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?
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.
birthright! *vomits*
He is a royal. It is his birthright to be a public servant and up to him how much of a public servant he actually is.
SCOOP: The Trump administration has lifted a key restriction on Ukraine’s use of some long-range missiles provided by Western allies, enabling Kyiv to step up attacks on targets inside Russia and increase pressure on the Kremlin, U.S. officials said Wednesday.
SCOOP: The Trump administration has lifted a key restriction on Ukraine’s use of some long-range missiles provided by Western allies, enabling Kyiv to step up attacks on targets inside Russia and increase pressure on the Kremlin, U.S. officials said Wednesday.
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
I believe that what Topping is suggesting is that she may not have been forced.
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
But what does it mean for a 17-yr old. Was she raped? That's not what your AI link said.
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
I believe that what Topping is suggesting is that she may not have been forced.
So he’s saying she’s a liar? Can he just not say so?
SCOOP: The Trump administration has lifted a key restriction on Ukraine’s use of some long-range missiles provided by Western allies, enabling Kyiv to step up attacks on targets inside Russia and increase pressure on the Kremlin, U.S. officials said Wednesday.
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
I believe that what Topping is suggesting is that she may not have been forced.
I mean I don't know. Doug's AI "it's obvious isn't it" link said she was "forced to have sex". It didn't say "raped" (should it have?). So what does "forced to have sex" mean in this context and situation.
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
I believe that what Topping is suggesting is that she may not have been forced.
I mean I don't know. Doug's AI "it's obvious isn't it" link said she was "forced to have sex". It didn't say "raped" (should it have?). So what does "forced to have sex" mean in this context and situation.
Forced to have sex means raped, yes. That is the literal definition.
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
I believe that what Topping is suggesting is that she may not have been forced.
So he’s saying she’s a liar? Can he just not say so?
I'm not saying that I'm asking you, Doug, what "forced to have sex" means. Your link didn't say raped. Or is that a synonym.
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
I believe that what Topping is suggesting is that she may not have been forced.
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.
SCOOP: The Trump administration has lifted a key restriction on Ukraine’s use of some long-range missiles provided by Western allies, enabling Kyiv to step up attacks on targets inside Russia and increase pressure on the Kremlin, U.S. officials said Wednesday.
This winter could be the most active of the war so far if Ukraine is able to keep attacking Russian infrastructure.
It would be nice to think so. But if Zelensky is at the point of conceding much of the Donbas and Crimea in order to gain a ceasefire, that suggests Ukraine's own capabilities are nearing exhaustion.
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.
It's also valuably commutable between lump sum and additional income, to help compensate for things that have developed not necessarily to the holder's advantage.
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.
Do you know what "forced to have sex" means in this instance.
The age of consent if state lines have been crossed, which they were for her, is 18.
So she was under the age of consent, based upon the allegations.
Also, if there was payment involved, even if it wasn't Andrew who was paying her, the age of consent is 18, whichever country it was in. So we still have rape.
Incidentally I am surprised @DavidL has overlooked this point.
Edit - if, of course, Virginia Giuffre was telling the truth. Equally, she has never AFAIK been proven to have lied, whereas Andrew clearly has on at least one occasion (he undoubtedly met her). So in a conflict of testimony hers is more likely to be truthful.
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.
We'll see what's in the budget. I'm getting nervous.
News: Secretary Bessent just now to reporters: "We are going to announce, either after the close this afternoon or first thing tomorrow morning, a substantial pickup in Russia sanctions."
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
I believe that what Topping is suggesting is that she may not have been forced.
I mean I don't know. Doug's AI "it's obvious isn't it" link said she was "forced to have sex". It didn't say "raped" (should it have?). So what does "forced to have sex" mean in this context and situation.
Forced to have sex means raped, yes. That is the literal definition.
Ah so the allegation was that Andrew raped her. Well that's of course very different to "forced to have sex". Why didn't Claude just say that. Clears it up for everyone.
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.
We'll see what's in the budget. I'm getting nervous.
Don't sweat it. You've enough cash to ride it out and still appear as a left wing hero to your old mates up North.
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.
Why not just cap the tax relief that someone claim in any one year at say £100k?
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.
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.
News: Secretary Bessent just now to reporters: "We are going to announce, either after the close this afternoon or first thing tomorrow morning, a substantial pickup in Russia sanctions."
What on earth did Putin say in this phone call? Did he diss Trump's mother or something?
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
I believe that what Topping is suggesting is that she may not have been forced.
you think sex trafficking victims can consent?
She rhetorically asks "why did I keep on going back".
Obviously this is hugely embarassing. But the total numbers are absolutely tiny. We all laughed when the claims were they would do 50 a week for the trial, instead isn't not even 50 a month. It would be interesting to know why it is so tiny. I presume they are only selecting the absolutely lowest hanging fruit that can't challenge anything in court.
I presume they are also being very careful about the people France is sending in the other direction, which would slow things up a bit.
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.
Do you know what "forced to have sex" means in this instance.
The age of consent if state lines have been crossed, which they were for her, is 18.
So she was under the age of consent, based upon the allegations.
Also, if there was payment involved, even if it wasn't Andrew who was paying her, the age of consent is 18, whichever country it was in. So we still have rape.
Incidentally I am surprised DavidL has overlooked this point.
I think when you're at the point of technicalities about particular state borders you've rather lost the argument about being a bit of a *****. Particularly when the half + 7 rule has been so casually disregarded.
SCOOP: The Trump administration has lifted a key restriction on Ukraine’s use of some long-range missiles provided by Western allies, enabling Kyiv to step up attacks on targets inside Russia and increase pressure on the Kremlin, U.S. officials said Wednesday.
This winter could be the most active of the war so far if Ukraine is able to keep attacking Russian infrastructure.
It would be nice to think so. But if Zelensky is at the point of conceding much of the Donbas and Crimea in order to gain a ceasefire, that suggests Ukraine's own capabilities are nearing exhaustion.
Or he knows that Putin can’t agree to that for his own survival but by Zelensky offering it then he cuts off attacks by Trump’s goons and can use longer range weapons to keep chipping away at the Russian economy.
SCOOP: The Trump administration has lifted a key restriction on Ukraine’s use of some long-range missiles provided by Western allies, enabling Kyiv to step up attacks on targets inside Russia and increase pressure on the Kremlin, U.S. officials said Wednesday.
This winter could be the most active of the war so far if Ukraine is able to keep attacking Russian infrastructure.
It would be nice to think so. But if Zelensky is at the point of conceding much of the Donbas and Crimea in order to gain a ceasefire, that suggests Ukraine's own capabilities are nearing exhaustion.
Or he knows that Putin can’t agree to that for his own survival but by Zelensky offering it then he cuts off attacks by Trump’s goons and can use longer range weapons to keep chipping away at the Russian economy.
The former might be valid, but the latter? You are suggesting that Trump and his acolytes will be swayed by rationality or actuality?
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.
We'll see what's in the budget. I'm getting nervous.
Don't sweat it. You've enough cash to ride it out and still appear as a left wing hero to your old mates up North.
A class traitor can't be a left wing hero. Not even I can pull off that one. But thank 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?
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.
Why not just cap the tax relief that someone claim in any one year at say £100k?
It's already much lower than that at £30 000 (including employers contribution), and tapers even lower at higher incomes.
News: Secretary Bessent just now to reporters: "We are going to announce, either after the close this afternoon or first thing tomorrow morning, a substantial pickup in Russia sanctions."
The timescale is different to previous occasions, but still. Saying you will do a thing is not the same as doing a thing.
I think one non-partisan improvement to the media would be to only report things that have happened, rather than reporting people saying they will do things, or saying that they will announce that they will do things.
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.
We'll see what's in the budget. I'm getting nervous.
Don't sweat it. You've enough cash to ride it out and still appear as a left wing hero to your old mates up North.
A class traitor can't be a left wing hero. Not even I can pull off that one. But thank you.
Er, class traitors from the aristocracy were frequently left wing heroes. Philippe Egalite springs to mind
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.
birthright! *vomits*
He is a royal. It is his birthright to be a public servant and up to him how much of a public servant he actually is.
News: Secretary Bessent just now to reporters: "We are going to announce, either after the close this afternoon or first thing tomorrow morning, a substantial pickup in Russia sanctions."
The timescale is different to previous occasions, but still. Saying you will do a thing is not the same as doing a thing.
I think one non-partial improvement to the media would be to only report things that have happened, rather than reporting people saying they will do things, or saying that they will announce that they will do things.
Heavens. Next you'll be expecting them to understand the thing. Not just breathlessly report it based on a tweet they saw.
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.
Do you know what "forced to have sex" means in this instance.
The age of consent if state lines have been crossed, which they were for her, is 18.
So she was under the age of consent, based upon the allegations.
Also, if there was payment involved, even if it wasn't Andrew who was paying her, the age of consent is 18, whichever country it was in. So we still have rape.
Incidentally I am surprised @DavidL has overlooked this point.
Edit - if, of course, Virginia Giuffre was telling the truth. Equally, she has never AFAIK been proven to have lied, whereas Andrew clearly has on at least one occasion (he undoubtedly met her). So in a conflict of testimony hers is more likely to be truthful.
I don't know where you are getting that from. It is not the law in Scotland or, so far as I am aware in England. In neither jurisdiction does the fact of payment change the age of consent. There are of course other laws about prostitution but that doesn't make it rape. Are you saying that it is the law in the US? If so, in which parts?
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.
We'll see what's in the budget. I'm getting nervous.
Don't sweat it. You've enough cash to ride it out and still appear as a left wing hero to your old mates up North.
A class traitor can't be a left wing hero. Not even I can pull off that one. But thank you.
Er, class traitors from the aristocracy were frequently left wing heroes. Philippe Egalite springs to mind
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.
SCOOP: The Trump administration has lifted a key restriction on Ukraine’s use of some long-range missiles provided by Western allies, enabling Kyiv to step up attacks on targets inside Russia and increase pressure on the Kremlin, U.S. officials said Wednesday.
This winter could be the most active of the war so far if Ukraine is able to keep attacking Russian infrastructure.
It would be nice to think so. But if Zelensky is at the point of conceding much of the Donbas and Crimea in order to gain a ceasefire, that suggests Ukraine's own capabilities are nearing exhaustion.
Or he knows that Putin can’t agree to that for his own survival but by Zelensky offering it then he cuts off attacks by Trump’s goons and can use longer range weapons to keep chipping away at the Russian economy.
The former might be valid, but the latter? You are suggesting that Trump and his acolytes will be swayed by rationality or actuality?
Well if they are allowing certain long range strikes and extra sanctions it suggests either Zelensky has been lucky or the Trump regime have done their usual weathervane flip to liking him for being cooperative and cross with Vlad for cancelling the boys trip to Budapest.
SCOOP: The Trump administration has lifted a key restriction on Ukraine’s use of some long-range missiles provided by Western allies, enabling Kyiv to step up attacks on targets inside Russia and increase pressure on the Kremlin, U.S. officials said Wednesday.
This winter could be the most active of the war so far if Ukraine is able to keep attacking Russian infrastructure.
It would be nice to think so. But if Zelensky is at the point of conceding much of the Donbas and Crimea in order to gain a ceasefire, that suggests Ukraine's own capabilities are nearing exhaustion.
He isn’t. He gambled that Putin was going to say “not on your Nellie”
Breaking News: President Trump is having the White House’s entire East Wing demolished to make way for his $200 million ballroom. The project is far more extensive than he initially let on.
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?
Mr Johnson, wasn't it?
Even worse than the Boriswave.
One wonders what Mrs T would have done with her handkerchief if she'd seen a model of 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.
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.
Why not just cap the tax relief that someone claim in any one year at say £100k?
It's already much lower than that at £30 000 (including employers contribution), and tapers even lower at higher incomes.
Sorry - I don't move in rarefied circles. What does that £30k mean? It's almost an average yearly salary.
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.
We'll see what's in the budget. I'm getting nervous.
Don't sweat it. You've enough cash to ride it out and still appear as a left wing hero to your old mates up North.
A class traitor can't be a left wing hero. Not even I can pull off that one. But thank you.
Tricky isn't it. But I can understand why living in Hampstead is a prize that supercedes political principles.
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.
Do you know what "forced to have sex" means in this instance.
The age of consent if state lines have been crossed, which they were for her, is 18.
So she was under the age of consent, based upon the allegations.
Also, if there was payment involved, even if it wasn't Andrew who was paying her, the age of consent is 18, whichever country it was in. So we still have rape.
Incidentally I am surprised @DavidL has overlooked this point.
Edit - if, of course, Virginia Giuffre was telling the truth. Equally, she has never AFAIK been proven to have lied, whereas Andrew clearly has on at least one occasion (he undoubtedly met her). So in a conflict of testimony hers is more likely to be truthful.
I don't know where you are getting that from. It is not the law in Scotland or, so far as I am aware in England. In neither jurisdiction does the fact of payment change the age of consent. There are of course other laws about prostitution but that doesn't make it rape. Are you saying that it is the law in the US? If so, in which parts?
As I understand it - and unlike you I am not a lawyer, but I have had to teach this over some years - the law as drafted in England is that it is illegal to have sex with somebody under the age of 18 who has been paid for it, not specifically if you pay them for it.
Now, that may become a grey area if the person having sex is honestly unaware of payment, or has valid reason to believe the individual is over 18 (there are exemptions on those lines) but good luck arguing that with Jeffrey Epstein.
If the law is different in Scotland I'll note that.
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.
Do you know what "forced to have sex" means in this instance.
The age of consent if state lines have been crossed, which they were for her, is 18.
So she was under the age of consent, based upon the allegations.
Also, if there was payment involved, even if it wasn't Andrew who was paying her, the age of consent is 18, whichever country it was in. So we still have rape.
Incidentally I am surprised @DavidL has overlooked this point.
Edit - if, of course, Virginia Giuffre was telling the truth. Equally, she has never AFAIK been proven to have lied, whereas Andrew clearly has on at least one occasion (he undoubtedly met her). So in a conflict of testimony hers is more likely to be truthful.
Against that £12m settlement was the second shakedown - she’d already received a payment from Epstein in full and final settlement and agreed never to pursue any of the people named in the filing - including Andrew - in court.
But she then spent all the money.
It doesn’t mean what happened to her was right - it wasn’t - but she’s not a paragon of virtue
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.
Do you know what "forced to have sex" means in this instance.
The age of consent if state lines have been crossed, which they were for her, is 18.
So she was under the age of consent, based upon the allegations.
Oh. I just quickly googled and it said New York. Where the age of consent is 17.
There are two different laws in NY (additionally, I believe that at the time of the events in question the age of consent was lower for non-state-border-crossing-sex)
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.
Do you know what "forced to have sex" means in this instance.
The age of consent if state lines have been crossed, which they were for her, is 18.
So she was under the age of consent, based upon the allegations.
Also, if there was payment involved, even if it wasn't Andrew who was paying her, the age of consent is 18, whichever country it was in. So we still have rape.
Incidentally I am surprised @DavidL has overlooked this point.
Edit - if, of course, Virginia Giuffre was telling the truth. Equally, she has never AFAIK been proven to have lied, whereas Andrew clearly has on at least one occasion (he undoubtedly met her). So in a conflict of testimony hers is more likely to be truthful.
I don't know where you are getting that from. It is not the law in Scotland or, so far as I am aware in England. In neither jurisdiction does the fact of payment change the age of consent. There are of course other laws about prostitution but that doesn't make it rape. Are you saying that it is the law in the US? If so, in which parts?
As I understand it - and unlike you I am not a lawyer, but I have had to teach this over some years - the law as drafted in England is that it is illegal to have sex with somebody under the age of 18 who has been paid for it, not specifically if you pay them for it.
Now, that may become a grey area if the person having sex is honestly unaware of payment, or has valid reason to believe the individual is over 18 (there are exemptions on those lines) but good luck arguing that with Jeffrey Epstein.
If the law is different in Scotland I'll note that.
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.
Why not just cap the tax relief that someone claim in any one year at say £100k?
It's already much lower than that at £30 000 (including employers contribution), and tapers even lower at higher incomes.
I’d replace the taper - which is way too complicated - and the lifetime cap (which disincentivises investment) with an annual cap on the relief. I plucked the number out of the air, so £25k would be fine too
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.
Do you know what "forced to have sex" means in this instance.
The age of consent if state lines have been crossed, which they were for her, is 18.
So she was under the age of consent, based upon the allegations.
Also, if there was payment involved, even if it wasn't Andrew who was paying her, the age of consent is 18, whichever country it was in. So we still have rape.
Incidentally I am surprised @DavidL has overlooked this point.
Edit - if, of course, Virginia Giuffre was telling the truth. Equally, she has never AFAIK been proven to have lied, whereas Andrew clearly has on at least one occasion (he undoubtedly met her). So in a conflict of testimony hers is more likely to be truthful.
I don't know where you are getting that from. It is not the law in Scotland or, so far as I am aware in England. In neither jurisdiction does the fact of payment change the age of consent. There are of course other laws about prostitution but that doesn't make it rape. Are you saying that it is the law in the US? If so, in which parts?
As I understand it - and unlike you I am not a lawyer, but I have had to teach this over some years - the law as drafted in England is that it is illegal to have sex with somebody under the age of 18 who has been paid for it, not specifically if you pay them for it.
Now, that may become a grey area if the person having sex is honestly unaware of payment, or has valid reason to believe the individual is over 18 (there are exemptions on those lines) but good luck arguing that with Jeffrey Epstein.
If the law is different in Scotland I'll note that.
You seem to know a lot about this.
Teaching adolescent boys for many years about what they should or should not do to avoid ending up in the dock was a learning curve.
I could of course be wrong. Generally teaching materials err on the side of caution on these things,
I would like to think I am less wrong than the poster who claimed Andrew was a dedicated public servant.
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.
Do you know what "forced to have sex" means in this instance.
The age of consent if state lines have been crossed, which they were for her, is 18.
So she was under the age of consent, based upon the allegations.
Also, if there was payment involved, even if it wasn't Andrew who was paying her, the age of consent is 18, whichever country it was in. So we still have rape.
Incidentally I am surprised @DavidL has overlooked this point.
Edit - if, of course, Virginia Giuffre was telling the truth. Equally, she has never AFAIK been proven to have lied, whereas Andrew clearly has on at least one occasion (he undoubtedly met her). So in a conflict of testimony hers is more likely to be truthful.
I don't know where you are getting that from. It is not the law in Scotland or, so far as I am aware in England. In neither jurisdiction does the fact of payment change the age of consent. There are of course other laws about prostitution but that doesn't make it rape. Are you saying that it is the law in the US? If so, in which parts?
As I understand it - and unlike you I am not a lawyer, but I have had to teach this over some years - the law as drafted in England is that it is illegal to have sex with somebody under the age of 18 who has been paid for it, not specifically if you pay them for it.
Now, that may become a grey area if the person having sex is honestly unaware of payment, or has valid reason to believe the individual is over 18 (there are exemptions on those lines) but good luck arguing that with Jeffrey Epstein.
If the law is different in Scotland I'll note that.
You seem to know a lot about this.
Teaching adolescent boys about what they should or should not do to avoid ending up in the dock for many years was a learning curve.
I could of course be wrong. Generally teaching materials err on the side of caution on these things,
I would like to think I am less wrong than the poster who claimed Andrew was a dedicated public servant.
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.
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.
Do you know what "forced to have sex" means in this instance.
The age of consent if state lines have been crossed, which they were for her, is 18.
So she was under the age of consent, based upon the allegations.
Also, if there was payment involved, even if it wasn't Andrew who was paying her, the age of consent is 18, whichever country it was in. So we still have rape.
Incidentally I am surprised @DavidL has overlooked this point.
Edit - if, of course, Virginia Giuffre was telling the truth. Equally, she has never AFAIK been proven to have lied, whereas Andrew clearly has on at least one occasion (he undoubtedly met her). So in a conflict of testimony hers is more likely to be truthful.
I don't know where you are getting that from. It is not the law in Scotland or, so far as I am aware in England. In neither jurisdiction does the fact of payment change the age of consent. There are of course other laws about prostitution but that doesn't make it rape. Are you saying that it is the law in the US? If so, in which parts?
As I understand it - and unlike you I am not a lawyer, but I have had to teach this over some years - the law as drafted in England is that it is illegal to have sex with somebody under the age of 18 who has been paid for it, not specifically if you pay them for it.
Now, that may become a grey area if the person having sex is honestly unaware of payment, or has valid reason to believe the individual is over 18 (there are exemptions on those lines) but good luck arguing that with Jeffrey Epstein.
If the law is different in Scotland I'll note that.
You seem to know a lot about this.
Teaching adolescent boys for many years about what they should or should not do to avoid ending up in the dock was a learning curve.
I could of course be wrong. Generally teaching materials err on the side of caution on these things,
I would like to think I am less wrong than the poster who claimed Andrew was a dedicated public servant.
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.
Do you know what "forced to have sex" means in this instance.
The age of consent if state lines have been crossed, which they were for her, is 18.
So she was under the age of consent, based upon the allegations.
Also, if there was payment involved, even if it wasn't Andrew who was paying her, the age of consent is 18, whichever country it was in. So we still have rape.
Incidentally I am surprised @DavidL has overlooked this point.
Edit - if, of course, Virginia Giuffre was telling the truth. Equally, she has never AFAIK been proven to have lied, whereas Andrew clearly has on at least one occasion (he undoubtedly met her). So in a conflict of testimony hers is more likely to be truthful.
I don't know where you are getting that from. It is not the law in Scotland or, so far as I am aware in England. In neither jurisdiction does the fact of payment change the age of consent. There are of course other laws about prostitution but that doesn't make it rape. Are you saying that it is the law in the US? If so, in which parts?
As I understand it - and unlike you I am not a lawyer, but I have had to teach this over some years - the law as drafted in England is that it is illegal to have sex with somebody under the age of 18 who has been paid for it, not specifically if you pay them for it.
Now, that may become a grey area if the person having sex is honestly unaware of payment, or has valid reason to believe the individual is over 18 (there are exemptions on those lines) but good luck arguing that with Jeffrey Epstein.
If the law is different in Scotland I'll note that.
You seem to know a lot about this.
"Let's please leave off speculating about whether people have committed criminal offences please"
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?
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.
Why not just cap the tax relief that someone claim in any one year at say £100k?
It's already much lower than that at £30 000 (including employers contribution), and tapers even lower at higher incomes.
I’d replace the taper - which is way too complicated - and the lifetime cap (which disincentivises investment) with an annual cap on the relief. I plucked the number out of the air, so £25k would be fine too
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.
Do you know what "forced to have sex" means in this instance.
The age of consent if state lines have been crossed, which they were for her, is 18.
So she was under the age of consent, based upon the allegations.
Also, if there was payment involved, even if it wasn't Andrew who was paying her, the age of consent is 18, whichever country it was in. So we still have rape.
Incidentally I am surprised @DavidL has overlooked this point.
Edit - if, of course, Virginia Giuffre was telling the truth. Equally, she has never AFAIK been proven to have lied, whereas Andrew clearly has on at least one occasion (he undoubtedly met her). So in a conflict of testimony hers is more likely to be truthful.
I don't know where you are getting that from. It is not the law in Scotland or, so far as I am aware in England. In neither jurisdiction does the fact of payment change the age of consent. There are of course other laws about prostitution but that doesn't make it rape. Are you saying that it is the law in the US? If so, in which parts?
As I understand it - and unlike you I am not a lawyer, but I have had to teach this over some years - the law as drafted in England is that it is illegal to have sex with somebody under the age of 18 who has been paid for it, not specifically if you pay them for it.
Now, that may become a grey area if the person having sex is honestly unaware of payment, or has valid reason to believe the individual is over 18 (there are exemptions on those lines) but good luck arguing that with Jeffrey Epstein.
If the law is different in Scotland I'll note that.
I think the legislation that you are referring to must be s47 of the Sexual Offences Act. It provides: (1)A person (A) commits an offence if— (a)he intentionally obtains for himself the sexual services of another person (B), (b)before obtaining those services, he has made or promised payment for those services to B or a third person, or knows that another person has made or promised such a payment, and (c)either— (i)B is under 18, and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or (ii)B is under 13. (2)In this section, “payment” means any financial advantage, including the discharge of an obligation to pay or the provision of goods or services (including sexual services) gratuitously or at a discount. (3)A person guilty of an offence under this section against a person under 13, where subsection (6) applies, is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life. (4)Unless subsection (3) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section against a person under 16 is liable— (a)where subsection (6) applies, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years; (b)in any other case— (i)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both; (ii)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years. (5)Unless subsection (3) or (4) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable— (a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both; (b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years.
There are quite a number of conditions on that offence and I don't think 47(1)(b) is alleged in this case. It is a crime but the crime is not rape.
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.
We'll see what's in the budget. I'm getting nervous.
Don't sweat it. You've enough cash to ride it out and still appear as a left wing hero to your old mates up North.
A class traitor can't be a left wing hero. Not even I can pull off that one. But thank you.
Tricky isn't it. But I can understand why living in Hampstead is a prize that supercedes political principles.
I know it's just basically wrong that I haven't become a tory. Maybe one day I'll see the light. Certainly you're very persuasive.
(I did not know that the former MLA for Caerphilly where we have the by-election is thought to have killed himself. We do not have a verdict yet, but at the inquest it was stated he was found hanging.)
It seems to be media guidelines these days that when public figures kill themselves e.g. Ricky Hatton, Graham Thorpe, they do not report they found them hanged etc in the immediate aftermaft. There is instead a certain set of phrases they use that if you know what you are looking for it means they did, but they do everything to avoid directly saying so.
Not saying its good or bad, but it is something I have noticed in recent years.
It comes from the Samaritans media guidelines, here:
They are interesting, whether it's helpful or not I'm not sure how you'd test, but in a hyper-connected age where information crosses the planet practically instantaneously I don't think there's anything wrong with sometimes taking a longer time about sensitive things.
Breaking News: President Trump is having the White House’s entire East Wing demolished to make way for his $200 million ballroom. The project is far more extensive than he initially let on.
Breaking News: President Trump is having the White House’s entire East Wing demolished to make way for his $200 million ballroom. The project is far more extensive than he initially let on.
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.
Do you know what "forced to have sex" means in this instance.
The age of consent if state lines have been crossed, which they were for her, is 18.
So she was under the age of consent, based upon the allegations.
Also, if there was payment involved, even if it wasn't Andrew who was paying her, the age of consent is 18, whichever country it was in. So we still have rape.
Incidentally I am surprised @DavidL has overlooked this point.
Edit - if, of course, Virginia Giuffre was telling the truth. Equally, she has never AFAIK been proven to have lied, whereas Andrew clearly has on at least one occasion (he undoubtedly met her). So in a conflict of testimony hers is more likely to be truthful.
I don't know where you are getting that from. It is not the law in Scotland or, so far as I am aware in England. In neither jurisdiction does the fact of payment change the age of consent. There are of course other laws about prostitution but that doesn't make it rape. Are you saying that it is the law in the US? If so, in which parts?
As I understand it - and unlike you I am not a lawyer, but I have had to teach this over some years - the law as drafted in England is that it is illegal to have sex with somebody under the age of 18 who has been paid for it, not specifically if you pay them for it.
Now, that may become a grey area if the person having sex is honestly unaware of payment, or has valid reason to believe the individual is over 18 (there are exemptions on those lines) but good luck arguing that with Jeffrey Epstein.
If the law is different in Scotland I'll note that.
I think the legislation that you are referring to must be s47 of the Sexual Offences Act. It provides: (1)A person (A) commits an offence if— (a)he intentionally obtains for himself the sexual services of another person (B), (b)before obtaining those services, he has made or promised payment for those services to B or a third person, or knows that another person has made or promised such a payment, and (c)either— (i)B is under 18, and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or (ii)B is under 13. (2)In this section, “payment” means any financial advantage, including the discharge of an obligation to pay or the provision of goods or services (including sexual services) gratuitously or at a discount. (3)A person guilty of an offence under this section against a person under 13, where subsection (6) applies, is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life. (4)Unless subsection (3) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section against a person under 16 is liable— (a)where subsection (6) applies, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years; (b)in any other case— (i)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both; (ii)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years. (5)Unless subsection (3) or (4) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable— (a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both; (b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years.
There are quite a number of conditions on that offence and I don't think 47(1)(b) is alleged in this case. It is a crime but the crime is not rape.
That's the one I was referring to, yes.
There may be more to it than in your last sentence, but I'll refrain from further speculating at RCS' request.
Breaking News: President Trump is having the White House’s entire East Wing demolished to make way for his $200 million ballroom. The project is far more extensive than he initially let on.
Breaking News: President Trump is having the White House’s entire East Wing demolished to make way for his $200 million ballroom. The project is far more extensive than he initially let on.
(I did not know that the former MLA for Caerphilly where we have the by-election is thought to have killed himself. We do not have a verdict yet, but at the inquest it was stated he was found hanging.)
It seems to be media guidelines these days that when public figures kill themselves e.g. Ricky Hatton, Graham Thorpe, they do not report they found them hanged etc in the immediate aftermaft. There is instead a certain set of phrases they use that if you know what you are looking for it means they did, but they do everything to avoid directly saying so.
Not saying its good or bad, but it is something I have noticed in recent years.
It comes from the Samaritans media guidelines, here:
They are interesting, whether it's helpful or not I'm not sure how you'd test, but in a hyper-connected age where information crosses the planet practically instantaneously I don't think there's anything wrong with sometimes taking a longer time about sensitive things.
Frankly even non-sensitive things could stand to wait just a little to allow some reflection on how to report them with some analysis and context, but it's admittedly unrealistic to hope for that in an instant 24 hour news cycle.
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.
Why not just cap the tax relief that someone claim in any one year at say £100k?
It's already much lower than that at £30 000 (including employers contribution), and tapers even lower at higher incomes.
I’d replace the taper - which is way too complicated - and the lifetime cap (which disincentivises investment) with an annual cap on the relief. I plucked the number out of the air, so £25k would be fine too
The lifetime cap was scrapped 2 years ago.
Because if it wasn't the NHS would have far fewer consultants as a lot would have just retired...
(I did not know that the former MLA for Caerphilly where we have the by-election is thought to have killed himself. We do not have a verdict yet, but at the inquest it was stated he was found hanging.)
It seems to be media guidelines these days that when public figures kill themselves e.g. Ricky Hatton, Graham Thorpe, they do not report they found them hanged etc in the immediate aftermaft. There is instead a certain set of phrases they use that if you know what you are looking for it means they did, but they do everything to avoid directly saying so.
Not saying its good or bad, but it is something I have noticed in recent years.
It comes from the Samaritans media guidelines, here:
They are interesting, whether it's helpful or not I'm not sure how you'd test, but in a hyper-connected age where information crosses the planet practically instantaneously I don't think there's anything wrong with sometimes taking a longer time about sensitive things.
The problem is it is absolutely obvious now when somebody has due to the phrases they used, so i am not sure how much difference it makes. And if you dont realise the phrases, people on social media "helpfully" will explain.
(I did not know that the former MLA for Caerphilly where we have the by-election is thought to have killed himself. We do not have a verdict yet, but at the inquest it was stated he was found hanging.)
It seems to be media guidelines these days that when public figures kill themselves e.g. Ricky Hatton, Graham Thorpe, they do not report they found them hanged etc in the immediate aftermaft. There is instead a certain set of phrases they use that if you know what you are looking for it means they did, but they do everything to avoid directly saying so.
Not saying its good or bad, but it is something I have noticed in recent years.
It comes from the Samaritans media guidelines, here:
They are interesting, whether it's helpful or not I'm not sure how you'd test, but in a hyper-connected age where information crosses the planet practically instantaneously I don't think there's anything wrong with sometimes taking a longer time about sensitive things.
I'm not sure it's any of our business about how Ricky Hatton died. I often wonder about the phrase " in the public interest". I don't think we have a right to know as members of the public.
Breaking News: President Trump is having the White House’s entire East Wing demolished to make way for his $200 million ballroom. The project is far more extensive than he initially let on.
Breaking News: President Trump is having the White House’s entire East Wing demolished to make way for his $200 million ballroom. The project is far more extensive than he initially let on.
Could have been worse, could have been a golf course.
Is any of this legal?
Apparently yes. Federal buildings such as the White House are not subject to State planning requirements. The White House itself has a committee who can make recommendations to changes in the White House but their recommendations are neither mandatory or required. A sitting President can therefore do what he likes to the building. I don't pretend to be an expert on this but I have been reading pieces on it in the Daily Kos who hate Trump with a vengeance but they seem to accept that he lied about about what he was doing but it is not actually illegal.
(I did not know that the former MLA for Caerphilly where we have the by-election is thought to have killed himself. We do not have a verdict yet, but at the inquest it was stated he was found hanging.)
It seems to be media guidelines these days that when public figures kill themselves e.g. Ricky Hatton, Graham Thorpe, they do not report they found them hanged etc in the immediate aftermaft. There is instead a certain set of phrases they use that if you know what you are looking for it means they did, but they do everything to avoid directly saying so.
Not saying its good or bad, but it is something I have noticed in recent years.
It comes from the Samaritans media guidelines, here:
They are interesting, whether it's helpful or not I'm not sure how you'd test, but in a hyper-connected age where information crosses the planet practically instantaneously I don't think there's anything wrong with sometimes taking a longer time about sensitive things.
The problem is it is absolutely obvious now when somebody has due to the phrases they used, so i am not sure how much difference it makes. And if you dont realise the phrases, people on social media "helpfully" will explain.
Yes, I remember when Dolores O'Riordan died and everyone wanted to tell everyone else their, in the end, inaccurate speculation , which made things worse in a way.
Breaking News: President Trump is having the White House’s entire East Wing demolished to make way for his $200 million ballroom. The project is far more extensive than he initially let on.
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.
Why not just cap the tax relief that someone claim in any one year at say £100k?
It's already much lower than that at £30 000 (including employers contribution), and tapers even lower at higher incomes.
I’d replace the taper - which is way too complicated - and the lifetime cap (which disincentivises investment) with an annual cap on the relief. I plucked the number out of the air, so £25k would be fine too
The lifetime cap was scrapped 2 years ago.
Because if it wasn't the NHS would have far fewer consultants as a lot would have just retired...
Definitely so, and many of my colleagues are watching with interest, as it may bring forward their retirement plans. We have to give 3 months notice to claim our pension and my accountant thinks it very difficult to do changes to the lump sum mid-financial year. If it is messed with then expect a lot of February retirements.
Breaking News: President Trump is having the White House’s entire East Wing demolished to make way for his $200 million ballroom. The project is far more extensive than he initially let on.
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.
US authorities refused to hand over Anne Sacoolas to UK law enforcement after she killed Harry Dunn. So that she was able to only agree to plead and receive a suspended sentence from the Old Bailey by videolink from the US they can hardly complain about Andrew
The two wrongs make a right school of thought. Personally I'd prefer justice for both Anne and Andrew but I'd take either as a win.
No, otherwise US law enforcement and the FBI and CIA will just take it as one way traffic for them to charge Brits who convict crimes in the US in US courts in person while Yanks who commit crimes in the UK go to UK courts by videolink only if at all
Actually, the Americans have handed over everyone we requested under the treaty in question.
We have refused to send several people under the same treaty, for a range of reasons.
Anne Sacoolas was a different issue - diplomatic immunity or not.
Breaking News: President Trump is having the White House’s entire East Wing demolished to make way for his $200 million ballroom. The project is far more extensive than he initially let on.
Comments
SCOOP: The Trump administration has lifted a key restriction on Ukraine’s use of some long-range missiles provided by Western allies, enabling Kyiv to step up attacks on targets inside Russia and increase pressure on the Kremlin, U.S. officials said Wednesday.
https://x.com/laraseligman/status/1981073756551295486
I'm assuming one of the winds are less strong than forecast, or in the wrong places, or so strong the turbines have had to be stopped to avoid damage.
So she was under the age of consent, based upon the allegations.
Incidentally I am surprised @DavidL has overlooked this point.
Edit - if, of course, Virginia Giuffre was telling the truth. Equally, she has never AFAIK been proven to have lied, whereas Andrew clearly has on at least one occasion (he undoubtedly met her). So in a conflict of testimony hers is more likely to be truthful.
News: Secretary Bessent just now to reporters: "We are going to announce, either after the close this afternoon or first thing tomorrow morning, a substantial pickup in Russia sanctions."
Trump: “It won’t touch it”
It’s the Epstein Ballroom. Trump will let it touch whatever it wants.
https://x.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1981080706638860288
I think one non-partisan improvement to the media would be to only report things that have happened, rather than reporting people saying they will do things, or saying that they will announce that they will do things.
Do you want the moon on a stick too?
Breaking News: President Trump is having the White House’s entire East Wing demolished to make way for his $200 million ballroom. The project is far more extensive than he initially let on.
https://x.com/nytimes/status/1981082972959735852
Now, that may become a grey area if the person having sex is honestly unaware of payment, or has valid reason to believe the individual is over 18 (there are exemptions on those lines) but good luck arguing that with Jeffrey Epstein.
If the law is different in Scotland I'll note that.
But she then spent all the money.
It doesn’t mean what happened to her was right - it wasn’t - but she’s not a paragon of virtue
I could of course be wrong. Generally teaching materials err on the side of caution on these things,
I would like to think I am less wrong than the poster who claimed Andrew was a dedicated public servant.
If state lines are crossed (which the allegation is) then it is 18.
If money changes hands, it is also 18.
Don't want to get the site into trouble.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2025/oct/22/smart-money-family-offers-18000-a-year-for-tutor-to-get-one-year-old-into-eton
Edit: the URL is one nought out.
(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a)he intentionally obtains for himself the sexual services of another person (B),
(b)before obtaining those services, he has made or promised payment for those services to B or a third person, or knows that another person has made or promised such a payment, and
(c)either—
(i)B is under 18, and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or
(ii)B is under 13.
(2)In this section, “payment” means any financial advantage, including the discharge of an obligation to pay or the provision of goods or services (including sexual services) gratuitously or at a discount.
(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section against a person under 13, where subsection (6) applies, is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.
(4)Unless subsection (3) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section against a person under 16 is liable—
(a)where subsection (6) applies, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years;
(b)in any other case—
(i)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(ii)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.
(5)Unless subsection (3) or (4) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;
(b)on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years.
There are quite a number of conditions on that offence and I don't think 47(1)(b) is alleged in this case. It is a crime but the crime is not rape.
https://www.samaritans.org/about-samaritans/media-guidelines/media-guidelines-reporting-suicide/
They are interesting, whether it's helpful or not I'm not sure how you'd test, but in a hyper-connected age where information crosses the planet practically instantaneously I don't think there's anything wrong with sometimes taking a longer time about sensitive things.
YOU'RE NOT BEHIND THE PLOUGH
YOU'LL NEVER GET RICH
BY DIGGING A DITCH
YOU'RE IN THE ARMY NOW
There may be more to it than in your last sentence, but I'll refrain from further speculating at RCS' request.
It's such a perfect metaphor for Trumps destruction of US democracy that you wouldn't get away with it in a piece of fiction.
We have refused to send several people under the same treaty, for a range of reasons.
Anne Sacoolas was a different issue - diplomatic immunity or not.