To think the Tories are clever?

[ClassicLib]

They are introducing a massive pension tax cuts for their rich mates in the city, and selling it by claiming that it might also persuade a few rich NHS consultants to delay their retirement to their second homes in France for a couple of years.
And who is paying for this? Why you & me, of course, because our basic rate & higher rate tax allowances are being frozen until 2028. This is actually a massive income tax increase for ordinary working people, of course. And the media have fallen for their spin.
That’s smart politics…

Maybe.

Oh @Clavinova I thought you were better than that.

www.better.org.uk/

Conservative supporters seem very keen to wait as long as possible to the next GE. Why so little confidence?

jgw1
I thought you were better than that

Confession - I only found out today that Sue Gray has a 'Labour activist' son;
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11823795/Tory-fury-Sue-Grays-activist-son-pictured-posing-Sir-Keir-Starmer.html

Sue Gray has a son?

Does that mean she knows what a boy is?
That won't go down well.

And? Can your children not have political opinions different to your own Clav?

Certainly not.

Boris learnt what a woman was from his father, and importantly how to treat them.

Notonthestairs
Can your children not have political opinions different to your own Clav?

Unfortunately, DS1 is not minded to vote Conservative at the next election (uni student) - but thankfully he's not keen on Labour either. DS2 will be too young to vote. Sue Gray is left-leaning though - hence the job offer from Keir Starmer.

A reminder of how the Daily Mail viewed the 'innocuous' Grey report -

Notonthestairs
A reminder of how the Daily Mail viewed the 'innocuous' Gray report

Keir Starmer had so many beers in Durham he couldn't remember how many people were there;
order-order.com/2022/05/16/starmer-revises-count-up-from-6-to-15-attendees-at-beergate/

I knew we’d end up with Keir’s beers again.

😂 yup

It is quite reassuring, like an old friend, or a well worn slipper.

speakola.com/political/jeremy-corbyn-anti-iraq-war-2003

Labour introduced the pension restrictions for higher earners in 2006. The annual allowance (AA) was set at £215,000 and the lifetime allowance (LTA) at £1.5m (according to CPI inflation these would be £340,000 and £2.37m by now).
They tended to increase annually and when George Osborn started cutting these allowances in 2011/2012, AA had reached £255,000 and LTA £1.8m.

The current levels are AA £40,000 and LTA £1.0731m and the budget will increase the AA to £60,000 and abolish the LTA.

In 2016 the conservatives introduced the Tapered Annual Allowance (TAA). By now this means that for those earning salaries over £240,000 only annual pension contributions of £4000 are tax free. The budget will increase this to £10,000 for salaries over £260,000. These TAA rules largely make the LTA irrelevant, which is why it can be abolished, and it is these TAA rules which mean the very high earners will not benefit massively from the budget changes.

As a few previous posters have pointed out, these pension rules have badly affected experienced NHS consultants and GPs due to the good pension schemes to which they belong. They have resulted in many retiring early or working part time as their pension hits the punitive limits. If you want an example consider this:

Consider a Senior Doctor aged 58 earning £120,000 who has built up a pension that will pay a lump sum of £150,000 and a pension of £60,000 if they retire now (and all these figures will increase significantly if they continue to work until 66). The pension rules apply to defined contribution schemes, and for a defined benefit scheme like the doctor's the equivalent amount is calculated as lump sum + 20 x pension, so in this case 150,000+20x£60,000 = 1,350,000. This is over the current LTA so the doctor faces a tax charge of 25% on £381,000 (1350000-10731000) ie. a tax charge of £95,250. This charge reduces the doctor's pension by 95250/20 = £4762.50/year so the doctor will receive £55,237.50/year instead of the £60,000 to which they are entitled. If they continue working the deduction will increase every year. Is it any wonder doctors in their fifties and sixties are retiring early or going part time?

Surely it is better for society if this doctor with valuable experience continues to treat us (whilst also paying over £45,000 income tax and NI each year).

The contradictions of Keir...

given the severity of the moral condemnation that Starmer has given the Corbyn leadership — a condemnation he failed to offer at the time — it is very hard to take this excuse seriously. If Corbyn is bad as he says he is, and if his leadership was bad as he says it was, then what on earth was he doing on the frontbench? ...
Nonetheless, [Keir] cannot avoid the questions that remain on his road to Number 10. These questions go to the heart of his claim that he is a “man of integrity” — a claim upon which he has staked his reputation. Already voters are raising similar questions in focus groups. Detractors and Tory opponents are seizing on it with relish. During a general election campaign, these questions will be asked. If he fails to find a credible answer soon, it may bring him down later. The problem for Keir Starmer is that it is not at all clear that he has a credible answer to give.

thecritic.co.uk/the-contradictions-of-keir/

On the subject of Sue Gray having a son.
Doesn't she know that overpopulation is the greatest challenge we are facing @Clavinova

www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643551/Global-over-population-is-the-real-issue.html

I am not sure it is clever, I mean it doesn't take a genius to come up with a blatantly self-serving plan like that that fooled nobody

I think you are being a little unfair, it has fooled at least a few posters on here.

I think Clavinova's concern might be that the Privileges Committee are basing their findings on the Sue Gray report - the great news is that they are not! They kindly issued a statement confirming that their findings are not based on the Sue Grey report nor do they have a mandate to investigate 'partygate'.

"This inquiry is considering:
• What Mr Johnson said to the House
• Whether what he said was correct or whether it was misleading
• How quickly and comprehensively any misleading statement to the House was
corrected, and
• If it is established that the House was misled, whether this actually constituted
a contempt of the House by impeding the functions of the House or tending to
do so.
If a statement was misleading, we will consider whether that was inadvertent, reckless
or intentional.4 If we conclude it was in any way reckless or intentional we will consider
what sanction to recommend to the House. It will be for the House to decide whether to
accept or reject our conclusions and recommendations. There has been some misinformed
speculation in the media that the Committee will not be concerned with issues of intention
or recklessness; that is incorrect."

Instead they are basing it on evidence from witnesses, emails, whatsapps and images from the Downing Street photographer.

"We are not conducting an investigation into “partygate” or the culture and behaviour
of No. 10 and officials who worked there over the relevant period. While we are concerned
to establish the facts of what occurred in No. 10 for the purpose of discharging our
obligation under the terms of the House’s resolution, we are not repeating the inquiry
which was conducted by the Metropolitan Police or the investigation conducted by the
Second Permanent Secretary."

ttps://committees.parliament.uk/publications/34228/documents/188328/default/

Rest easy.

jgw1
Doesn't she know that overpopulation is the greatest challenge we are facing

I think the article is really about global overpopulation - we could do with a few more youngsters in the UK - and no doubt Boris' sudden explosion in earnings will be enough to pay for private schools etc...
Alas, Keir Starmer "doesn't recall" how his private school fees were funded during sixth form. Starmer does seem to have some problems with his memory recall.

I hope you will join me in writing to the government urging them to rethink their immigration policy which goes against the need for a few more youngsters in the UK. I am sure you will agree we ought to be welcoming the youngsters who are trying to come here and help us by crossing the Channel.

I hope you will join me in writing to the government urging them to rethink their immigration policy which goes against the need for a few more youngsters in the UK

Alas - I think they left their credit cards at home - but room for a few more if they are skilled/educated. I'm not totally happy with the Rwanda scheme myself but Labour haven't come up with a better plan.

As somebody has already pointed out, £100k person pays about 34% in income tax and NI and £20k person pays about 12.5%. Figures for other taxes are highly individual, but using ONS data for typical households, adding in typical council tax, VAT, VED, fuel/alcohol/tobacco duties and other indirect taxes takes these figures for ALL taxes to 43% for the £100k person, and 31% for the £20k person.

On top of this, if student loans are payable (they are a de facto tax) this could take the relevant amounts to 49% against 31%.

They could have modified the NHS pension scheme like they did for the Judges.

Why should certain professions get higher pensiok tax breaks than others? Particularly when the NHS and other DB schemes already have a multiplier used for the calculations resulting in them being able to obtain an annual pension income worth around twice the value before the LTA is applies, compared to those in DC schemes. And you think those with the more generous tax treatment already should get extra tax breaks, at the exclusion of others who the tax system already penalises twice as heavily? On what basis?

I can't make head nor tail of this nonsense, I'm sorry. Happy to reply if you want to rephrase in an understandable way, and actually engage with the analyses in fhe Guardian, Times, FT, by the IFS, OBR, etc, that you've already been pointed to, rather than just making up random assertions of your own with no factual basis.