Now The Plan Becomes Clear......

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.express.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/1953667/fears-rachel-reeves-is-plotting

First freeze them to death, then nick what remains of their pension. Can you imagine the uproar if a Tory chancellor contemplated such a thing?

[bhg481]

You've got to feel sorry for the hundreds of MPs who will lose their job at the next election due to their leader's dishonesty.

[davebro3]

She probably wasn't but seeing that the Express has suggested it, well maybe...

[davebro3]

//You've got to feel sorry for the hundreds of MPs who will lose their job at the next election//

Not a bit of it! All MPs are chancers - they deserve to lose out if they (their party) don't deliver. A plague on all their houses.

[newmodarmy]

I'm not happy with the WFA cut- I think they just count it as taxable income- but I think some of these other things are worth looking at. The tax free lump sum allowance could be reduced slightly to say 20% or capped at say £50000, although that may be an admin nightmare if people have several pensions. Also it's not unreasonable to me to consider whether it's right that pension values should not be counted as part of the estate for IHT purposes. It's hardly going to make much of a dent in the 'black hole' though, especially if the public sector pay awards continue to be on the generous side.

[Hymie]

I’d like to see the budget limit the tax relief higher rate payers get through their pension contributions – with a flat rate of 20%.

 

This would stop the higher paid (who should pay a higher proportion in tax) from paying extra into a pension (saving 40% tax or more), and then when withdrawing it, paying only 20% tax.

 

No doubt the rich would cry foul; but why should they gain more than the poorly paid (if we are seeking a fairer society).

[New Judge]

"This would stop the higher paid (who should pay a higher proportion in tax) from paying extra into a pension (saving 40% tax or more), and then when withdrawing it, paying only 20% tax."

Income Tax is due when money is received by an individual. Money paid into a pension is not received. It is held in a fund to be disbursed later. It is effectively deferred pay. It is a method of spreading an individual's earnings over his working life and his retired life.

There is no justification for taxing the sums transferred from income directly into a pension scheme as they will be taxed when they are received in the form of payments from the fund. Money should only be taxed once, when it is actually received. 

Your plan would see people on higher incomes effectively paying 20% tax on money they have no access to and then another 20% (or perhaps even 40%, depending on their income in retirement) when they actually receive it. 

Every effort should be made to encourage people to save for a comfortable reirement. The State Pension alone is hopelessly inadequate and your scheme to over tax pension contributions is hardly a recipe to achieve that.

"No doubt the rich would cry foul; but why should they gain more than the poorly paid (if we are seeking a fairer society)."

Any tax cuts or tax advantages are obviously of greater benefit to those who pay the most tax.

[ToraToraTora]

A laudible effort judge but I fear you are trying to crowbar something into an incapable cranium.

[Khandro]

All initiatives from this government is now based on ideology, - outmoded, a priori  Marxism, - take from the rich and give it to the poor - easy, job done !                                                    Which as anyone with a grain of sense and knowledge of history knows doesn't work.