Can Sir Keir Starmer revive the Labour Party?
Discussion
Vanden Saab said:
JagLover said:
Vanden Saab said:
Ooopppsss...
The strange thing is that no-one forced them to take the stand they did. They even had their own shadow health secretary saying it should be abolished for doctors six months earlier. Telegraph said:
The Labour leader has pledged to force other wealthy savers to be subject to a cap on their pension savings and on Tuesday night led a Parliamentary attempt to overturn the centrepiece of Jeremy Hunt's Budget.
However, The Telegraph can reveal that under a special arrangement with the Government, Sir Keir's pension from his time as Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is exempt from tax rules he would apply to other workers who save more than £1m.
Just another brick in the wall...However, The Telegraph can reveal that under a special arrangement with the Government, Sir Keir's pension from his time as Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is exempt from tax rules he would apply to other workers who save more than £1m.
They decided this would be the cause that would rally people against the budget in a Truss style scenario and miscalculated as far as I can see.
rscott said:
Vanden Saab said:
JagLover said:
Vanden Saab said:
Ooopppsss...
The strange thing is that no-one forced them to take the stand they did. They even had their own shadow health secretary saying it should be abolished for doctors six months earlier. Telegraph said:
The Labour leader has pledged to force other wealthy savers to be subject to a cap on their pension savings and on Tuesday night led a Parliamentary attempt to overturn the centrepiece of Jeremy Hunt's Budget.
However, The Telegraph can reveal that under a special arrangement with the Government, Sir Keir's pension from his time as Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is exempt from tax rules he would apply to other workers who save more than £1m.
Just another brick in the wall...However, The Telegraph can reveal that under a special arrangement with the Government, Sir Keir's pension from his time as Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is exempt from tax rules he would apply to other workers who save more than £1m.
They decided this would be the cause that would rally people against the budget in a Truss style scenario and miscalculated as far as I can see.
oddman said:
768 said:
Vanden Saab said:
You have to wonder if theTories knew about Keirs law or whether it was just a lucky coincidence.
They way he's played it you have to wonder if Keir knew.Ironically Sir Desmond Swayne signed it off - no friend of 'lefty lawyers'
I've no problem with the DPP getting pension tax exemption for the same reason it makes sense for judges to get an exemption. They could make mountains of cash in private legal practice so you have to incentivise state paid work to get quality applicants.
Edited by oddman on Wednesday 22 March 08:35
Sweatheart deals for Drs is a non-starter. Everyone else in the public sector would want them too. At that point, the present pension divide would only expand, hence the approach by Hunt.
oddman said:
...
I've no problem with the DPP getting pension tax exemption for the same reason it makes sense for judges to get an exemption. They could make mountains of cash in private legal practice so you have to incentivise state paid work to get quality applicants.
...
The problem with it is that it creates unnecessary complication. Trying to remember who does and does not pay tax.I've no problem with the DPP getting pension tax exemption for the same reason it makes sense for judges to get an exemption. They could make mountains of cash in private legal practice so you have to incentivise state paid work to get quality applicants.
...
It also looks bad (I hate "optics", but sadly it seems to be part of life).
Him not paying tax on income that everyone else should is little/no different to him being paid more for his services. You could argue there is less "admin" needed, but with the unnecessary complication, I doubt that works....and if that were a key factor, why not just make all Public Sector workers exempt from tax). So ultimately, why not just pay more if attracting people to the roles is needed, but ensure they all abide by the same rules as the rest of us?
ant1973 said:
I think the issue is that Starmer does not want "the rich" to benefit from public money. He is in that territory. While the Tories may have voted for it, Starmer need not take it. Alternatively, he can pay the tax on it.
Sweatheart deals for Drs is a non-starter. Everyone else in the public sector would want them too. At that point, the present pension divide would only expand, hence the approach by Hunt.
I'm not sure you can volunteer to pay tax that isn't due.Sweatheart deals for Drs is a non-starter. Everyone else in the public sector would want them too. At that point, the present pension divide would only expand, hence the approach by Hunt.
ant1973 said:
I think the issue is that Starmer does not want "the rich" to benefit from public money. He is in that territory. While the Tories may have voted for it, Starmer need not take it. Alternatively, he can pay the tax on it.
Sweatheart deals for Drs is a non-starter. Everyone else in the public sector would want them too. At that point, the present pension divide would only expand, hence the approach by Hunt.
Tricky for Labour. They are telegraphing that they will put in place measures to encourage doctors to work more.Sweatheart deals for Drs is a non-starter. Everyone else in the public sector would want them too. At that point, the present pension divide would only expand, hence the approach by Hunt.
LTA is not that big deal once you're over it, it's a good problem to have in a public sector scheme. You're rewarded for taking your opension early as the value (and thus the tax due) is actuarially reduced.
The thing that has caused doctors to reduce pensionable hours worked has been Annual Allowance charge and a rise to £60k won't make much difference to doctors who have already cut their hours to manage the £40k limit.
Unless Labour commit to a deal with the BMA then a lot of medics over 55 will cash out before the election and those who want to return will do less than half time because of the loss of personal allowance at £100k.
I think LTA of £1 million on DB schemes (ie most public sector) and an AA limit placed on DB schemes would be reasonable.
Murph7355 said:
The problem with it is that it creates unnecessary complication. Trying to remember who does and does not pay tax.
It also looks bad (I hate "optics", but sadly it seems to be part of life).
Him not paying tax on income that everyone else should is little/no different to him being paid more for his services. You could argue there is less "admin" needed, but with the unnecessary complication, I doubt that works....and if that were a key factor, why not just make all Public Sector workers exempt from tax). So ultimately, why not just pay more if attracting people to the roles is needed, but ensure they all abide by the same rules as the rest of us?
Agree it's heinously complicated and looks terrible.It also looks bad (I hate "optics", but sadly it seems to be part of life).
Him not paying tax on income that everyone else should is little/no different to him being paid more for his services. You could argue there is less "admin" needed, but with the unnecessary complication, I doubt that works....and if that were a key factor, why not just make all Public Sector workers exempt from tax). So ultimately, why not just pay more if attracting people to the roles is needed, but ensure they all abide by the same rules as the rest of us?
It's not as simple as paying more because of the various cliff edges which affect high earning public sector workers and that the most experienced have accrued enough to leave.
Edited by oddman on Wednesday 22 March 10:41
James6112 said:
Should be a good day for Labour
Johnson self destructing this afternoon
But equally entertaining will be the Windsor agreement getting through with Labour votes, splitting the Tory party in two.
ERG/Johnson,Truss & the rest of the crazy gang + the DUP will be very upset
Happy days
Not a Conservative supporter, but I think Rishi did well with the NI agreement given the disaster that is Brexit. I hope Labour do support the agreement and get it through. The tory/DUP loons have simply lost the argument and need to move aside.Johnson self destructing this afternoon
But equally entertaining will be the Windsor agreement getting through with Labour votes, splitting the Tory party in two.
ERG/Johnson,Truss & the rest of the crazy gang + the DUP will be very upset
Happy days
Ari said:
ant1973 said:
I think the issue is that Starmer does not want "the rich" to benefit from public money. He is in that territory. While the Tories may have voted for it, Starmer need not take it. Alternatively, he can pay the tax on it.
Sweatheart deals for Drs is a non-starter. Everyone else in the public sector would want them too. At that point, the present pension divide would only expand, hence the approach by Hunt.
I'm not sure you can volunteer to pay tax that isn't due.Sweatheart deals for Drs is a non-starter. Everyone else in the public sector would want them too. At that point, the present pension divide would only expand, hence the approach by Hunt.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/voluntary-payments-don...
Hunt may have played an ace at the budget. All people will talk about is Starmer’s personal sweetheart deal every time Labour raise the issue of pensions at the election. Not a great look. Add in Starmer changing horses on so many issues just to try to win votes. I see he’s now going to alter course on trans issues after what he saw happen to Sturgeon. Man of no principles
ChocolateFrog said:
S600BSB said:
86 said:
The wheels are starting to fall off at Labour
Dear oh dear..oddman said:
ant1973 said:
I think the issue is that Starmer does not want "the rich" to benefit from public money. He is in that territory. While the Tories may have voted for it, Starmer need not take it. Alternatively, he can pay the tax on it.
Sweatheart deals for Drs is a non-starter. Everyone else in the public sector would want them too. At that point, the present pension divide would only expand, hence the approach by Hunt.
Tricky for Labour. They are telegraphing that they will put in place measures to encourage doctors to work more.Sweatheart deals for Drs is a non-starter. Everyone else in the public sector would want them too. At that point, the present pension divide would only expand, hence the approach by Hunt.
LTA is not that big deal once you're over it, it's a good problem to have in a public sector scheme. You're rewarded for taking your opension early as the value (and thus the tax due) is actuarially reduced.
The thing that has caused doctors to reduce pensionable hours worked has been Annual Allowance charge and a rise to £60k won't make much difference to doctors who have already cut their hours to manage the £40k limit.
Unless Labour commit to a deal with the BMA then a lot of medics over 55 will cash out before the election and those who want to return will do less than half time because of the loss of personal allowance at £100k.
I think LTA of £1 million on DB schemes (ie most public sector) and an AA limit placed on DB schemes would be reasonable.
Murph7355 said:
The problem with it is that it creates unnecessary complication. Trying to remember who does and does not pay tax.
It also looks bad (I hate "optics", but sadly it seems to be part of life).
Him not paying tax on income that everyone else should is little/no different to him being paid more for his services. You could argue there is less "admin" needed, but with the unnecessary complication, I doubt that works....and if that were a key factor, why not just make all Public Sector workers exempt from tax). So ultimately, why not just pay more if attracting people to the roles is needed, but ensure they all abide by the same rules as the rest of us?
Agree it's heinously complicated and looks terrible.It also looks bad (I hate "optics", but sadly it seems to be part of life).
Him not paying tax on income that everyone else should is little/no different to him being paid more for his services. You could argue there is less "admin" needed, but with the unnecessary complication, I doubt that works....and if that were a key factor, why not just make all Public Sector workers exempt from tax). So ultimately, why not just pay more if attracting people to the roles is needed, but ensure they all abide by the same rules as the rest of us?
It's not as simple as paying more because of the various cliff edges which affect high earning public sector workers and that the most experienced have accrued enough to leave.
Edited by oddman on Wednesday 22 March 10:41
A reasonable starting point is to say that everyone is entitled to tax relief that lets them retire on say 2/3 of average earnings. That should be measured in cash terms for DC and DB.
We then have pensions equality. If you want more, you get no tax relief.
86 said:
ChocolateFrog said:
S600BSB said:
86 said:
The wheels are starting to fall off at Labour
Dear oh dear..
ant1973 said:
Absolutely, no one is really asking how Drs can afford to retire at 55....
A reasonable starting point is to say that everyone is entitled to tax relief that lets them retire on say 2/3 of average earnings. That should be measured in cash terms for DC and DB.
We then have pensions equality. If you want more, you get no tax relief.
I would set it at median full time earnings but other than that fully agree. A reasonable starting point is to say that everyone is entitled to tax relief that lets them retire on say 2/3 of average earnings. That should be measured in cash terms for DC and DB.
We then have pensions equality. If you want more, you get no tax relief.
86 said:
ChocolateFrog said:
S600BSB said:
86 said:
The wheels are starting to fall off at Labour
Dear oh dear..JagLover said:
ant1973 said:
Absolutely, no one is really asking how Drs can afford to retire at 55....
A reasonable starting point is to say that everyone is entitled to tax relief that lets them retire on say 2/3 of average earnings. That should be measured in cash terms for DC and DB.
We then have pensions equality. If you want more, you get no tax relief.
I would set it at median full time earnings but other than that fully agree. A reasonable starting point is to say that everyone is entitled to tax relief that lets them retire on say 2/3 of average earnings. That should be measured in cash terms for DC and DB.
We then have pensions equality. If you want more, you get no tax relief.
I laughed at Torsten Bell moaning that private sector people would benefit from this, but "only" 27% of people with pots over £1m were Drs.
That the private sector is around 5 times the size of the public sector was simply ignored.
So put another way, the public sector disproportionately benefits from this deal.....
Torsten Bell: All I am saying is: change the contracts for doctors—and, while you are at it, other senior public sector workers. You have to be pretty high-earning, and you have to be on a final salary scheme, probably not just an average salary scheme, to get to some of these really high pension limits.
Then you have to step back and say, “Who benefits from this scheme?” We do not have the exact numbers by occupation, because HMRC does not tell us exactly who is paying the lifetime allowance charge when they exit. We can step back and use what we know from the wealth and asset survey about who has the highest pensions. That is calculated on a different basis from a tax basis, but let us look at who has million-pound pensions in that data set. Yes, it is lots of doctors. About a quarter of them are doctors or other senior, high-paid medical staff, but 20% work in the financial services sector. There are nearly as many bankers in the group as doctors.
If you look at the group below the £1 million threshold—people who could benefit, because they will now save more and go over that threshold—it includes a lot of people working in manufacturing. Only about half are in the public sector when you look at that lower threshold. Obviously, the benefits of this tax cut will be very significant if people can also save more if they were already going to be over the £1 million threshold. All I would say is that I think the change is being made for good reason. There is not a perfect answer, but the HR answer may have been cheaper and easier than the tax answer.
https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/1285...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff