Osbourne's tax relief changes in the March budget

Rich2808

hyubh wrote: »

Judges are 'strike-prone'...?



In what way? Employee and employer contribution rates are quoted in the scheme guide:

https://jac.judiciary.gov.uk/sites/default/files/sync/basic_page/new_judicial_pension_scheme_0.pdf

However, it's an unfunded scheme like Teachers etc., so the concept of a past service deficit for older versions of the scheme doesn't exist.



Ah, that sounds more like it. However, it isn't a statutory scheme, and so on one commonly-used definition is not a 'public sector' one in the way the TPS/PPS/FPS/LGPS etc. are (e.g. it has a board of trustees, pays the PPF levy, etc.). That said, the employer rate might be 35% with the past service contribution...?

I agree the TfL scheme isn't a statutory one but the employer contributions are funded using the billions it gets in government grants, business rates, council tax and fares. So it's a taxpayer funded Scheme in all but name. It won't be reformed though despite it's benefits being far more generous than almost any other final salary scheme. The police and firefighters pay more than double the contribution rates to be bake to retire early -but they don't threaten strikes every five minutes.

Just curious though what this all means for DB schemes in terms of employer contributions - where at TfL the effective employer contribution will be nearly 40 per cent of effective total salary.

MDMD

Rich2808 wrote: »

Just curious though what this all means for DB schemes in terms of employer contributions - where at TfL the effective employer contribution will be nearly 40 per cent of effective total salary.

In many ways I'd like to see them tax the DB contributions by employers (although it will be horrible to work out). Not only will it be fairer but it will probably trigger a load of strike threats which will highlight what a poorly thought out idea it was. Of course Gideon will make sure the first thing he does is ensure MPs will be subject to the same rules as everyone else, as we all know that 'we're all in this together'.

BobQ

hyubh wrote: »

Judges are 'strike-prone'...?

I missed that nuance.

In what way? Employee and employer contribution rates are quoted in the scheme guide:

https://jac.judiciary.gov.uk/sites/default/files/sync/basic_page/new_judicial_pension_scheme_0.pdf

However, it's an unfunded scheme like Teachers etc., so the concept of a past service deficit for older versions of the scheme doesn't exist.

My google search produced two links which appeared to be the same document. The other was:

https://consult.justice.gov.uk/digital-communications/judicial-pension-scheme-2015-consultation/supporting_documents/jpsconsultationpolicypapers.pdf

My reference to reluctance was this statement on p59 that:

"The initial employer cost cap will be set with reference to the results of the first valuation of the NJPS 2015, which has been provisionally assessed at xx% of pensionable pay."

chiefie

chiefie wrote: »

Hi

Anyone got a strong view as to whether he will change the 40% tax relief ? I can't see him being able to do it quickly due to the changes in IT systems that may be required - it will also be a big hit in one go.

Well it was dodged for this year 😀

Bootsox

Ah well, back to shovelling £40k a year into a pension.

...and still not managing to dodge 40% +2% tax:mad:

Thank the lord for the Brexit vote.

colesy

Been looking around and can't find out if the tapered relief for 45% tax payers is still being introduced. On the basis that nothing much is being said about it, I'm assuming that the plan has not changed and I'll be limited to £10k pa going forward?

C_Mababejive

Why oh why do we have yet again HMG fiddling with the housing market and giving taxpayers money to a limited group to fund house purchases?

This is totally wrong as are all the other schemes.

The tru solution to housing is to release more land for building, to cut immigration of the wrong sort, to build more detached houses and to move toward a system of high quality factory made homes ensuring high quality high efficiency build and reduced on site construction times.

gadgetmind

I've dropped to a 4 day week to avoid the tapering and the personal allowance claw back. I'll be paying £20k pa *less* in income tax than I would be otherwise, which shows that the Laffer Curve is alive and well. Increased taxes and you'll collect less tax. Simples.

AlanP_2

Bootsox wrote: »

Ah well, back to shovelling £40k a year into a pension.

...and still not managing to dodge 40% +2% tax:mad:

Thank the lord for the Brexit vote.

Wish I had that problem :beer:


It has always amazed me when people moan about paying HR tax, personally I would rather earn a salary high enough to pay it than earn a lower salary.

I did suggest to a colleague once that he should leave and get a job as a Burger Flipper if he was that peeved about having to pay tax on his £70k+ salary as it would resolve the issue. He kept quiet after that.

gadgetmind

AlanP wrote: »

I did suggest to a colleague once that he should leave and get a job

...in a different country and thus pay zero tax in the UK.

As it happens, I do know people who've emigrated to avoid high UK taxes, and some who've "downsized" their jobs as it wasn't worth the stress given that HMRC took so much of the spoils.

Interestingly, I know quite a few people who've "semi retired" to take jobs as A-level maths teachers and they all seem happier for it.