How to cash my pension in ?

mgdavid

kidmugsy wrote: »

........ Any [STRIKE]other[/STRIKE] usage just introduces muddle and confusion.

fixed that for you!
Seriously I propose a 'swear box' type of arrangement where if we use the word we have to donate a sum to a charity, we could have an MSE justgiving page or summat? WDYT?

kidmugsy

That's "swear box" in the sense of a pint of milk, is it?

jem16

jamesd wrote: »

The research paper that I linked to in my earlier post did not use definition B "the rate on the next Pound of income that will be received". It used definition A "the rate on the last Pound of income received", expressing it as:

"A person’s marginal tax rate is the proportion paid in tax of each additional income unit received at their highest level of income"

Key word is "additional".

I won't bother to quote from the FT unless you really don't believe that it's also using the term just as we do.

I have no doubt that they do.

Yet I have no difficulty in accepting that there are contexts in which the term is used differently.

I'm glad to hear that.

I'm not an accountant bound by the definitions used in accounting practice,

You may not be but I think you would probably find that professional tax advisers/accountants may well be.

the FCA and FT seem to be rather more authoritative about how it's normally used.

As far as I'm aware, the FCA don't advertise themselves as authorities on tax, but rather deal with the integrity of the financial industry. So I would think that their use doesn't make the term any more or any less correct.

Normally, when you feel I have made an error in tax, you usually point me in the direction of HMRC and their manuals/publications. It is very unusual that you have not provided any this time so perhaps your "correct definition" is not as correct as you think it is when HMRC do not use the term for taxing pension income under the new rules.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/429065/Newsletter_68.pdf

jem16

jamesd wrote: »

In this, at least, we three are in agreement. Perhaps we can enlist kidmugsy and molerat also?

Well molerat had already changed his post before we started this discussion.

I did note that mgdavid didn't like my suggestion though.

mgdavid

jem16 wrote: »

Well molerat had already changed his post before we started this discussion.

I did note that mgdavid didn't like my suggestion though.

sorry if I gave that impression, didn't mean to, but I think getting 5 people to agree on here rather akin to herding cats so thought a 'plan B' might be useful

jamesd

jem16 wrote: »

As far as I'm aware, the FCA don't advertise themselves as authorities on tax, but rather deal with the integrity of the financial industry. So I would think that their use doesn't make the term any more or any less correct.

It merely serves to demonstrate a respectable use of it, as does the same use by the fT. My primary purpose isn't to prove one is or isn't correct but rather to illustrate that there are alternative normal uses, to discourage people trying to correct others who happen to be using the one that they don't happen to prefer or use.

jem16 wrote: »

Normally, when you feel I have made an error in tax, you usually point me in the direction of HMRC and their manuals/publications.

I already did in the marginal tax rateusage. You rejected it. There's a limit to how much research I think is useful in this area. I mentioned the FCA and FT because I happened to be reading those things anyway.

jem16 wrote: »

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/429065/Newsletter_68.pdf

I find it hard to be anything other than happy that HMRC seem to have chosen not to use an ambiguous phrase when explaining the rules.

jem16

jamesd wrote: »

My primary purpose isn't to prove one is or isn't correct but rather to illustrate that there are alternative normal uses, to discourage people trying to correct others who happen to be using the one that they don't happen to prefer or use.

I don't think it's about preference james. However I'm pleased to see that you didn't mean this the way you wrote it.

jamesd wrote: »

If you really wish to encourage the correct use then I will be happy to continue to point out that you and kidmugsy are using incorrect definitions and that the correct definition is the one used by me, molerat, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Financial Times among others.

jamesd wrote: »

I already did in the marginal tax rateusage. You rejected it.

I have looked back and can't see where you linked to an HMRC manual or publication that showed pension income being taxed at your marginal rate. I'd like to take a look again if I've missed that - which post was it in?

I do remember saying that marginal income tax bands were not the same as marginal tax rate but I'm sure you can't be meaning that as that was an MSE article.

There's a limit to how much research I think is useful in this area.

Totally agree james as I wouldn't want you to waste a lot of time on a futile search. I've certainly had a good look at the pretty useless gov.uk site and the HMRC archives.

I find it hard to be anything other than happy that HMRC seem to have chosen not to use an ambiguous phrase when explaining the rules.

Yes it's good that they have chosen to tell people how their pension withdrawal will actually be taxed rather than to tell them how it will not be taxed. Seems extremely sensible to me.