you don't.
I'm ignoring the super elite who save more than £20k per year as that's a very small proportion of people with higher rate tax relief.
Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.
Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.
In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever
The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look
He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile
If it takes an act of parliament so be it
He hasn’t actually broken UK law though. The accusations are all events that took place on British soil with a woman over the age of consent.
His actions are sleazy and reprehensible, but if we started punishing people for that…
You seem to be trying to excuse him
Have you read Virginia Giuffre book ?
Does innocent until proven guilty not apply to him?
Innocent men often pay their accusers £12 million to shut up and drop their allegations.
When the reputational damage is greater yes
Phew, thank goodness Andrew has preserved his reputation, total bargain.
Okay so I'm going to be boring and return back to pensions tax relief as I missed it earlier:
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
- I think "tax relief" is better described as "tax deferral". Excluding the lump sum described above, all money paid into pensions is taxed at someone's marginal tax rate at the point of receiving their income. Which feels intuitively correct, as pension savings is deferred income. Tax it when it is realised or when it is accrued, not both. Yes some people accrued when they are on a 40% band and receive when they are on a 20% band, but that is merely a reflection of their tax bracket at the point of receiving income.
- Removal of higher-rate tax relief would probably just stop many people using the pension concept altogether. You pay 20% to 25% tax on the way in, and 20%+ on the way out, with the added bonus of future tax uncertainty and not being able to access your money if needed for 30 years or so. Far simpler to just pay the 40%/45% tax up front and put it in an stocks and shares ISA. There is no difference in end outcome (all return compounding and tax rates are multiplicative so it doesn't matter in which order they are done).
- The 25% tax free lump sum would be the only remaining marginal benefit of pension savings for higher income earners. What's the likelihood of that lasting 20-30 years?
... So I think those proposing this should realise it's a step very close to destroying the concept of a pension for many people altogether. I'm not sure that's in the long-term interest of the country.
Hmm.
Two thoughts.
1. ISAs aren't *specifically* designed as deferral systems. So what's to stop a future chancellor cancelling all ISAs? 2. They give tax relief up front and also during the duration, so not entirely different from a pension relief system.
1. ISAs are explicitly tax free systems as you pay into them out of post-tax income. Any future government retrospectively adding tax on withdrawals would effectively be implementing an arbitrary one-off wealth tax. I can imagine reducing maximum contributions in the future, but not taxing what is in there. 2. ISAs don't give tax relief up front, you pay into them out of post-tax earnings and pay no tax on withdrawals. Pensions you have no up front tax and pay tax when you receive income.
As I say, other than the tax free lump sum they are identical in premise: for one you pay tax on the way in, the other you pay tax on the way out. In neither do you pay tax when money is kept in savings.
The proposal is for a system where higher rate tax payers pay money on the way in and on the way out.
Don't be surprised if many opt out of such a system.
If you defer tax for 30 years whilst it is invested in shares you are saving a fortune. If higher rate taxpayers don't understand that, that will be on them. It is like interest free borrowing which can be invested.
That's simply not true.
Let's say you generate 400% returns over 30 years, cumulatively, from investing in shares.
£500,000 invested out of pre-tax income becomes £2,000,000. If you pay tax at 40% average rate on retirement, you earn £1,200,000.
If you were taxed 40% average rate at the outset then you start with £300,000. The same 400% returns over 30-years means you end up with £1,200,000.
It doesn't matter in which order multiplicative factors apply, whether investment returns or tax rates.
But in the second (outside the pension) case you pay capital gains tax on the gains
Not within a stocks and shares ISA you don't.
I'm ignoring the super elite who save more than £20k per year as that's a very small proportion of people with higher rate tax relief.
I couldn't care less about what title or honours that Andrew has, as they are meaningless baubles.
He should be tried in court, or at least forced to appear at a public enquiry into the allegations.
Tried for what? Giuffre was 17, apparently. She may have been trafficked but by Epstein, not by Prince Andrew. There is no suggestion that he had any reason to think it was not consensual. I mean, if he had a brain or any common sense he might have but he's utterly stupid and has had people giving him stuff his entire life.
I really don't see a criminal offence in UK law. Sleezy certainly. Amoral, of course. But I don't see any basis on which he could be prosecuted here. My understanding is that the age of consent in the US varies by state, some 18, some 17, some 16. In Virginia it is 18 but that is not where they allegedly had sex. I've no idea if they seek to apply that extraterritorially.
People also forget that Andrew York was one of the most hardworking Royals, pre-fall, and would regularly be a strong second to the Princess Royal in numbers of engagements he undertook in service of his country.
I'm sure he has flaws, as do the Rolling Stones, but he was a very diligent working Royal when he was one.
Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.
Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.
In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever
The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look
He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile
If it takes an act of parliament so be it
He hasn’t actually broken UK law though. The accusations are all events that took place on British soil with a woman over the age of consent.
His actions are sleazy and reprehensible, but if we started punishing people for that…
You seem to be trying to excuse him
Have you read Virginia Giuffre book ?
Does innocent until proven guilty not apply to him?
Innocent men often pay their accusers £12 million to shut up and drop their allegations.
Do we now have to accept any out of court settlement that has been made by individuals or corporations are an admission of guilt by the settlor?
No, but £12m is not a typical out of court settlement. And there is corroboration he has lied.
Is there a handy guide for what is typical for different alleged crimes factoring who is settling? Do we have other examples of famous people settling with accusers to compare to? Or are we just saying things because Andrew is unpleasant and shitty (he really is very)?
Whatever, it's been a fall of mighty proportions. We all remember that handsome young pilot, back from the Falklands, walking in the victory parade with a twinkle in his eye and a rose between his teeth. And now look. Old, fat, disgraced. No twinkles. No roses.
It reminds me of that old joke:
Q: What's the difference between Koo Stark* and the Argentinian Air Force?
Okay so I'm going to be boring and return back to pensions tax relief as I missed it earlier:
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
- I think "tax relief" is better described as "tax deferral". Excluding the lump sum described above, all money paid into pensions is taxed at someone's marginal tax rate at the point of receiving their income. Which feels intuitively correct, as pension savings is deferred income. Tax it when it is realised or when it is accrued, not both. Yes some people accrued when they are on a 40% band and receive when they are on a 20% band, but that is merely a reflection of their tax bracket at the point of receiving income.
- Removal of higher-rate tax relief would probably just stop many people using the pension concept altogether. You pay 20% to 25% tax on the way in, and 20%+ on the way out, with the added bonus of future tax uncertainty and not being able to access your money if needed for 30 years or so. Far simpler to just pay the 40%/45% tax up front and put it in an stocks and shares ISA. There is no difference in end outcome (all return compounding and tax rates are multiplicative so it doesn't matter in which order they are done).
- The 25% tax free lump sum would be the only remaining marginal benefit of pension savings for higher income earners. What's the likelihood of that lasting 20-30 years?
... So I think those proposing this should realise it's a step very close to destroying the concept of a pension for many people altogether. I'm not sure that's in the long-term interest of the country.
Hmm.
Two thoughts.
1. ISAs aren't *specifically* designed as deferral systems. So what's to stop a future chancellor cancelling all ISAs? 2. They give tax relief up front and also during the duration, so not entirely different from a pension relief system.
1. ISAs are explicitly tax free systems as you pay into them out of post-tax income. Any future government retrospectively adding tax on withdrawals would effectively be implementing an arbitrary one-off wealth tax. I can imagine reducing maximum contributions in the future, but not taxing what is in there. 2. ISAs don't give tax relief up front, you pay into them out of post-tax earnings and pay no tax on withdrawals. Pensions you have no up front tax and pay tax when you receive income.
As I say, other than the tax free lump sum they are identical in premise: for one you pay tax on the way in, the other you pay tax on the way out. In neither do you pay tax when money is kept in savings.
The proposal is for a system where higher rate tax payers pay money on the way in and on the way out.
Don't be surprised if many opt out of such a system.
If you defer tax for 30 years whilst it is invested in shares you are saving a fortune. If higher rate taxpayers don't understand that, that will be on them. It is like interest free borrowing which can be invested.
That's simply not true.
Let's say you generate 500% returns over 30 years, cumulatively, from investing in shares.
£500,000 invested out of pre-tax income becomes £2,000,000. If you pay tax at 40% average rate on retirement, you earn £1,200,000.
If you were taxed 40% average rate at the outset then you start with £300,000. The same 500% returns over 30-years means you end up with £1,200,000.
It doesn't matter in which order multiplicative factors apply, whether investment returns or tax rates.
You are not counting your personal tax allowances, £38k each year can be withdrawn at 20% going out instead of 40% going in.
But that is because it is deferred income. Everyone is paying tax at the correct marginal rate for the income they are receiving at the time of receipt.
Except for the 25% lump sum which I agree distorts incentives and should be abolished.
Let's not add more distortions to our tax system. Increase income tax rates on high earnings if you want to increase tax rates on high earners.
The distortion is the pension system. Reducing its use, reduces the distortion.
As yet, no-one has come up with a single good answer why we are foregoing this tax, for those who have already got savings enough for a comfortable retirement but want to save more, in the first place.
Then the question does become- why am I saving more? Because at some point, it becomes about a number on a spreadsheet and a line on a graph, rather than whatever aspects of a Good Life I might value.
How much of the higher rate tax relief is going to those "already got enough for a comfortable retirement" people, vs to people who aren't there yet, but happen to be higher rate taxpayers? (Also, figuring out how much is "enough" is tricky, because you don't know how long you're going to live or if you're going to have big care expenses later. So some people save more than they "need to" because they're risk averse.)
We already don't give the full relief to really high earners -- the amount you can sock away each year without paying tax tapers down to 10K as your income rises.
Its not that tricky. Have a formula to theoretically convert the pension pot to an annuity at retirement age. Add in state pension. If above average earnings you have enough. If not keep getting taxpayer pension benefit.
People also forget that Andrew York was one of the most hardworking Royals, pre-fall, and would regularly be a strong second to the Princess Royal in numbers of engagements he undertook in service of his country.
I'm sure he has flaws, as do the Rolling Stones, but he was a very diligent working Royal when he was one.
A high percentage of those working engagements were playing golf with foreign despots, while staying in 5* hotels. We didn't even get formulaic travel article puffery to show for it.
You know that for a fact do you or is it just you wishing it was the case.
I couldn't care less about what title or honours that Andrew has, as they are meaningless baubles.
He should be tried in court, or at least forced to appear at a public enquiry into the allegations.
What are the allegations though? That he had sex with a woman over the age of consent? The under-age part is Virginia Giuffre having been flown across the country but that was not by his Princeliness. There is some financial stuff that looks bad but the common factor might be his sense of entitlement.
Disclaimer: I've not read Virginia's autobiography or the Lownie book.
There are issues of coercion and consent, as in other trafficking cases.
People also forget that Andrew York was one of the most hardworking Royals, pre-fall, and would regularly be a strong second to the Princess Royal in numbers of engagements he undertook in service of his country.
I'm sure he has flaws, as do the Rolling Stones, but he was a very diligent working Royal when he was one.
A high percentage of those working engagements were playing golf with foreign despots, while staying in 5* hotels. We didn't even get formulaic travel article puffery to show for it.
You know that for a fact tot you or is it just you wishing it was the case.
A fact. Friends in the FCO who had to put up with the Royal shitstain.
I couldn't care less about what title or honours that Andrew has, as they are meaningless baubles.
He should be tried in court, or at least forced to appear at a public enquiry into the allegations.
What are the allegations though? That he had sex with a woman over the age of consent? The under-age part is Virginia Giuffre having been flown across the country but that was not by his Princeliness. There is some financial stuff that looks bad but the common factor might be his sense of entitlement.
Disclaimer: I've not read Virginia's autobiography or the Lownie book.
There are issues of coercion and consent, as in other trafficking cases.
What are those issues. Exactly.
It's in Giuffres autobiography. I can't read it for you.
Well the public need some lessons on our constitution then in how to implement their anti Andrew Windsor sentiments. First he is no longer a working royal, nor does he use his Duke of York or HRH titles.
Second, to formally remove his Dukedom and title of Prince would certainly require an Act of Parliament which would also remove his place in the line of succession too. The King alone can’t do that. Much as Edward VIII’s place in the line of succession was formally removed by parliament along with his title of King by Parliament in the last century. That would likely come if Andrew received a criminal conviction for his alleged sexual act with Giuffre.
In any case given two presidents of the US Republic, Trump and Clinton met Epstein, unlike our King or Prince William and given former Presidents of the French and Brazilian republics are now in jail the argument for a republic over a constitutional monarchy is weaker than ever
The public need no lessons on decency, Prince Andrew fails on every aspect and your pathetic attempt to play down this is not a good look
He should be stripped of all his titles and sent into exile
If it takes an act of parliament so be it
He hasn’t actually broken UK law though. The accusations are all events that took place on British soil with a woman over the age of consent.
His actions are sleazy and reprehensible, but if we started punishing people for that…
You seem to be trying to excuse him
Have you read Virginia Giuffre book ?
Does innocent until proven guilty not apply to him?
Innocent men often pay their accusers £12 million to shut up and drop their allegations.
Do we now have to accept any out of court settlement that has been made by individuals or corporations are an admission of guilt by the settlor?
No, but £12m is not a typical out of court settlement. And there is corroboration he has lied.
Is there a handy guide for what is typical for different alleged crimes factoring who is settling? Do we have other examples of famous people settling with accusers to compare to? Or are we just saying things because Andrew is unpleasant and shitty (he really is very)?
Whatever, it's been a fall of mighty proportions. We all remember that handsome young pilot, back from the Falklands, walking in the victory parade with a twinkle in his eye and a rose between his teeth. And now look. Old, fat, disgraced. No twinkles. No roses.
Let's hope no one wants to go after ex investment bankers who have made good and are now, ergo, class traitors.
I couldn't care less about what title or honours that Andrew has, as they are meaningless baubles.
He should be tried in court, or at least forced to appear at a public enquiry into the allegations.
What are the allegations though? That he had sex with a woman over the age of consent? The under-age part is Virginia Giuffre having been flown across the country but that was not by his Princeliness. There is some financial stuff that looks bad but the common factor might be his sense of entitlement.
Disclaimer: I've not read Virginia's autobiography or the Lownie book.
There are issues of coercion and consent, as in other trafficking cases.
What are those issues. Exactly.
It's in Giuffres autobiography. I can't read it for you.
People also forget that Andrew York was one of the most hardworking Royals, pre-fall, and would regularly be a strong second to the Princess Royal in numbers of engagements he undertook in service of his country.
I'm sure he has flaws, as do the Rolling Stones, but he was a very diligent working Royal when he was one.
hard work!!!!, he wasn't out there digging ditches was he?
Oh the Grand Old Duke of York He had 12 million quid He gave it to someone he never met For something he never did.
I prefer my version:
Oh, the Creepy Old Duke of York He had ten thousand women He marched them up to the top of his hill And he marched them down again
And while they were there he was up And when they were gone he was down. And when he was only halfway up He sent for a teenage girl because he was a fucking clown.
(Annoyingly that tune has been running in my head all day. Can't shake it for some reason.)
I couldn't care less about what title or honours that Andrew has, as they are meaningless baubles.
He should be tried in court, or at least forced to appear at a public enquiry into the allegations.
What are the allegations though? That he had sex with a woman over the age of consent? The under-age part is Virginia Giuffre having been flown across the country but that was not by his Princeliness. There is some financial stuff that looks bad but the common factor might be his sense of entitlement.
Disclaimer: I've not read Virginia's autobiography or the Lownie book.
There are issues of coercion and consent, as in other trafficking cases.
What are those issues. Exactly.
Foxy doesn’t have to read Gueffre’s autobiography for you. Buy a copy.
People also forget that Andrew York was one of the most hardworking Royals, pre-fall, and would regularly be a strong second to the Princess Royal in numbers of engagements he undertook in service of his country.
I'm sure he has flaws, as do the Rolling Stones, but he was a very diligent working Royal when he was one.
hard work!!!!, he wasn't out there digging ditches was he?
to be fair, Andrew was 50% of the way there.
He was hard a lot of the time, he just wasn't doing much work.
People also forget that Andrew York was one of the most hardworking Royals, pre-fall, and would regularly be a strong second to the Princess Royal in numbers of engagements he undertook in service of his country.
I'm sure he has flaws, as do the Rolling Stones, but he was a very diligent working Royal when he was one.
hard work!!!!, he wasn't out there digging ditches was he?
He is a Falklands combat veteran and given his birthright has worked harder than most. Have you dug ditches.
Okay so I'm going to be boring and return back to pensions tax relief as I missed it earlier:
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
For those of us in our 40s still renting, the tax free lump sum is going to be essential for paying off the last of the mortgage, if we can ever get one.
I couldn't care less about what title or honours that Andrew has, as they are meaningless baubles.
He should be tried in court, or at least forced to appear at a public enquiry into the allegations.
What are the allegations though? That he had sex with a woman over the age of consent? The under-age part is Virginia Giuffre having been flown across the country but that was not by his Princeliness. There is some financial stuff that looks bad but the common factor might be his sense of entitlement.
Disclaimer: I've not read Virginia's autobiography or the Lownie book.
There are issues of coercion and consent, as in other trafficking cases.
What are those issues. Exactly.
Foxy doesn’t have to read Gueffre’s autobiography for you. Buy a copy.
So he doesn't know. He should at least admit it. As should you.
That nobody has noticed until late October shows the pickle the Conservatives are in. People aren't interested, even when they are proposing terrible batshit things.
Imagine going into bat for Prince Andrew on the internet
Imagine being a tosser who follows the crowd without knowing the details of the case.
Quite. But at the end of the day he did the most damage himself by doing that insane interview with the BBC.
Yes. It was typically "royal". A product of his upbringing. All he has known since birth is that being royal confers a different status on you. The same understanding which is applied to others who are victims of their upbringing is denied to him. Because of course all the trappings of royalty mean people are less inclined to be sympathetic.
I couldn't care less about what title or honours that Andrew has, as they are meaningless baubles.
He should be tried in court, or at least forced to appear at a public enquiry into the allegations.
What are the allegations though? That he had sex with a woman over the age of consent? The under-age part is Virginia Giuffre having been flown across the country but that was not by his Princeliness. There is some financial stuff that looks bad but the common factor might be his sense of entitlement.
Disclaimer: I've not read Virginia's autobiography or the Lownie book.
There are issues of coercion and consent, as in other trafficking cases.
What are those issues. Exactly.
Foxy doesn’t have to read Gueffre’s autobiography for you. Buy a copy.
So he doesn't know. He should at least admit it. As should you.
Coffee pouring fine cancelled because it was making the council look like total idiots a minor infraction with no realistic possibility of being upheld:
She breached Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, more them just caving to media pressure but the enforcement officers followed the law with the fixed penalty notice as it stands
I highly doubt most people have any idea about this law covers such an act. The sensible thing to do would have been to just say to her btw that's against the law, please don't do it again. Its not like she was pouring galloons of paint down the drain which is really what the law is really targetting. She was doing this rather than taking liquids on a bus (which Singapore bans in order to keep their public transport spotless).
Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 makes it an offence to deposit or dispose of waste in a way likely to pollute land or water, including pouring liquids into street drains.
The question is - is a quarter cup of coffee likely to pollute land or water?
Water pollution is the contamination of bodies of water, such as lakes, rivers, oceans, and groundwater, by harmful substances that degrade water quality and harm living organisms.
Does a very small amount of coffee with no grounds in it do that? If I were her lawyer I'd argue that it was not an offence if it came to court.
The (THREE) enforcement officials need training in discretion. I hope the Council will insist on that.
I suspect the officials get commission on the fines, so they go for easy pickings. A large negative commission (I.e. a penalty) should be charged on all fines that are revoked on appeal.
Surely the question is, would it be an issue if someone did it via their kitchen/bathroom sink? Clearly not in this case.
Different drainage system. I believe the street drains aren't given the same degree of treatment.
In London they are all the same drainage system.
Hence why the Thames is almost as full of shit as the board of a utility company.
The Thames is one of the cleanest rivers going through a major city in the world.
People also forget that Andrew York was one of the most hardworking Royals, pre-fall, and would regularly be a strong second to the Princess Royal in numbers of engagements he undertook in service of his country.
I'm sure he has flaws, as do the Rolling Stones, but he was a very diligent working Royal when he was one.
hard work!!!!, he wasn't out there digging ditches was he?
He is a Falklands combat veteran and given his birthright has worked harder than most. Have you dug ditches.
Coffee pouring fine cancelled because it was making the council look like total idiots a minor infraction with no realistic possibility of being upheld:
She breached Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, more them just caving to media pressure but the enforcement officers followed the law with the fixed penalty notice as it stands
I highly doubt most people have any idea about this law covers such an act. The sensible thing to do would have been to just say to her btw that's against the law, please don't do it again. Its not like she was pouring galloons of paint down the drain which is really what the law is really targetting. She was doing this rather than taking liquids on a bus (which Singapore bans in order to keep their public transport spotless).
Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 makes it an offence to deposit or dispose of waste in a way likely to pollute land or water, including pouring liquids into street drains.
The question is - is a quarter cup of coffee likely to pollute land or water?
Water pollution is the contamination of bodies of water, such as lakes, rivers, oceans, and groundwater, by harmful substances that degrade water quality and harm living organisms.
Does a very small amount of coffee with no grounds in it do that? If I were her lawyer I'd argue that it was not an offence if it came to court.
The (THREE) enforcement officials need training in discretion. I hope the Council will insist on that.
I suspect the officials get commission on the fines, so they go for easy pickings. A large negative commission (I.e. a penalty) should be charged on all fines that are revoked on appeal.
Surely the question is, would it be an issue if someone did it via their kitchen/bathroom sink? Clearly not in this case.
Different drainage system. I believe the street drains aren't given the same degree of treatment.
In London they are all the same drainage system.
Hence why the Thames is almost as full of shit as the board of a utility company.
The Thames is one of the cleanest rivers going through a major city in the world.
Okay so I'm going to be boring and return back to pensions tax relief as I missed it earlier:
- For the purpose of this I'm going to ignore the 25% tax free lump sum on retirement. Because that is an independent form of tax relief that I frankly don't really understand the purpose of. The government could scrap it at any time.
- I think "tax relief" is better described as "tax deferral". Excluding the lump sum described above, all money paid into pensions is taxed at someone's marginal tax rate at the point of receiving their income. Which feels intuitively correct, as pension savings is deferred income. Tax it when it is realised or when it is accrued, not both. Yes some people accrued when they are on a 40% band and receive when they are on a 20% band, but that is merely a reflection of their tax bracket at the point of receiving income.
- Removal of higher-rate tax relief would probably just stop many people using the pension concept altogether. You pay 20% to 25% tax on the way in, and 20%+ on the way out, with the added bonus of future tax uncertainty and not being able to access your money if needed for 30 years or so. Far simpler to just pay the 40%/45% tax up front and put it in an stocks and shares ISA. There is no difference in end outcome (all return compounding and tax rates are multiplicative so it doesn't matter in which order they are done).
- The 25% tax free lump sum would be the only remaining marginal benefit of pension savings for higher income earners. What's the likelihood of that lasting 20-30 years?
... So I think those proposing this should realise it's a step very close to destroying the concept of a pension for many people altogether. I'm not sure that's in the long-term interest of the country.
Hmm.
Two thoughts.
1. ISAs aren't *specifically* designed as deferral systems. So what's to stop a future chancellor cancelling all ISAs? 2. They give tax relief up front and also during the duration, so not entirely different from a pension relief system.
1. ISAs are explicitly tax free systems as you pay into them out of post-tax income. Any future government retrospectively adding tax on withdrawals would effectively be implementing an arbitrary one-off wealth tax. I can imagine reducing maximum contributions in the future, but not taxing what is in there. 2. ISAs don't give tax relief up front, you pay into them out of post-tax earnings and pay no tax on withdrawals. Pensions you have no up front tax and pay tax when you receive income.
As I say, other than the tax free lump sum they are identical in premise: for one you pay tax on the way in, the other you pay tax on the way out. In neither do you pay tax when money is kept in savings.
The proposal is for a system where higher rate tax payers pay money on the way in and on the way out.
Don't be surprised if many opt out of such a system.
If you defer tax for 30 years whilst it is invested in shares you are saving a fortune. If higher rate taxpayers don't understand that, that will be on them. It is like interest free borrowing which can be invested.
That's simply not true.
Let's say you generate 500% returns over 30 years, cumulatively, from investing in shares.
£500,000 invested out of pre-tax income becomes £2,000,000. If you pay tax at 40% average rate on retirement, you earn £1,200,000.
If you were taxed 40% average rate at the outset then you start with £300,000. The same 500% returns over 30-years means you end up with £1,200,000.
It doesn't matter in which order multiplicative factors apply, whether investment returns or tax rates.
You are not counting your personal tax allowances, £38k each year can be withdrawn at 20% going out instead of 40% going in.
But that is because it is deferred income. Everyone is paying tax at the correct marginal rate for the income they are receiving at the time of receipt.
Except for the 25% lump sum which I agree distorts incentives and should be abolished.
Let's not add more distortions to our tax system. Increase income tax rates on high earnings if you want to increase tax rates on high earners.
The distortion is the pension system. Reducing its use, reduces the distortion.
As yet, no-one has come up with a single good answer why we are foregoing this tax, for those who have already got savings enough for a comfortable retirement but want to save more, in the first place.
Because the UK's saving rate is by far the lowest in the G7 and you're proposing a change that would discourage people earning £50k a year living in London - hardly the super rich - from bothering anymore?
People earning £50k a year living in London typically can't afford big pensions. They are rarely the ones who already with £500k or £1m pension pots already accumulated and still benefitting from 40% tax relief.
30% for everyone is a better option than the status quo.
Personally I would do that plus reduce it further at the level when the private pension pot annuity equivalent at retirement plus state pension equated to average earnings.
I couldn't care less about what title or honours that Andrew has, as they are meaningless baubles.
He should be tried in court, or at least forced to appear at a public enquiry into the allegations.
What are the allegations though? That he had sex with a woman over the age of consent? The under-age part is Virginia Giuffre having been flown across the country but that was not by his Princeliness. There is some financial stuff that looks bad but the common factor might be his sense of entitlement.
Disclaimer: I've not read Virginia's autobiography or the Lownie book.
There are issues of coercion and consent, as in other trafficking cases.
What are those issues. Exactly.
Foxy doesn’t have to read Gueffre’s autobiography for you. Buy a copy.
So he doesn't know. He should at least admit it. As should you.
Talking about Royalty, the plane that Charles flew to Rome in today is hideous. At least the helicopter is that kind of stately plum colour. The RAF have loads of cool designs to choose from - why did they go for the Sensodyne look instead?
Coffee pouring fine cancelled because it was making the council look like total idiots a minor infraction with no realistic possibility of being upheld:
She breached Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, more them just caving to media pressure but the enforcement officers followed the law with the fixed penalty notice as it stands
I highly doubt most people have any idea about this law covers such an act. The sensible thing to do would have been to just say to her btw that's against the law, please don't do it again. Its not like she was pouring galloons of paint down the drain which is really what the law is really targetting. She was doing this rather than taking liquids on a bus (which Singapore bans in order to keep their public transport spotless).
Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 makes it an offence to deposit or dispose of waste in a way likely to pollute land or water, including pouring liquids into street drains.
The question is - is a quarter cup of coffee likely to pollute land or water?
Water pollution is the contamination of bodies of water, such as lakes, rivers, oceans, and groundwater, by harmful substances that degrade water quality and harm living organisms.
Does a very small amount of coffee with no grounds in it do that? If I were her lawyer I'd argue that it was not an offence if it came to court.
The (THREE) enforcement officials need training in discretion. I hope the Council will insist on that.
I suspect the officials get commission on the fines, so they go for easy pickings. A large negative commission (I.e. a penalty) should be charged on all fines that are revoked on appeal.
Surely the question is, would it be an issue if someone did it via their kitchen/bathroom sink? Clearly not in this case.
Different drainage system. I believe the street drains aren't given the same degree of treatment.
In London they are all the same drainage system.
Hence why the Thames is almost as full of shit as the board of a utility company.
The Thames is one of the cleanest rivers going through a major city in the world.
I couldn't care less about what title or honours that Andrew has, as they are meaningless baubles.
He should be tried in court, or at least forced to appear at a public enquiry into the allegations.
What are the allegations though? That he had sex with a woman over the age of consent? The under-age part is Virginia Giuffre having been flown across the country but that was not by his Princeliness. There is some financial stuff that looks bad but the common factor might be his sense of entitlement.
Disclaimer: I've not read Virginia's autobiography or the Lownie book.
There are issues of coercion and consent, as in other trafficking cases.
What are those issues. Exactly.
Foxy doesn’t have to read Gueffre’s autobiography for you. Buy a copy.
So he doesn't know. He should at least admit it. As should you.
Weak sauce. The age of consent in New York is 17. You and I have no idea as to the substance of the "forced to have sex" allegations
What part of “forced to have” am I supposed to understand. Is there a context in which being forced to have sex is acceptable? I’ll answer that one for you. The answer is “no”. Any other view is repugnant
Coffee pouring fine cancelled because it was making the council look like total idiots a minor infraction with no realistic possibility of being upheld:
She breached Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, more them just caving to media pressure but the enforcement officers followed the law with the fixed penalty notice as it stands
I highly doubt most people have any idea about this law covers such an act. The sensible thing to do would have been to just say to her btw that's against the law, please don't do it again. Its not like she was pouring galloons of paint down the drain which is really what the law is really targetting. She was doing this rather than taking liquids on a bus (which Singapore bans in order to keep their public transport spotless).
Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 makes it an offence to deposit or dispose of waste in a way likely to pollute land or water, including pouring liquids into street drains.
The question is - is a quarter cup of coffee likely to pollute land or water?
Water pollution is the contamination of bodies of water, such as lakes, rivers, oceans, and groundwater, by harmful substances that degrade water quality and harm living organisms.
Does a very small amount of coffee with no grounds in it do that? If I were her lawyer I'd argue that it was not an offence if it came to court.
The (THREE) enforcement officials need training in discretion. I hope the Council will insist on that.
I suspect the officials get commission on the fines, so they go for easy pickings. A large negative commission (I.e. a penalty) should be charged on all fines that are revoked on appeal.
Surely the question is, would it be an issue if someone did it via their kitchen/bathroom sink? Clearly not in this case.
Different drainage system. I believe the street drains aren't given the same degree of treatment.
In London they are all the same drainage system.
Hence why the Thames is almost as full of shit as the board of a utility company.
The Thames is one of the cleanest rivers going through a major city in the world.
Coffee pouring fine cancelled because it was making the council look like total idiots a minor infraction with no realistic possibility of being upheld:
She breached Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, more them just caving to media pressure but the enforcement officers followed the law with the fixed penalty notice as it stands
I highly doubt most people have any idea about this law covers such an act. The sensible thing to do would have been to just say to her btw that's against the law, please don't do it again. Its not like she was pouring galloons of paint down the drain which is really what the law is really targetting. She was doing this rather than taking liquids on a bus (which Singapore bans in order to keep their public transport spotless).
Section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 makes it an offence to deposit or dispose of waste in a way likely to pollute land or water, including pouring liquids into street drains.
The question is - is a quarter cup of coffee likely to pollute land or water?
Water pollution is the contamination of bodies of water, such as lakes, rivers, oceans, and groundwater, by harmful substances that degrade water quality and harm living organisms.
Does a very small amount of coffee with no grounds in it do that? If I were her lawyer I'd argue that it was not an offence if it came to court.
The (THREE) enforcement officials need training in discretion. I hope the Council will insist on that.
I suspect the officials get commission on the fines, so they go for easy pickings. A large negative commission (I.e. a penalty) should be charged on all fines that are revoked on appeal.
Surely the question is, would it be an issue if someone did it via their kitchen/bathroom sink? Clearly not in this case.
Different drainage system. I believe the street drains aren't given the same degree of treatment.
In London they are all the same drainage system.
Hence why the Thames is almost as full of shit as the board of a utility company.
The Thames is one of the cleanest rivers going through a major city in the world.
Comments
2. ISAs don't give tax relief up front, you pay into them out of post-tax earnings and pay no tax on withdrawals. Pensions you have no up front tax and pay tax when you receive income.
As I say, other than the tax free lump sum they are identical in premise: for one you pay tax on the way in, the other you pay tax on the way out. In neither do you pay tax when money is kept in savings.
The proposal is for a system where higher rate tax payers pay money on the way in and on the way out.
Don't be surprised if many opt out of such a system.
Maine Senate candidate apologises for tattoo that resembles Nazi symbol
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cdxrqpl9elno
It was v sunny today and still and I watched the sea from home as the wall of cloud started rolling in from the Atlantic, was quite cool knowing what is coming in behind it.
The problem with the "on average, we're not saving enough" factor is that the average covers some people possibly saving more than is helpful and lots of people who struggle to save anything at all.
Stephen Jay Gould once headlined one of his pop science articles "The Median Is Not The Message", and he was right. About that, anyway.
But, for some reason only they can explain they panicked at a general election, that wasnt really about tax, and blocked those routes off.
I'm sure he has flaws, as do the Rolling Stones, but he was a very diligent working Royal when he was one.
Let's say you generate 400% returns over 30 years, cumulatively, from investing in shares.
£500,000 invested out of pre-tax income becomes £2,000,000. If you pay tax at 40% average rate on retirement, you earn £1,200,000.
If you were taxed 40% average rate at the outset then you start with £300,000. The same 400% returns over 30-years means you end up with £1,200,000.
It doesn't matter in which order multiplicative factors apply, whether investment returns or tax rates.
Very 2020s, I guess. While Epstein was very 90s.
(As an aside would we become the Republic of the UK?)
It is a tax solely on people who work for a living. Work is not something we should want to discourage or penalise.
It is politically less damaging, through enabling the pretence that taxes are lower than they actually are, masking how high real tax rates are, and enabling some to shelter their income from the tax altogether.
But economically? Very damaging.
Except for the 25% lump sum which I agree distorts incentives and should be abolished.
Let's not add more distortions to our tax system. Increase income tax rates on high earnings if you want to increase tax rates on high earners.
It may make sense to keep that at 8% including for salary sacrifice contributions but anything beyond that is going to have entertaining consequences.
One similar example I found today - because I employ someone so qualify for Employment Allowance it's more tax efficient to pay myself PAYE then the old fashioned way of profits and dividends...
As yet, no-one has come up with a single good answer why we are foregoing this tax, for those who have already got savings enough for a comfortable retirement but want to save more, in the first place.
And the third died in 1875 so couldn't have been implicated with Epstein anyway.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/TVllyozQTRA
OT obviously but is that Austin Mitchell, latterly a Labour MP, asking the questions?
And we could do with that money now not potentially in 30+ years.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgmx1kpgr2do
30% for everyone is a better option than the status quo.
Personally I would do that plus reduce it further at the level when the private pension pot annuity equivalent at retirement plus state pension equated to average earnings.
We already don't give the full relief to really high earners -- the amount you can sock away each year without paying tax tapers down to 10K as your income rises.
I'm ignoring the super elite who save more than £20k per year as that's a very small proportion of people with higher rate tax relief.
Amazon paid $20M for creative control of the 'James Bond' franchise
Denis Villeneuve won't have final cut on the upcoming film
https://bsky.app/profile/culturecrave.co/post/3m3sihwflok2f
I really don't see a criminal offence in UK law. Sleezy certainly. Amoral, of course. But I don't see any basis on which he could be prosecuted here. My understanding is that the age of consent in the US varies by state, some 18, some 17, some 16. In Virginia it is 18 but that is not where they allegedly had sex. I've no idea if they seek to apply that extraterritorially.
Q: What's the difference between Koo Stark* and the Argentinian Air Force?
A: Only one got to blow up Andy's chopper.
*look it up!
He had 12 million quid
He gave it to someone he never met
For something he never did.
Oh, the Creepy Old Duke of York
He had ten thousand women
He marched them up to the top of his hill
And he marched them down again
And while they were there he was up
And when they were gone he was down.
And when he was only halfway up
He sent for a teenage girl because he was a fucking clown.
(Annoyingly that tune has been running in my head all day. Can't shake it for some reason.)
He was hard a lot of the time, he just wasn't doing much work.
What Katie Did
- https://www.lbc.co.uk/article/katie-lam-backlash-migrants-culturally-coherent-5HjdFgC_2/
- https://x.com/Katie_Lam_MP/status/1958837268614914361
What Kemi Didhttps://claude.ai/share/31f9174b-7548-4944-9b88-210aab338519
Do you know what "forced to have sex" means in this instance.