Starmer's vision quest

[BoldonLad]

Telegraph reporting that Treasury officials have confirmed that RfA will not piss around with the PCLS on pensions in the budget, but likely to restrict salary exchange schemes.
Also reported is that the government is understood to be planning a 2p increase to income tax mitigated by a 2p cut to national insurance on earnings between £12,571 and £50,270, which would mean workers who are basic-rate taxpayers seeing no impact on their take-home pay.

But it would mean a hit for Pensioners, maybe she thinks they have already lost that vote?

 

[secretsqirrel]

Heard a podcast yesterday that mentioned that endless speculation about the budget actually costs millions as it destabilises the economy.
I think the Telegraph should let Rach do the damage on her own.

 

[BoldonLad]

Heard a podcast yesterday that mentioned that endless speculation about the budget actually costs millions as it destabilises the economy.
I think the Telegraph should let Rach do the damage on her own.

My personal view, completely without evidence, is that it is an attempt to "scare" the population, in the hope that when the budget eventually comes, everyone will think "phew, that was not as bad as I was expecting". So, for example, float the idea of 2p on Income Tax, but, then, just increase it by 1p 😊

 

[PurplePenguin]

She should just rule out making any changes to the PCLS for the life of the parliament, to provide some certainty.
The Treasury also need to urgently look at the grossly unfair system for tax relief on pension contributions that has significantly contributed to the increasing wealth divide, ie move to a flat rate of tax relief, of say 25%.
There is no reason to give higher rate tax payers 40% relief and basic raters only 20% when the higher rate has pretty much remained the same for 40 years, but the basic rate has fallen from c32% to 20%.

Are you saying she should do this or is someone else?

 

[First Aspect]

My personal view, completely without evidence, is that it is an attempt to "scare" the population, in the hope that when the budget eventually comes, everyone will think "phew, that was not as bad as I was expecting". So, for example, float the idea of 2p on Income Tax, but, then, just increase it by 1p 😊

If that's true, she has to cut spending.

The messaging seems to emphasise capital spending and NHS spending. My take is that benefits are still on the table. To which all the back benches will object, and suggest putting up taxes even further. It is a death spiral of increasing taxes to stifle economic activity, requiring more tax increases.

But here's the thing, it took them 14 months to even start the process of looking at options to improve productivity of the neets etc. and that process will take ages, then they'll think about it for ages, then there'll be a general election.

Wtf have they been doing between being elected on a growth agenda, and pondering how best to ponder about low productivity, before putting out to parliamentary committees to ponder the ponderings? For that matter, what were they focussing on before being elected?

 

[Dorset Boy]

Are you saying she should do this or is someone else?

It's what I think.
Pensions need certainty to help stop people making stupid decisions based on speculation.
Also, the reduction in tax relief on pension contributions for basic rate tax payers over the years has compounded the increasing wealth divide, and is grossly unfair. A flat rate relief would be far more equitable.

 

[First Aspect]

It's what I think.
Pensions need certainty to help stop people making stupid decisions based on speculation.
Also, the reduction in tax relief on pension contributions for basic rate tax payers over the years has compounded the increasing wealth divide, and is grossly unfair. A flat rate relief would be far more equitable.

The tax relief hasn't changed, it is still 100%. It is back to front to argue that the reductions in basic rate of income tax isn't somehow duplicated in some other tax cut and therefore unfair.

 

[BoldonLad]

If that's true, she has to cut spending.

The messaging seems to emphasise capital spending and NHS spending. My take is that benefits are still on the table. To which all the back benches will object, and suggest putting up taxes even further. It is a death spiral of increasing taxes to stifle economic activity, requiring more tax increases.

But here's the thing, it took them 14 months to even start the process of looking at options to improve productivity of the neets etc. and that process will take ages, then they'll think about it for ages, then there'll be a general election.

Wtf have they been doing between being elected on a growth agenda, and pondering how best to ponder about low productivity, before putting out to parliamentary committees to ponder the ponderings? For that matter, what were they focussing on before being elected?

Wtf have they been doing BEFORE being elected?, they may not have had access to the fine detail, but, the overview was available to anyone who wished to see.

 

[briantrumpet]

My personal view, completely without evidence, is that it is an attempt to "scare" the population, in the hope that when the budget eventually comes, everyone will think "phew, that was not as bad as I was expecting". So, for example, float the idea of 2p on Income Tax, but, then, just increase it by 1p 😊

I think if they are going to 'break their election pledge' (which was a daft one), then do it properly now rather than a tinker which doesn't make a meaningful-enough dent, and they end up another year closer to the next GE needing to do another increase.

 

[Dorset Boy]

The tax relief hasn't changed, it is still 100%. It is back to front to argue that the reductions in basic rate of income tax isn't somehow duplicated in some other tax cut and therefore unfair.

You don't get a higher Isa allowance because your are a higher rate tax payer.
It absolutely isn't back to front. The current system of pension tax relief is inequitable (and widens the wealth divide) - what justification is there for giving 40% or 45% tax relief to those earning more?

 

[PurplePenguin]

It's what I think.
Pensions need certainty to help stop people making stupid decisions based on speculation.
Also, the reduction in tax relief on pension contributions for basic rate tax payers over the years has compounded the increasing wealth divide, and is grossly unfair. A flat rate relief would be far more equitable.

Oh, then I completely disagreed. There's no way I'm being taxed in and taxed out of a pension, so I would stop contributing. This would be a short term gain to the government, but I'd hold a grudge.

Much better to reduce the tax free lump sum in my view.

Presumably this all depends how closer to retirement you are as to which you think is better, but I would find it hard to argue that £250k tax free is morally better than double taxation.

 

[PurplePenguin]

You don't get a higher Isa allowance because your are a higher rate tax payer.
It absolutely isn't back to front. The current system of pension tax relief is inequitable (and widens the wealth divide) - what justification is there for giving 40% or 45% tax relief to those earning more?

People don't want to pay it twice. Tax relief means tax relief.

 

[Psamathe]

She should just rule out making any changes to the PCLS for the life of the parliament, to provide some certainty.

Like she ruled out income tax rises, etc. and promised she would not be "back for more".

Promises, commitments, etc. from Labour seem meaningless these days.

 

[Stevo 666]

Ok folks, replacing Starmer.
My first thought when he said he'd fight any challenge was, what with? Charisma? Track record?
The second obviously is who would replace him. Names I've seen touted so far
Wes Streeting - obnoxious neo liberal, intent on selling off the NHS. Self flagellating Christian
Shabana Mahmood - who's she, apparently an authoritarian
Ed Miliband - had his chance and failed the bacon sandwich test.

It's a grey damp morning here and the above doesn't raise my enthusiasm for the day

So in summary, the current PM is useless but the alternatives are even worse?

 

[Psamathe]

Heard a podcast yesterday that mentioned that endless speculation about the budget actually costs millions as it destabilises the economy.
...

I think it does. But it's avoidable and probably because she left so little "headroom" in the last budget she has again constrained herself.