Leak contra leak

kidmugsy

Fear of a referendum backlash is my guess.


http://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/mar/04/george-osborne-backs-down-on-radical-pension-reform

greenglide

But this is also rumour and speculation and could even be an attempt to maintain an element of surprise.

Who knows?

In my case, who cares - none of the ideas floated impact me, unless the 25% TFLS was withdrawn for existing schemes and I am quite happy that won't happen.

kidmugsy

greenglide wrote: »

But this is also rumour and speculation

That was the implication of the thread's title.

greenglide wrote: »

... who cares - none of the ideas floated impact me

I dare say the "who" who care are people who think they might be affected.

Snakey

I care, but now I'm bored. No changes at all seems a real anti-climax.

Shall we set up a thread to talk about what he's going to do to it in the Autumn Statement, once the EU Referendum is safely out of the way?

kidmugsy

Snakey wrote: »

what he's going to do to it in the Autumn Statement

Who knows whether The Great Pension Liberator will still be Chancellor after the Referendum?

redux

It does seem quite a bit as though these rumours were planted, Newsnight last night, today's newspapers.

Is it like some test to see what the reactions might be? Prepare different policies and then pick one at the last moment depending on advice from social media experts.

edit: when I say today's newspapers, I mean the ones of the day just gone, not those due to appear on paper copy in the morning and just arriving on websites

brewerdave

My "bet" for what its worth ?-G.O was told by senior Tories that his chances of becoming Prime Minister were zero if he went ahead with any restrictions on higher rate relief:rotfl:

Snakey

redux wrote: »

Prepare different policies and then pick one at the last moment depending on advice from social media experts.

I do like the idea that George Osborne and his advisers are stalking our threads to see whether we like the changes or not.

"OMG Ozzie, looks like Snakey might cut her hours if we get rid of salary sacrifice!"

"Right, that's off the table then!"

And I think that the commentary on here has been of better quality overall than that of most of the articles I've read on the subject, at least in the popular press.

All tax rises have one thing in common, and that's that anybody negatively affected by it will shout about how unfair it is, while those not affected will either support it loudly or (if it's something they feel like they ought to oppose in principle e.g. hammering the poor) make a little bit of a polite kerfuffle but carefully nowhere near enough to get anybody worried.

The "best" thing (from a governmental perspective) about cutting pension tax relief is that most people can't or won't cut their hours or give up their jobs. Most people will have a choice between: carry on (and the Exchequer gets extra tax); or take salary instead (and the Exchequer gets extra tax and extra VAT should it be spent instead of saved).

There have been a lot of people, not so much on this forum but below-the-line elsewhere, who have been under the misapprehension that if higher rate payers stop paying into pensions as a result of the changes then the system will be unworkable. Not the case, really. All that happens is that those people will be stuffed when it comes to retirement, which is their problem and not that of the government (which wouldn't be this particular Government anyway).

What they're more worried about, I would imagine, is the public sector coming out on strike. £42k a year might seem like a lot to a tabloid reader who works on the tills in Aldi, but it's really not - especially if that £42k suddenly includes the pension provision your employer is making for you.

bigadaj

Snakey wrote: »

I do like the idea that George Osborne and his advisers are stalking our threads to see whether we like the changes or not.

"OMG Ozzie, looks like Snakey might cut her hours if we get rid of salary sacrifice!"

"Right, that's off the table then!"

And I think that the commentary on here has been of better quality overall than that of most of the articles I've read on the subject, at least in the popular press.

All tax rises have one thing in common, and that's that anybody negatively affected by it will shout about how unfair it is, while those not affected will either support it loudly or (if it's something they feel like they ought to oppose in principle e.g. hammering the poor) make a little bit of a polite kerfuffle but carefully nowhere near enough to get anybody worried.

The "best" thing (from a governmental perspective) about cutting pension tax relief is that most people can't or won't cut their hours or give up their jobs. Most people will have a choice between: carry on (and the Exchequer gets extra tax); or take salary instead (and the Exchequer gets extra tax and extra VAT should it be spent instead of saved).

There have been a lot of people, not so much on this forum but below-the-line elsewhere, who have been under the misapprehension that if higher rate payers stop paying into pensions as a result of the changes then the system will be unworkable. Not the case, really. All that happens is that those people will be stuffed when it comes to retirement, which is their problem and not that of the government (which wouldn't be this particular Government anyway).

What they're more worried about, I would imagine, is the public sector coming out on strike. £42k a year might seem like a lot to a tabloid reader who works on the tills in Aldi, but it's really not - especially if that £42k suddenly includes the pension provision your employer is making for you.

Id agree with much if that except the bit about higher rate taxpayers stopping contributing and being stuffed. It's firstly unlikely that those at the higher end of the earnings spectrum will be poor in retirement, due to other savings, isas, investments, property, buy to let's etc etc

It's also unlikely they will be reliant on benefits so is a logical cut, though as has been argued before a lost incentive to higher earners.

Despite the interest on here in pensions, I honestly believe those who are interested in pensions are a tiny fraction, even in the public sector where it forms a significant part of the overall remuneration package. It only seems to become an issue when the media get hold of a good story and report it managing to whip up some interest, the problem is that the reporting is often poor and the point being made in articles frequently incorrect.

Snakey

It's made me look at the media with different eyes. Normally I read articles about things that I didn't previously know about, and (although I flatter myself I can spot political bias) I tend to assume that what I'm reading is broadly correct in factual terms.

It's only lately, on reading lots of articles about pensions where the journalist has, if not got it outright wrong, at the very least misunderstood what the proposals are and what effect they will have, that it's occurred to me that most of what I read is probably similarly incorrect.

Which, no doubt, has always been blindingly obvious to some, but it's given me food for thought. Especially when you then see people who I'm sure are perfectly intelligent and educated, accepting the journalists' wonky explanations as being gospel and forming their opinions accordingly.

But however do you get yourself well-informed on everything, sufficiently to be able to spot these basic errors and misconceptions? I'm interested in pensions because it affects me personally, but most things I wouldn't want to spend the time.

kidmugsy

Snakey wrote: »

but most things I wouldn't want to spend the time.

It's a thing. It's called being "rationally ignorant".