Protecting pensions from politicians - or preparing for a Labour coalition

p00hsticks

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I am referring to non-contributory schemes, like I believe the Civil Service Pension is/was.

It's certainly contributory now.
http://www.civilservicepensionscheme.org.uk/members/contribution-rates/

justme111

BobQ wrote: »

?

The so called "Dementia tax" levied on people who need care at home for many years and paid for after their death (which affects all sorts of other degenerative conditions) is also a tax on your savings?

No it is not. It is paying for services which are although we're supposed to be paid for out of taxes in fact were not provided as there was no money for them. It is stopping the pretence that those services are publicly funded.
If children or anybody else want inheritance they may provide care. Or people may chose to live unwashed if they do not want to pay for care. They have options. It is not a tax the same as asking people who l8ved in council properties too big for their requirements to pay increased money for them was not "bedroom tax". Classing it as such is misleading populist statement .

molerat

BobQ wrote: »

True, and I am not aware of any public sector pensions that do not have some contributory element. However, when someone states "We also both paid into our occupational pensions, they were contributory, not just given to us like some public pensions are." if they are not referring to unfunded schemes what are they referring to?

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I am referring to non-contributory schemes, like I believe the Civil Service Pension is/was.

Armed Forces Pension schemes are non contributory but pay scales are reduced to effectively cover contributions.

Esox

I see the history re-writers are out in force.

Trying to pretend it wasn't Gordon Brown who wrecked private sector pensions whilst, at the same time, keeping his lefty public sector mates in pension nirvana:

bigadaj

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Why? JC's cronies do not care about people like me. White, English, retired, home-owner, north-of-London Christian. The only slight advantage I have is being female.

Doesn't that mean you could be Corbyn? Apart from being female obviously.

Andy_L

BobQ wrote: »

True, and I am not aware of any public sector pensions that do not have some contributory element. However, when someone states "We also both paid into our occupational pensions, they were contributory, not just given to us like some public pensions are." if they are not referring to unfunded schemes what are they referring to?

The armed forces scheme is non-contributory (althogh there is an abatement to salary to reflect how much better than a typical scheme it is due to its early payout age)
the Civil service scheme before mid 80s was non contributory and up till late 90s the only contribution was for widows benefits which were refundable if you retired unmarried

zagfles

michaels wrote: »

It is not hard to remember Gordon Brown's first tax raid - his pension tax was one of the big reason that final salary pensions were stopped and many existing schemes are underfunded.

I can't see the much further left Momentum crew not planning something much more draconian - especially as higher taxes for top earners would otherwise see even more incentives for income diversion into pensions. And of course his backers in the public sector unions are protected with the only remaining final salary schemes so a win win for the union barons.

So highly likely is a removal of higher rate tax relief
Also likely is a reduction in the lifetime allowance and no indexation

TBH I think those are likely whoever wins. The Tories have been talking about removal of higher rate relief, and they've already lowered the AA & LTA. Yet you still get people who believe all the propaganda about them only looking after the interests of the "rich"!

What else?
The high annual isa allowance could be cut (ordinary people can't save 20k pa) and the lifetime isa helping those who can save doesn't really fit with Labour values.

Changing the ISA allowance wouldn't have much effect. They could remove the tax free status of accrued ISA savings.

And what about the tax free lump sum, doesn't seem very progressive so could it he stopped altogether or perhaps capped at say 50k

That's talked about before every budget!

And if things go badly weong how about the Hungarian example where private pension pots were 'nationalised' i.e. confiscated.

So what is the answer - stuff isas now? Bitcoin and physical gold?!

I don't think we need worry too much about the extreme scenarios - most Labour MPs are reasonably sensible and not momentum loonies, they haven't managed to deselect the sensible MPs yet. There was talk about them using the 2018 boundary changes (reduction from 650 to 600 consituencies) as an excuse to deselect any Labour MP who didn't toe the line but the election was called before that.

If Labour do win Corbyn will get a taste of his own medicine of backbanch rebellions and his MPs defying the whip.

zagfles

BobQ wrote: »

The Magic Money Tree is a favourite of the Daily Mail.

Is it? Strange how people who don't sound like typical Daily Mail readers seem to know so much about what they write.

Do you realise that both Labour and the Lib Dems have provided detailed costings of their spending/revenue plans? Do you realise that the Conservatives have not?

The problem with the Labour costings is they've made little allowance for behavioural changes.

Their targets for tax increases are groups who have far more choices than most - for instance companies and high earners. Companies already have an incentive not to invest here, or further invest, ie Brexit. Taxing them heavily will discourage them further.

High earners have more choices, for instance retiring early, as we're already seeing with doctors getting screwed by the current pension allowances, moving abroad, cutting hours etc.

Even the IFS have said in no uncertain terms that Labour's plan won't work.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/9259

The Lib Dem's plan is far more sensible - to increase the basic rate of tax. That would actually work - lower earners are unlikely to change behaviour because the pay 1% more in tax.

The so called "Dementia tax" levied on people who need care at home for many years and paid for after their death (which affects all sorts of other degenerative conditions) is also a tax on your savings?

Which paper is the "dementia tax" a favourite of? Do people with Alzheimer's in care homes already pay the "dementia tax"?

This sounds a bit like the "bedroom tax". Labour introduced LHA in around 2008 to pay private tenants according to the rental value of a house/flat with the number of bedrooms they "need", rather than the number of bedroom in the property they actually rent.

The Tories made similar changes to HB a few years later to apply basically the same rules to council tenants, and suddenly the phrase "bedroom tax" was born!

le_loup

BobQ wrote: »

Overall the Conservatives have used bland assurances that they are the party of low tax

That's what they say.
The conservatives raised VAT from 8% and 12.5% to 15%
The conservatives raised VAT from 15% to 17.5%
The conservatives raised VAT from 17.5% to 20%
That's what they do.

BobQ

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

The 'Dementia ' Tax is paying for your own care from your own resources. I have no objection to that (although I'd rather be in a position where it wasn't necessary). You will still be able to pass on £100k.

Neither have I any objections to it, as I have posted elsewhere. But it is a tax on your wealth and that includes your savings.

My concern on the "Dementia Tax" is twofold. Firstly the upper cap will be set to protect her core supporters in their £1m+ houses. Second, it would be fairer to spread the burden across everyone rather than levy the costs on those unlucky to have a degenerative condition rather than those who have short illnesses. A broader but smaller tax on estates would be far more re-distributive. The proposal will need seedcorn funding from taxation so I think it is right that the money is spent with a more strategic approach than on an individual basis.

But I agree its better that we tax death to pay for social care and we should pay for our care.