You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
There's no law against saving more than the LTA into your pension. It just means it isn't tax free. Whether or not increased tax bungs for the rich is the best thing to spend money on when we have 2 million using food banks is, I think, a valid question. Of course it's not surprising what the Tories think.
I reckon if TJ had had kids (and now grandkids) he wouldn't be telling us how what he lives on makes him 'rich', nor would he have even thought what he earned while working made him 'rich'.
There’s no law against saving more than the LTA into your pension. It just means it isn’t tax free.
This for me is the important point, when this LTA 'issue' first came up a few years ago this was my comment to an NHS Consultant I 'know' AKA stop complaining it just means you earn good money and the monies going into your pension are a lot.
But when actuarial maths are applied to a juggernaut pension scheme the consultants aren’t given the choice
You may think being one of the nations top few % of earners does not make you rich but earning more than 95% of the population does certainly takes you into the category of the wealthiest.
you're conflating wealth (what you have) with earnings. You can have no income and be wealthy, or lots of income and not be wealthy. Often people with high earnings are wealthy, but the two are not synonymous - age typically plays an extremely large role
It just means it isn’t tax free.
It's still tax free when it goes in. It's taxed very heavily when it comes out - 55% for lump sums, and 25% + whatever your marginal income tax rate is for income.
If you are in the fortunate position of the LTA being something that might affect you, it's hard to plan exactly for it because it's not a limit on contribution , but a limit on value, and so it depends on many things that are out of your control - the performance of your funds, the value of any index linked DB schemes you might have. That value is assessed when you trigger a 'crystallisation event', usually taking some money from a SIPP, or when you reach 75. If you have a SIPP and an indexed DB pension every year your DB statement will tell you that that has accounted for more of your LTA, because the LTA link to inflation has been broken. So every year, the effective tax rate on that SIPP, whenever you actually take it, increases, unless your investments collapse and bring the total down below the LTA.
sorry @tjagain:
3x national average salary puts you into the highest earning few of % of the population. That is indisputable.
You may think being one of the nations top few % of earners does not make you rich but earning more than 95% of the population does certainly takes you into the category of the wealthiest.
You clearly don't understand the difference between Wealth and Income and which combination of the two makes you rich.
Illustrative examples are in my post - and you totally ignored them.
You're wrong m8. Sorry.
Just to add - if you've nothing, and you land yourself a 120k a year job, you're not rich - you're just dragging yourself out of the mud.
Accusing people like this - of which there are many - of being "rich" is jealousy pure and simple. It's the standard thing to have pot shots at people who are making something of their lives from people who are stuck in the mud.
And again, it's nothing but a distraction from the real problem - the UHNW individuals who's wealth is so great that it actually distorts our democracies. This thread is about the plebs fighting amongst themselves.
Accusing people like this – of which there are many – of being “rich” is jealousy pure and simple. It’s the standard thing to have pot shots at people who are making something of their lives from people who are stuck in the mud.
I am not "accusing" anyone. I am stating clear facts. the percentile charts are there for you allto see. If you earn £60 000 pa you are in the top 10% of earners. at £100 000 you are approaching the top 1%. That makes you rich. This is clear and factual.
As for jealousy. Not me not one bit. Projecting much? I am perfectly content with my lot
What infuriates me is the denial from many on here how wealthy you are. when you have a salery or assets that put you amongst the wealthiest few % in our society you are rich.
Some of you have so little idea of what the real world consists of its frightening
BTW - its my assets that make me rich not my income.
Are you willfully ignoring the argument @tjagain? Having a bad day and just want a fight or something?
I am stating clear facts. the percentile charts are there for you allto see. If you earn £60 000 pa you are in the top 10% of earners. at £100 000 you are approaching the top 1%. That makes you rich. This is clear and factual.
No. No it doesn't.
I said this, after repeatedly making the point:
You clearly don’t understand the difference between Wealth and Income and which combination of the two makes you rich.
Overall wealth is the primary arbiter of "rich" - not income in isolation.
If have nothing, you land yourself a £120k job, then two years later get made redundant you're still buggered. If you've been very sensible (and not just enjoyed your new-found income) then you're in a much better place than someone on £20k. But you're not rich.
There's one of two things going on here, either you don't understand what rich actually is, or you just want an argument.
If you earn £60 000 pa you are in the top 10% of earners
This may be so. The median is about £28,000?
I suggest this kind of figure is not a good gauge of richness but instead an indictment of uk government incapability to improve economic growth. It is the result of many years of government ineptitude.
Overall wealth is the primary arbiter of “rich” – not income in isolation.
If have nothing, you land yourself a £120k job, then two years later get made redundant you’re still buggered. If you’ve been very sensible (and not just enjoyed your new-found income) then you’re in a much better place than someone on £20k. But you’re not rich.
There’s one of two things going on here, either you don’t understand what rich actually is, or you just want an argument.
[channels inner Trump]
Obviously I'm cripplingly poor, my mortgage means I've far more debts than liquid assets. Clearly the homeless guys in town are far richer than me.
[/channels inner Trump]
Can we rename this thread the pointless semantics thread please?
Chevy - its you that does not understand the reality "rich" is being in the wealthiest few % of the population
Earning more than 99% of the population ( £100 000pa) makes you rich
OR
Having assets of a million ( 7x average?) makes you rich
You may not feel rich, you may have huge outgoings but its a simple fact that earnings or assets like that put you firmly in the richest few % of our society
As for
if you’ve nothing, and you land yourself a 120k a year job, you’re not rich – you’re just dragging yourself out of the mud.
That means almost no public servants will ever be able to "drag themselves out of the mud" How out of touch are you that you think an income that is in the top 1% of the UK taxpayers is merely "dragging yourself out of the mud
Interesting straw man argument there @thisisnotaspoon.
Oh, wait. No it isn't, is it. It's yawningly predictable and absolutely nothing to do with what was written.
@tjagain - again, I completely disagree. Middle class people aren't rich. That guy with nothing but a very well paid job, he's still insecure. He's not got the security of wealth. Therefore he's not rich.
Not going to go round in circles with you but this is interesting:
That means almost no public servants will ever be able to “drag themselves out of the mud”
This is true. And the way the system is supposed to work. So stop whining at the not-actually-rich and engage with the actual problem - and I'll give you a clue: The actual problem is not the 10% of high earners. It's the system that allows the buildup of colossal inheritable wealth.
If you deal with that, with the disparity between the very high haves, and the very low have-not's - and restrict it - so total wealth disparity has a ceiling which cannot be breached (and I don't know what that is - maybe the wealthiest could be allowed to be a hundred times more wealthy than the poorest in our society? Or a thousand?? Right now - the wealthiest are over 7 million times wealthier than a guy with 20 grand.)
Or, alternatively, keep the fighting amongst the plebs - punching at the firmly middle class - whilst ignoring the thing that really needs fixing. It plays into the hands of people who don't give a ****, and alienates people close enough to the poor to actually understand what the poor feel - and because of that might even care a little.
Rich - having wealth or great possessions; abundantly supplied with resources, means, or funds; wealthy:
TJ - you are confusing being paid higher than the average with the definition of rich.
I believe you were a Band 7 or Band 8 in the NHS. By your own definition you earned more than the UK average so does that mean you are rich too?
As I have said above, someone on £120k does not take home nearly 5 times the money of someone on £25k, yes they are comfortable, but certainly not rich !
I guess really rich people must be laughing at this tread as we squabble over if 120k is rich whilst they pay someone to count their billions. As flagged above, this is exactly what they want.
I was a band 6 and a band 5. Because of my assets not my income I consider myself rich. I earned around the average most of my career sometimes a lot less
I am not confusing anything. Its many folk on here who are as they seem not to realise where the percentiles of earnings and assets are
How on earth can you be in the top 1% of UK earners and not be rich? £120 000 puts you firmly in that category IIRC
so you earnt average or less your whole career, and yet you are by your own admission rich because of the assets you own.
its almost like income isn't the only metric of being rich.
If TJ was a band 7/8 and he earned an average nurse wage his pension may well be by his own definition firmly in the bracket of the “rich”.
The NHS pension scheme (like most public sector schemes) has an index linking element and features typically only available at a significant additional premium to people investing for their own pensions.
The result is that the employers contribution IRO 15% is actually worth around 25-30% when the value of the benefits / cost of buying those benefits in a private scheme is included - so TJ’s pension would likely equate to a 2.5-3% annuity in a private scheme with index linking.
One caveat to that to illustrate the additional benefits - pretty much no private sector schemes offer uncapped index linking - so the 10% ish uplift that public sector retirees benefited from this year would be capped at 4% on self invested pensions.
From what TJ has already said, he’s effectively benefited from an equivalent money purchase “pot” value of £600-900k.
TJ - feel free to check the calcs - divide your annual pension by 2.5 then X 100 to get to the equivalent money purchase pot.
Not right on my pension. I did not have a full contribution record. My pot is worth around 1/4 million on that basis My pension is £550 pcm. I was a band 6 and then a 5
Correct Jambo - its your income and your assets that need to be taken into account. I've made that clear throughout - but you can be rich on a high income with no assets or like me a low income and high assets
The total lack of understanding of the wealth and privilege this brings you that many folk on here have is weird
It's fascinating watching this argument develop. IMHO the following opinions are both true:
I totally agree that anyone earning £120k should be aware of the privileged position they are in and be thankful and cognisant of the fact they are so well off compared to so many. Being ungrateful for what you have is a very ugly look.
I also agree that the really problematic issue with wealth disparity in the UK and across the world isn't with the £120k people. It's with the people further up the pole who generally didn't make their cash from PAYE. Either they earn enough to pay accountants lots of money to skew the books, or they inherited enough to pay the accountants to skew the books so that wealth continues to pass undiluted to the next generation.
BOTH of these things are true. They're not mutually exclusive.
Apologies TJ - I thought I had read a post where you had said you were a B7/8.
I will ask mods to remove my post if you like ?
divide your annual pension by 2.5 then X 100
Are we allowed to just multiply by 40?
🙂
Not at all funkydunc. I've no issue with that. easy to correct 🙂
A stat seen recently: 99% of pension savers pay in less than the current 40k threshold.
So increasing it to 60k as mooted is quite literally a tax bung for the 1%.
If that's really your priority for the country, have the balls to state it clearly.
@thegeneralist:
I totally agree that anyone earning £120k should be aware of the privileged position they are in and be thankful and cognisant of the fact they are so well off compared to so many. Being ungrateful for what you have is a very ugly look.
I don't think anyone's "ungrateful" or unaware of their "privileged" position. I actually think "privilege" is the wrong word - you could easily say a position they're in is because they studied, worked hard, made sacrifices and worked up that ladder. It's not a position they haven't earned - a privilege is a special advantage that is given to people, unearned. But regardless, that's not formed part of this argument. I'm sure people who've climbed that ladder are very aware of the financial advantage they've earned.
Privilege is a kid from a wealthy family being parachuted into a high-earning job without having to earn their stripes - and generally when that happens it certainly won't be at "chicken feed" £120k/year levels.
The argument is - without significant assets behind you, £120k doesn't make you rich. It just means you're earning very well for the moment.
It's true that a single day at 120k pro rata won't make you rich. Several years will though.
I can't imagine there are many people who go from zero to 120k briefly and then rapidly back again to zero, but keep talking about them all day if it makes you happy.
Several years will @thecaptain? Define several explicitly please. And please to be accounting for their take home after tax, and their payments on an average house, a car, the same sort of expenditure that everyone has to make.
If you don't have wealth to back you up - it's firmly middle class. End-of. And the fact that people are jealous of that, and not looking where the actual and very clearly-defined problem is, is part of the (many) reason(s) the poor stay poor.
Now that is all cleared up...
Looks like Hunt is going to announce some very significant changes in lifetime and annual allowances tomorrow. It seems that the likely levels are set exactly so as to remove virtually all doctors from the threat of extra taxes, so should go a long way towards helping retain consultants a little bit longer.
The NHS has long relied on significant goodwill from its staff to function - I've been married to a doctor for over 20 years and the extra unpaid work she and her colleagues do every single day is insane. To pay all taxes correctly via PAYE, not hiding behind dividends or shell companies etc and then be hit with extra massive surprise and totally unpredictable tax bills at the end of every year is/was very demoralising and was rapidly eroding that desperately needed goodwill.
Hopefully these new allowances will let them continue to be doctors for longer.
Never mind
Well that's a boot in the testicles, according to my union pension calculator I'll be at just above minimum standard after 30 years of teaching. I think I know what the gold is plating.
Hopefully these new allowances will let them continue to be doctors for longer.
But you're rich, right? Pay more bloody tax! There's people on 20k don't you know!
I agree. We need experienced doctors to keep us bloody alive. But maybe we should force all of them to work on penury wages eh?
But you’re rich, right? Pay more bloody tax! There’s people on 20k don’t you know!
I agree. We need experienced doctors to keep us bloody alive. But maybe we should force all of them to work on penury wages eh?
I am approaching this threshold. I realise how privileged I am.
I have to choose to not do extra to avoid crossing a threshold and hitting punitive financial penalties.
Given I work routinely well in excess of my contracted hours I don't fancy working extra for free, and if I work for extra pay I will be taxed more than I earn from the shift. This is an incentive to not do more than maintains safety. I am happy to pay tax on what I earn, and have always been, fairly, but 200% tax isn't fair
and then be hit with extra massive surprise and totally unpredictable tax bills at the end of every year is/was very demoralising and was rapidly eroding that desperately needed goodwill.
I think its this - the unexpected / unpredictable nature of it rather than paying the tax most folk object to
I think its this – the unexpected / unpredictable nature of it rather than paying the tax most folk object to
who cares. they're rich. they can afford it.. 😉
I think its this – the unexpected / unpredictable nature of it rather than paying the tax most folk object to
No they object to paying tax that means they work for free / cost as Chrisjjb says
Given I work routinely well in excess of my contracted hours
Doesn't pretty much everyone?
Apart from Cougar, of course.
I am happy to pay tax on what I earn, and have always been, fairly, but 200% tax isn’t fair
Evidence of taxed at twice the rate you earned?
Lots of people don't @thegeneralist. And doctors are a special exemption from the european working time directive because we flog 'em to death.
And they, like every other PAYE person, pay 20%, then 40%, then 45% on their earnings. How much additional tax should they pay over and above the fact that they're already paying a higher percentage of their earnings than the poor?
Are we all communist around here when it comes to the middle class, but we all turn a blind eye to the ultra high net worth lot? Is it because we all dream of being stupidly rich, and we don't want to see them disappear because that last dream is all we have left?
This whole thread is a load of jealousy-riddled crap.
Can we rename this thread the pointless semantics thread please?
No - We wouldn't be able to differentiate it from all the other pointless semantics threads.
Are we all communist around here when it comes to the middle class, but we all turn a blind eye to the ultra high net worth lot? Is it because we all dream of being stupidly rich, and we don’t want to see them disappear because that last dream is all we have left?
And that's because the rich have persuaded the poor that the middle classes are RICH!
This whole thread is a load of jealousy-riddled crap.
Its really not at all. You only say that because you are blind to what is happening in the world at large and have absurd ideas about what is a normal middle class wage and lifestyle
You seem to think that only the top 1% of earners are earning a living wage. Nope - they are the top- 1%. What yo said about £120 000pa being "just dragging themselves out of the mud" shows how out of touch you are. According to you 99% of the UK taxpayers are drowning in the mud. to say £120 000 pa is a normal middle class earnings when its the top 1%?
to write it off as jealousy shows how little you understand about the reality of the country we live in
How much additional tax should they pay over and above the fact that they’re already paying a higher percentage of their earnings than the poor?
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
This whole thread is a load of jealousy-riddled crap.
It really isn't. The rich but not rich seem to spend a lot of time in the pursuit of money then complaining about it. I suspect TJ, with his modest income and work free life, is one of the most content
Thank you nickjb. You are right. I am not jealous at all being more than content with my lot. i made the choices that took me to where I am. Pursuit of money and material goods has never been anything I am interested in
o said about £120 000pa being “just dragging themselves out of the mud” shows how out of touch you are.
he didn't say that. He said that if you get a job with that salary, and you have nothing, the at the start you're just dragging yourself up. You're not rich at that point. 10 years later, with a big house and a tidy pension? yeah, maybe then.
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”
OK, so we are talking communist crap, directly quoting Karl Marx himself 🙂
@Tjagain is refusing to consider the wider argument and is misquoting and straw-manning hard. (As @5lab pointed out).
As this is the case I've nothing else to add in this thread. It's already been said and what's being posted doesn't remotely rebuff it. Now we're bringing out the hammers and sickles then for me: /thread 🙂
Lots of people don’t @thegeneralist. And doctors are a special exemption from the european working time directive because we flog ’em to death.
Mmm, I was just saying that we shouldn't immediately think the grass is always greener. Whenever we have a teachers thread, contributors always say that teachers do huge amount of additional hours ( which I'm not disputing at all)
When we have a firemen thread, contributors frequently say that they have to work additional hours/ jobs to keep heads above water ( which I'm not disputing at all)
I know my job has a contract that states " any additional [ unpaid] hours as needed to get the job done"
I'm sure there are stacks of jobs where people do stacks of additional hours. I'm not saying this to minimise the undoubted additional hours that docs do. Or the additional hours that anyone does. Just pointing out that actually a shitload of us do it.
Are we all communist around here when it comes to the middle class, but we all turn a blind eye to the ultra high net worth lot?
No, as I tried to categorically state above, thinking that someone on £120k is doing alright isn't mutually exclusive with thinking that the uberrich are taking the piss. Its not one or the other. It's both (for me)
This whole thread is a load of jealousy-riddled crap.
No idea if this is aimed at me, but I'll answer anyway... No. I'm not jealous in the slightest about people on £120k. I earn far, far less than that, but it still appears like a shit tonne of cash to me. I am extremely grateful for that and the way it facilitates my life.
I appreciate all the advantages that life has given me and not stupid enough to think that it was all through my hard graft alone.
My default expectation is that I'd imagine people on twice my salary would also be cognisant and grateful. If they're not then fine. I don’t feel strongly about it, and certainly don't feel jealous.
PS, don't take any of my waffle above to be a sign that I think the current situation with LTAs, docs etc is acceptable. I've not yet got an opinion on that. My views above are merely to try to refute the view that anyone who thinks people on £120k should be more aware of their good fortune is automatically a billionaire loving communist green jealous monster.
Now I'm confused. What were we arguing about again 😉
Not aimed at you m8.
Not aimed at you m8
Damn, so who am I going to argue with the rest of the evening!
I did say in my first post on this thread. here we go again and you will have to ignore TJ on this topic.
I actually think he is trolling on this subject
quoting facts followed by opinion does not make your opinion factual! no matter how much you repeat it, it is your subjective opinion, not fact. and it's clear there is more chance of getting my 4 year old to understand the difference.
50% more snowflakes fall in the north of the country. therefore every where north of me is covered in snow all the time.
water runs downhill, therefore everything downhill is wet
someone earns above average income, therefore they are rich
see what i did there?
Apart from the FACT I never said that. A pension that is a lot more than the national average wage makes you rich is what I said ( IE 3 times the average retirement income) and then it was misquoted out of context
What I have consistently said is when you are earning multiples of the natuional average you are amongst the richest few % of our population.
People idea of what is a normal middle earners wage is badly displaced. The facts are there for all to see - I put the percentile charts up
DT78 - I hope you saw my apology. It was sincere because although this lack of understanding of the reality infuriates me I should not have been so crass on your thread. Apologies
Well there we have it. The annual allowance raised from £40,000 to £60,000. and abolishing the upper pension pot limit.
A very sensible move IMO
However I do wonder if this will now be used against doctors in pay talks.... ie what more do you want
A bung for the super-rich, but that's obviously the priority.
A bung for the super-rich, but that’s obviously the priority.
Yes but if you are super rich you will get much better and quicker returns investing your money elsewhere + they wont be in PAYE to start with.
A bung for the super-rich, but that’s obviously the priority.
By super-rich you mean doctors? I suspect if you’re genuinely super rich then lifetime limits have little impact.
99% of people (even just those who actually have a pension) put in less than 40k per year, so yeah, for the 1%.
They didn't have to give a massive tax bung for the super-rich to iron out an anomaly in the way doctors' pensions are estimated.
thecaptaiin - the super rich ... again it comes down to what definition you use.
However those on probably more than £500k per year of which there are substantial numbers of people will receive their pensions in the way of shares, property, bonus etc.
Not pension !
Most company boards I have worked with in the past have been on PAYE salaries of £1m+ before share options, homes etc etc
By removing the lifetime allowance, he now allows the well off/rich to move £120k per couple per annum into pensions. For these people pensions are not about retirement, it’s a state sanctioned inheritance tax dodge. At the same time the personal allowance is frozen. It’s another attack on the poor and a gift to the well off.
By removing the lifetime allowance, he now allows the well off/rich to move £120k per couple per annum into pensions. For these people pensions are not about retirement, it’s a state sanctioned inheritance tax dodge.
To be fair thats a good point. Pension is the most efficient way for people to save for retirement (with minimal risk) so yes it does allow people to maximise their savings.
Hopefully it will now inspire more people from all walks of life to become doctors then ? Or do the many years of training, debt, comparative low pay and long hours still put people off?
I would have made use of the above 40k pension contributions, except I decided to take early retirement at the end of the month. I wont be tempted back to work by any of these measures.
Im not super rich by the way nor a doctor.
LOL yeah I'm sure giving people a tax bung to save unlimited amounts into their pensions will somehow negate the fact that the govt already limits the number of student places for doctors.
My take having read most of the [s]argument[s/] debate on here.
There is an issue with the generous defined benefits pensions that 4% of people in the UK receive as part of their employment rewards conflicting with tax law, towards the end of their working life. Predominantly doctors.
We are not 'fixing' the generous benefits or opaque nature of the defined benefits scheme calculation, which is funded by taxpayers. We are solving this issue by encouraging more generosity of tax breaks and increased limits which conflict with the defined benefits scheme, so that more of the 4% of affected people keep working, to the benefit of the nation through more tax take.
Would anyone from scratch design such a complex pension scheme and 'bumpy' tax regime which conflicts with it unfairly? Surely the proper answer is to resolve them in combination - limits be placed on how much per year *anyone* can contribute to a scheme, not the overall growth of a scheme? ISA's are an example of this.
Or are we and the government scared of high-earning doctors striking for a retirement pension income which is higher than most nurses salary when they work? In the current climate of rising costs and strikes for more salary, such a generous scheme and the resulting 'solution' utterly sucks.
you will get much better and quicker returns
I don't think thats true - you can wrap almost anything behind a pension, you can't get your returns as cash, but if you just want to re-invest them, you may be able to keep it all in a pension wrapper.
By removing the lifetime allowance, he now allows the well off/rich to move £120k per couple per annum into pensions. For these people pensions are not about retirement, it’s a state sanctioned inheritance tax dodge. At the same time the personal allowance is frozen. It’s another attack on the poor and a gift to the well of
whilst true, I don't think most people are optimising for IHT avoidance during their working life. There's probably a really small number of
a) couples where both are earning enough to save 60k pre-tax
b) have kids
c) have avoiding IHT as a priority
so maybe just letting that handful of folks off the hook is reasonable price to keep the tax laws simple-ish?
Well there we have it. The annual allowance raised from £40,000 to £60,000
Bollocks, there goes my chances of scrounging an ebike on the wife's cycle to work scheme 🙂
you can wrap almost anything behind a pension, you can’t get your returns as cash, but if you just want to re-invest them, you may be able to keep it all in a pension wrapper
I've worked at a few places where the work premises weren't owned by the business, but by the pension of the owners of the business who then rent it back from themselves in another guise.
It’s not clear in the news but has the annual allowance taper been removed? If not then this would have been a much easier way to simplify the tax code, benefit the doctors and generally made life a bit easier. Increasing the allowance without removing the taper is just stupid.
Edit. Just had a better look and the answer would appear to be no the taper hasn’t been scrapped. Idiotic if you ask me as we retain the complexity whilst minimising the tax take.
By removing the lifetime allowance, he now allows the well off/rich to move £120k per couple per annum into pensions. For these people pensions are not about retirement, it’s a state sanctioned inheritance tax dodge. At the same time the personal allowance is frozen. It’s another attack on the poor and a gift to the well off.
You know income tax at the prevailing rate is payable on pension pots if death occurs before the age of 75, right? So "dodging" IHT for IT may well result in MORE tax payable, not less, for the inheritants of the "rich" or "super rich" (we still don't know what that means btw).
@gonefishin - no it doesn't appear that the pension taper has been removed as far as I've read. Which is kinda odd.
As per other posters I've still not quite sure they didnt alter the NHS scheme. As it is it's just a (yes reiterating) a tax kick back for the 4% of people with pensions that will broach the LTA.
(we still don’t know what that means btw)
We do now. Peston has put the divider at £240k pa.
https://twitter.com/Peston/status/1636021131231518721
Interestingly, Richard Murphy, https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2023/03/15/a-budget-for-tinkering-as-the-economy-sinks/ doesn't even mention the LTA or annual allowances, which leads me to suspect that they are actually a dead cat to divert attention from some of the more sinister elements of the budget, which he lists as
The energy support is another bung to big energy companies who will continue to laugh their way to the bank.
The childcare support is almost wholly for the middle classes.
The fuel duty cap is another £6 billion subsidy to motorists.
Calling nuclear power environmentally sustainable energy is a slap in the face for common sense.
The supposed tax give away to encourage investment by big business does nothing for small businesses who actually drive most economic growth and who will be getting a real tax increase.
Freeports are now investment zones, and get a bung when letting universities back into Horizon 2020 EU research projects would have been vastly more productive.
There are very real tax increases for almost everyone as rate bands and allowances are frozen. Households will have less to spend then, which is the most bizarre way to drive growth ever invented.
The childcare support is almost wholly for the middle classes.
is that just because there are more middle class people than other people? It seems like a fairly even benefit (potentially tapering for top earners). That blog just looks like the mind dump of an angry person, not much though in it
You know income tax at the prevailing rate is payable on pension pots if death occurs before the age of 75, right?
That’s only paying back the tax relief that was given on the pension contributions in the first place. Not an extra tax (compared to if the earner just saved post-tax money to bequeath, as is normally the case).
Must admit it’s been very cleverly presented.
Rather than sorting out an anomaly in the way NHS (and perhaps some other public sector) pensions are calculated, he uses this problem as an excuse to push through a massive tax bung for the richest 1% or 4% (depending exactly what you’re counting) and people on here think - at least claim to think - that it’s all done to help some beleaguered hard-working GPs and will make a significant contribution to the NHS staffing problem.
I expect he’s having a good laugh about it right now.
For me it’s going to do the opposite, it’s another way for me to be able to retire early if I’m now not going to taxed as much. I don’t think that’s what they had in mind but I won’t be the only one.
Drac - that rather assumes the retirement age on self invested pensions doesn't change again. It's about to go up to 58 as it is.