Planned tax raid on private pensions by the government

[Oldbean1965]

I have read a few articles about how the government plans to raid private pensions in their budgets in order to raise money. Of course it could all be stirring by the media.
How could they get their hands on our private pension money? We'll pay tax on it when we start receiving it anyway, which galls me as it's our savings. Why should you pay tax on money you've already been taxed on throughout your working life and saved?
I hate this government already, but the previous government were a shit show too 😡

Thank you for that clarification. You don't pay 62% on your whole income though, do you?

In principle I don't see why people who earn above 100K shouldn't pay substantial amounts of tax. There are a good few countries in Europe where the top tax rate is higher than the UK.

62% marginal. Where?

Also what’s the average rate of tax for lower earners whilst we are at it? A lot higher than 20% with not such a generous PA.

I agree with you that people who earn more should pay more tax - I just think there are some very weird and unfair pinch points at certain income levels at the moment. Cliff-edges never make good policy.

I don’t understand why they bothered taking the personal allowance away - just keep it and adjust the tax rates accordingly.

What all of us? Where would we all go? Europe’s out. Australia and N Zealand only want young fit people. Where are millions of people going to up sticks to and be welcomed?

Nope, those dependant upon benefits will be looked after by Labour, as will public sector and other heavily unionised industries. It's the Labour way. They want the votes of the dependant and need the money from the union levies.

They'll just screw private sector workers, self employed and pensioners.

A lot of stupid things happened during the coalition. The Libdems forced through some of their ideas in horse trading for supporting some Tory ideas.

42% would be enough on income over £100k. 62% is insanely high. And as others have said, marginal "tax" over £100k could be over 100% if it means the free childcare is lost.

There should never be any point on the income/benefits scale where there's a marginal rate of tax (or loss of benefits) over 50%, otherwise it's just a disincentive to earn more when you get to "keep" less than half your extra earnings.

The only thing of substance that I’ve seen mentioned consistently is the potential plan to have a flat tax relief for contributions of 30%, which would benefit all 20% tax payers.

I would really like to know what’s enough tax for a top rate tax payer to pay. Because it always seems to be more. And who the ‘wealthy’ are always seems to be ‘people who earn more than the poster’.

It’s the BASIC RATE of tax that’s the problem in the UK. The basic rate in the rest of Europe is on average 30%, so all taxpayers pay at least 10% than they do here. Rather than here. Up the basic rate and everyone pays more HMRC takes much more money. Up the top rate and only very very few people are affected to the tax take is much lower. You want better public services? We ALL have to pay for it. There is no magic money tree.

And yes, many EH countries have no nil rate band either.

I heard 25% not 30%. Just rumours in the tax industry though.

Why just for all new starters? Freeze all existing ones as the private sector did with their schemes.

Yes, exactly. Cliff edges are a potential disincentive to work more, regardless of whether other people happen to think the people affected by them ought to be ok with it. It's not actually about high earners either, because the interplay of tax and benefits means some much lower earners also face significant marginal rates. Stupid and indefensible.

Actually, our basic rate is effectively 28% for taxpayers who are below state pension age, because of NI.

Other EU countries have an equivalent to NIC though, usually a form of social security tax, and often at a higher rate than UK NIC, such as in France.

Must admit I don’t know anything about other countries!

Of course our NI rate was 12% not that long ago (and even higher for a short time when we had the health and social care levy).

Labour have said they won’t change income tax and NI rates though, so I don’t think they will want to go there. But who knows!

Our tax rates are already high for those contributing the most - that’s why, it’s everyone else not paying enough which makes us a so called low tax economy. You can’t keep taxing the same tiny minority over and over.

Working people already pay far too much tax and they are coming for more.
If they concentrated on the companies that move billions of pounds between countries without paying tax, get rid of the NGO's and sort out the outdated procurement procedures and wastage within government spending and look where the money goes well would all be a lot better off !

Do you have a source for this or are you just scaremongering?

As I said above, THERE IS NO MAGIC MONEY TREE. What these companies are doing is perfectly legal, acceptable international tax practice. If you want better public services, you need to pay more income tax.

As for the waste, NGOs etc it is not my
area of expertise. If there are vast savings to be made though I am disappointed that someone within these organisations hasn’t pointed out these savings already.

@Bushmillsbabe
If people are being taxed more under the headline 'it will improve nhs services' they will feel even more entitled and we will get even more abuse, more staff will leave and wait lists will go up.

I share your frustration, but I don't think the media are billing higher wages will mean better care.

I do agree that we need to have a conversation about people's expectations. It's interesting because the expectations of NHS patients often exceed those in the private sector.

No they aren't. LNER are striking every weekend until November and they announced that after the deal with the new Labour government.

Turkeys voting for Christmas

If your only concern was whether or not you'd be financially better off, then perhaps.

But some people understand that decent public services come at a cost, and they perhaps desired a Government that would at least attempt to improve things, rather than simply feather the nests of their wealthy cronies. The country's a fucking shambles and we may all need to pay a bit more towards the improvements we'd like to see. And some people were well aware of that when they voted.

If you were paying more for something you would usually expect more?
The wage bill of the nhs has just gone up around 8% between the junior Dr raise and the AfC grades raise. The current nhs wage bill is around £70 billion, about half of its total running costs. Following these pay rises an extra £6billion will need to be found from somewhere, and a government's main means of raising money is taxes.

But yes, I have a few private patients, who are on the whole much more reasonable than my nhs ones. I was put off doing private for many years, thinking it would be full of snobby entitled demanding rude people. But every private patient I have seen has been very respectful. Maybe it's something to do with if paying for something then seem to value it more, but if getting for free, happier to abuse it.

That's partly why, as proud as I an of our nhs, I just don't see how it can continue. So much abuse and wastage, and no one seems very bothered about it as they are the ones paying for it.

@Flopsythebunny no scaremongering, Ive got better things to do with my time. It's a genuine question. Like most people I'm concerned about what will happen to our pensions, especially after reading how the last Labour government raided the pensons. That's why I asked the question so need to be snippy.
I can't remember exactly where I've read it now, probably some scaremongering articles in the newspapers; and I'm not going to go looking for them, I'm on holiday.