Lib Dums propose capping PCLS at £40k

System

Paul_Herring wrote: »

Something not being taxed is not a cost - otherwise the government not taxing my ablutions this morning while reading the paper could also be considered a cost...

Indeed.

On that argument people on low incomes should be taxed more to reflect the cost of them not earning more and paying more tax.
Clear and blatant tax-avoidance.

Paul_Herring

On that argument people on low incomes should be taxed more to reflect the cost of them not earning more and paying more tax.

Or they should be taxed more so they get more advantage of 'tax cuts that affect only the wealthy...'

buglawton

dunstonh wrote: »

Any easy political thing for the Conservatives to accept as its cutting taxes. However, to fund it, taxation was increased in other areas and some of those increases hit the low paid harder.

Further restricting the 25% TFC is increasing taxation and again, it will hit lower/medium to medium earning households.

So the LibDems got an idea into reality, that had been long dismissed by Labour and Tories alike. My point being that minority parties can alter taxation policies - whether you agree with those policies or not.

dunstonh

buglawton wrote: »

So the LibDems got an idea into reality, that had been long dismissed by Labour and Tories alike. My point being that minority parties can alter taxation policies - whether you agree with those policies or not.

Just remind me how often that has happened in the last 50 years?

Paul_Herring

dunstonh wrote: »

Just remind me how often that has happened in the last 50 years?

Black swan!

buglawton

dunstonh wrote: »

Just remind me how often that has happened in the last 50 years?

Could only happen with a hung Parliament/coalition situation.
As happens when the winning party can't hold a majority and has to cut a deal.
Which could never happen again.
Oh wait...

margaretx9

A Corbyn led Labour government might consider something similar - so its not impossible to imagine it happening.

The issue is whether it would apply to new pension savings or existing ones prior to the date of change. But the lifetime allowance changes didn't differentiate - albeit protection might be provided to those nearing retirement.

Teaandscones

dunstonh wrote: »

Just remind me how often that has happened in the last 50 years?

One example was the reduction of the LTA to £1m which was initially proposed by the liberals. Ed Milliband copied it and then finally George Osborne enacted it. So all 3 parties agreed though it was a counterproductive policy. To be fair Steve Webb (liberal) and Ros Altmann (conservative) opposed it, but then they were 2 of the few parliamentarians who actually understood that pensions are a long term contract which requires trust.

Thrugelmir

Tax revenues needed to be raised to reduce the budget deficit. Picking the lowest hanging fruit first is nothing unusual. LTA of £1 million provided an adequate pension provision. No one back then foresaw the prolonged effects of QE and loose fiscal policy on the equity markets.