Labours first budget and likely outcomes
Discussion
ooid said:
Add cigarettes, Junk Food, and Unethically manufactured cheap fashion items overseas.
13% of people aged 18 years and over smoked cigarettes in UK
7% of people eat junk food everyday.
Just about 50% of people used BNPL at some point
Triple VAT on these rubbish, both NHS and benefits would also get a clear relief.
Leave people's earnings, savings, pensions and homes alone.
The NHS would arguably benefit from more folks taking up smoking and eating more crap. We need people to die sooner. Ageing population together with an increasingly lower birth rate is going to make the existing tax shortfalls look like nothing when we get to a point the retired/elderly population are being supported by a working age population equal in numbers. Triple lock pensions and the significant health care costs will prove interesting to fund. 13% of people aged 18 years and over smoked cigarettes in UK
7% of people eat junk food everyday.
Just about 50% of people used BNPL at some point
Triple VAT on these rubbish, both NHS and benefits would also get a clear relief.
Leave people's earnings, savings, pensions and homes alone.
E63eeeeee... said:
So we move more of the tax burden on to poor people, and leave the wealthy people alone? We could call it the Reverse Robin Hood approach.
Robin hood? It is more like Armed Daylight Robbery...
In terms of health and life style choices, I think it is more about the longer cost on health system. NHS latest stats was 60% of the UK population obese or overweight.
Zaichik said:
SpidersWeb said:
If I wanted some tax income,.......
4. Pension changes - reduce the tax relief to the basic rate, but leave the Annual Allowance and Lifetime Allowance alone - lots of cash now, particularly with the fiscal drag of more people being drawn into the higher rates, and less ability to moan from the NHS staff hitting the limits.
really hope they don't destroy private pensions by removing tax relief on contributions - having had several years where I could not contribute more that 10k due to tapering, the next few where I can now contribute much more would be at risk if they do this.4. Pension changes - reduce the tax relief to the basic rate, but leave the Annual Allowance and Lifetime Allowance alone - lots of cash now, particularly with the fiscal drag of more people being drawn into the higher rates, and less ability to moan from the NHS staff hitting the limits.
For that matter, why would anyone contribute to a pension without full relief when the whole point is that you are taxed on the way out - that would mean a 40% tax payer would be asked to pay £120 for a £100 contribution - makes no sense.
Zaichik said:
SpidersWeb said:
If I wanted some tax income,.......
4. Pension changes - reduce the tax relief to the basic rate, but leave the Annual Allowance and Lifetime Allowance alone - lots of cash now, particularly with the fiscal drag of more people being drawn into the higher rates, and less ability to moan from the NHS staff hitting the limits.
really hope they don't destroy private pensions by removing tax relief on contributions - having had several years where I could not contribute more that 10k due to tapering, the next few where I can now contribute much more would be at risk if they do this.4. Pension changes - reduce the tax relief to the basic rate, but leave the Annual Allowance and Lifetime Allowance alone - lots of cash now, particularly with the fiscal drag of more people being drawn into the higher rates, and less ability to moan from the NHS staff hitting the limits.
For that matter, why would anyone contribute to a pension without full relief when the whole point is that you are taxed on the way out - that would mean a 40% tax payer would be asked to pay £120 for a £100 contribution - makes no sense.
High earners don't need the same level of encouragement to save into pensions that lower earners do, so it is rather an odd system that rewards higher earners with twice or more the tax benefit that it does to lower earners.
That is why restricting the tax relief on pensions to the basic rate would make a lot of sense to a Labour government and their voters - raises taxes, and raises taxes from people who mainly don't vote for them, and has a sense of 'fairness' to the average Labour voter.
And if Labour made that change to restrict relief to the basic rate, to avoid people dodging around this they would need to remove the ability to salary sacrifice into pensions, which would raise even more money from those higher earners and their employers from additional NI - win / win.
SunsetZed said:
Zaichik said:
SpidersWeb said:
If I wanted some tax income,.......
4. Pension changes - reduce the tax relief to the basic rate, but leave the Annual Allowance and Lifetime Allowance alone - lots of cash now, particularly with the fiscal drag of more people being drawn into the higher rates, and less ability to moan from the NHS staff hitting the limits.
really hope they don't destroy private pensions by removing tax relief on contributions - having had several years where I could not contribute more that 10k due to tapering, the next few where I can now contribute much more would be at risk if they do this.4. Pension changes - reduce the tax relief to the basic rate, but leave the Annual Allowance and Lifetime Allowance alone - lots of cash now, particularly with the fiscal drag of more people being drawn into the higher rates, and less ability to moan from the NHS staff hitting the limits.
For that matter, why would anyone contribute to a pension without full relief when the whole point is that you are taxed on the way out - that would mean a 40% tax payer would be asked to pay £120 for a £100 contribution - makes no sense.
Countdown said:
SunsetZed said:
Zaichik said:
SpidersWeb said:
If I wanted some tax income,.......
4. Pension changes - reduce the tax relief to the basic rate, but leave the Annual Allowance and Lifetime Allowance alone - lots of cash now, particularly with the fiscal drag of more people being drawn into the higher rates, and less ability to moan from the NHS staff hitting the limits.
really hope they don't destroy private pensions by removing tax relief on contributions - having had several years where I could not contribute more that 10k due to tapering, the next few where I can now contribute much more would be at risk if they do this.4. Pension changes - reduce the tax relief to the basic rate, but leave the Annual Allowance and Lifetime Allowance alone - lots of cash now, particularly with the fiscal drag of more people being drawn into the higher rates, and less ability to moan from the NHS staff hitting the limits.
For that matter, why would anyone contribute to a pension without full relief when the whole point is that you are taxed on the way out - that would mean a 40% tax payer would be asked to pay £120 for a £100 contribution - makes no sense.
Reducing the AA would seem like an easier and more sensible option than charging tax on pension contributions for people earning over 50k. Especially as people using salary sacrifice wouldn't be paying that tax on contributions so you'd be encouraging companies to move to that model which would also reduce the employers NI tax contributions to the governments coffers. Unless of course you removed the salary sacrifice option but then you'd really be killing final salary pensions.
The other factor here is that there's already a huge imbalance between private and public pensions, increasing that further would not be a wise thing to do imo. Alternatively you've got a situation where you're asking public sector workers to contribute more or using more taxpayers money to support the schemes which reduces the net take for the government so again not attractive options.
Countdown said:
Salted_Peanut said:
I doubt any government wants to destroy private pensions, but they could reduce the Annual Allowance or tax relief rate for higher earners.
Let’s hope they stick with leaving the Lifetime Allowance alone. The LTA brutality punished people who saved diligently.
A minor point but the LTA wasn't punishing "diligent savers". It restricted a tax break for those people who could afford to lock away £1m into their pensions or benefitted from high paying public sector roles with generous DB schemes. They could still save as much as they wanted (e.g. in a GIA or ISA or a normal savings account). They just wouldn't be able to reclaim the 40/45% tax, ( plus save on NI if they were doing salary sacrifice)Let’s hope they stick with leaving the Lifetime Allowance alone. The LTA brutality punished people who saved diligently.
If say you were say 55 and had 500k in your pension then you have to consider how that will grow with no further contributions. That could easily be 20-30 years.
With compound growth and an future reductions in LTA you could easily hit it within say 10 years.
fat80b said:
Olivera said:
or even better, a reformed system where you pay a flat percentage of value per annum based on current prices.
I struggle to see how that might practically be implemented. If it applied to "normal houses" all the way up, then you could quite easily see a nurse and a teacher in the south east paying significantly more than a nurse and a teacher in the north east. This feels like some horrible unintended consequences might happen.
Who decides what the value is - what if you have had building work done, what if you devalue your house etc. Do we end up with knocking down walls being a tax avoidance strategy.....
What happens to rental properties? We've got people bailing out of the landlord space as it is.
I would have thought that while the envy led approach of an LVT levied via some proxy of house prices might seem like a good idea in opposition, it might prove to be too hard to practically implement inside of government. (at least that's what I'm hoping)
The justification seems to be that if you can afford to live there you must be rich. That's far from the truth.
fat80b said:
Olivera said:
or even better, a reformed system where you pay a flat percentage of value per annum based on current prices.
I struggle to see how that might practically be implemented. If it applied to "normal houses" all the way up, then you could quite easily see a nurse and a teacher in the south east paying significantly more than a nurse and a teacher in the north east. This feels like some horrible unintended consequences might happen.
Who decides what the value is - what if you have had building work done, what if you devalue your house etc. Do we end up with knocking down walls being a tax avoidance strategy.....
What happens to rental properties? We've got people bailing out of the landlord space as it is.
I would have thought that while the envy led approach of an LVT levied via some proxy of house prices might seem like a good idea in opposition, it might prove to be too hard to practically implement inside of government. (at least that's what I'm hoping)
98elise said:
. It would simply be a tax on expensive places to live.
The justification seems to be that if you can afford to live there you must be rich. That's far from the truth.
It's a reasonable proxy. The justification seems to be that if you can afford to live there you must be rich. That's far from the truth.
SpidersWeb said:
Yes they are taxed on the way out, but putting in income tax free that you would be taxed at 40% on and then being able to pull it out later and only pay 20% (assuming they pay any tax on it at all) is a particular benefit to high earners.
High earners don't need the same level of encouragement to save into pensions that lower earners do, so it is rather an odd system that rewards higher earners with twice or more the tax benefit that it does to lower earners.
note it does not provide higher earners with any more tax benefit than lower earners - the tax benefit is identical.High earners don't need the same level of encouragement to save into pensions that lower earners do, so it is rather an odd system that rewards higher earners with twice or more the tax benefit that it does to lower earners.
There is a good chance that higher earners could end up being taxed twice if they do net get to contribute gross especially as there is no guarantee as to what the prevailing tax rates and thresholds will be on withdrawal.
Making ad-hoc changes to pensions has the real risk of creating so much uncertainty that people lose all trust and do not save for retirement.
Zaichik said:
note it does not provide higher earners with any more tax benefit than lower earners - the tax benefit is identical.
There is a good chance that higher earners could end up being taxed twice if they do net get to contribute gross especially as there is no guarantee as to what the prevailing tax rates and thresholds will be on withdrawal.
Making ad-hoc changes to pensions has the real risk of creating so much uncertainty that people lose all trust and do not save for retirement.
There is a good chance that higher earners could end up being taxed twice if they do net get to contribute gross especially as there is no guarantee as to what the prevailing tax rates and thresholds will be on withdrawal.
Making ad-hoc changes to pensions has the real risk of creating so much uncertainty that people lose all trust and do not save for retirement.
Higher rate taxpayers get a 40% benefit compared to 20% for basic rate.
Countdown said:
Higher rate taxpayers get a 40% benefit compared to 20% for basic rate.
You get to contribute into pension gross - ie before tax, and are taxed on withdrawal.
Therefore to save £100 into a pension you contribute £100 of your gross salary regardless of your tax rate.
What you are suggesting is making some people have to contribute £120 of gross salary to save £100 - that would make no sense at all.
Countdown said:
Zaichik said:
note it does not provide higher earners with any more tax benefit than lower earners - the tax benefit is identical.
There is a good chance that higher earners could end up being taxed twice if they do net get to contribute gross especially as there is no guarantee as to what the prevailing tax rates and thresholds will be on withdrawal.
Making ad-hoc changes to pensions has the real risk of creating so much uncertainty that people lose all trust and do not save for retirement.
There is a good chance that higher earners could end up being taxed twice if they do net get to contribute gross especially as there is no guarantee as to what the prevailing tax rates and thresholds will be on withdrawal.
Making ad-hoc changes to pensions has the real risk of creating so much uncertainty that people lose all trust and do not save for retirement.
Higher rate taxpayers get a 40% benefit compared to 20% for basic rate.
98elise said:
It's not saving 1m though, it LTA is the total value of pension benefits that a person could accumulate over their lifetime.
If say you were say 55 and had 500k in your pension then you have to consider how that will grow with no further contributions. That could easily be 20-30 years.
With compound growth and an future reductions in LTA you could easily hit it within say 10 years.
I think the point is its not going to concern most people, either 500k or 1m. Whether it's grown or purely contributions it's only going to concern a small % of the population. If say you were say 55 and had 500k in your pension then you have to consider how that will grow with no further contributions. That could easily be 20-30 years.
With compound growth and an future reductions in LTA you could easily hit it within say 10 years.
Zaichik said:
Countdown said:
Higher rate taxpayers get a 40% benefit compared to 20% for basic rate.
You get to contribute into pension gross - ie before tax, and are taxed on withdrawal.
Therefore to save £100 into a pension you contribute £100 of your gross salary regardless of your tax rate.
What you are suggesting is making some people have to contribute £120 of gross salary to save £100 - that would make no sense at all.
In terms of being taxed on withdrawal you'll be able to withdraw the 25% LS tax free, you'll be able to withdraw up to £50k at 20%. It's only if you're drawing down more than £50k that you might be paying 40%. It's still a significant saving over the amount of tax you saved by contributing into a pension fund in the first place.
Zaichik said:
Therefore to save £100 into a pension you contribute £100 of your gross salary regardless of your tax rate.
You don't. To contribute £100 into a pension the net cost to a 20% taxpayer is £80. The net cost to a 40% taxpayer is £60Another way to explain it is this - if we capped tax relief on pension contributions at 20% then by your definition nobody would be any worse off, would they?
Edited by Countdown on Tuesday 16th July 10:17
Countdown said:
You don't. To contribute £100 into a pension the net cost to a 20% taxpayer is £80. The net cost to a 40% taxpayer is £60
good, so you are agreed, both are contributing exactly the same gross and therefore both receiving identical benefit, so it would be punitive to ask one to contribute more to save the same.RenesisEvo said:
If you take away 20% then give it back, or take away 40% and give it back, is the end result the same? In the end, neither pays tax, regardless if they are taxed at 20% or 40%.
Just because neither pays tax doesn't mean that neither benefits equally. The higher rate taxpayer benefits twice as much.As I said above, if both benefit equally then let's cap the tax relief on pensions.
Zaichik said:
Countdown said:
You don't. To contribute £100 into a pension the net cost to a 20% taxpayer is £80. The net cost to a 40% taxpayer is £60
good, so you are agreed, both are contributing exactly the same gross and therefore both receiving identical benefit, so it would be punitive to ask one to contribute more to save the same.I'll suggest it again - if you think both are paying the same for the same benefits then capping pension contribution relief at 20% for BOTH people shouldn't make any difference, should it?
Countdown said:
I genuinely don't understand why this is so confusing. It doesn't matter what the gross cost is and both AREN'T receiving identical benefits
I'll suggest it again - if you think both are paying the same for the same benefits then capping pension contribution relief at 20% for BOTH people shouldn't make any difference, should it?
OK, making it simple,I'll suggest it again - if you think both are paying the same for the same benefits then capping pension contribution relief at 20% for BOTH people shouldn't make any difference, should it?
if you want to save £100 into your pension:
a basic rate tax payer would need to contribute £100 of gross salary
a higher rate tax payer would need to contribute £100 of gross salary
whether you do this via salary sacrifice or net and then claim reliefs, the end result is still the same.
if as you suggest reliefs are capped at 20%, then the result would be:
if you want to save £100 into your pension:
a basic rate tax payer would need to contribute £100 of gross salary
a higher rate tax payer would need to contribute £120 of gross salary
do you understand now?
Zaichik said:
SpidersWeb said:
Yes they are taxed on the way out, but putting in income tax free that you would be taxed at 40% on and then being able to pull it out later and only pay 20% (assuming they pay any tax on it at all) is a particular benefit to high earners.
High earners don't need the same level of encouragement to save into pensions that lower earners do, so it is rather an odd system that rewards higher earners with twice or more the tax benefit that it does to lower earners.
note it does not provide higher earners with any more tax benefit than lower earners - the tax benefit is identical.High earners don't need the same level of encouragement to save into pensions that lower earners do, so it is rather an odd system that rewards higher earners with twice or more the tax benefit that it does to lower earners.
The higher rate taxpayer gets to invest £100 into their pension now by paying in £60, which is now topped up by the taxman to £100 through £40 tax relief - and when it is taken, after the TFA, they are likely only to be paying the basic 20% rate.
Whereas the basic rate taxpayer is having to put in £80 of net pay not £60 to get that £100 investment.
The higher rate tax payer gets twice the relief, and it wouldn't. be a hard sell to Labour voters to restrict the tax relief to the basic rate.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff