Potential capping of Salary Sacrifice (speculation)?

GunJack

zagfles said:

diveunderthebonnet said:

zagfles said:

Cobbler_tone said:

MeteredOut said:

Albermarle said:

masonic said:

Do we have a dedicated TFLS speculation thread yet?

It could be open permanently as if nothing happens in this budget, it will not be long before it all starts again before the next budget.....

 they're going to tax people if they've not produced any offspring by the time they're 40 (for women) and 50 (for men) - a kind of negative child benefit tax. 

TBF that happens already naturally and they support the economy for those who do. It's very strong personal justification (and lack of guilt) for the OH retiring at 54. No mat leave, career breaks, or other benefits associated with having kids. On the flip side I blame her for the declining population.   

And no providing the next generation of taxpayers. My two kids are both higher rate taxpayers already in their mid 20's and their taxes will be supporting all pensioners over the next few decades, in all likelyhood by far more than they were supported by taxpayers when children. 

Perhaps the state pension should be abolished and pensioners should be supported by their kids in return for the cost of their upbringing. 

Will their tax not be supporting themselves ie NHS, public services etc.

Obviously, but workers in general pay more in tax than they take out in benefits, services etc, while pensioners generally take more out than they put in. NHS is used far more by pensioners than workers. 

But the vast majority of those pensioners will, by your own post, have been net contributors through their working lives, so have "banked" their usage for later life?

MeteredOut

zagfles said:

diveunderthebonnet said:

zagfles said:

Cobbler_tone said:

MeteredOut said:

Albermarle said:

masonic said:

Do we have a dedicated TFLS speculation thread yet?

It could be open permanently as if nothing happens in this budget, it will not be long before it all starts again before the next budget.....

 they're going to tax people if they've not produced any offspring by the time they're 40 (for women) and 50 (for men) - a kind of negative child benefit tax. 

TBF that happens already naturally and they support the economy for those who do. It's very strong personal justification (and lack of guilt) for the OH retiring at 54. No mat leave, career breaks, or other benefits associated with having kids. On the flip side I blame her for the declining population.   

And no providing the next generation of taxpayers. My two kids are both higher rate taxpayers already in their mid 20's and their taxes will be supporting all pensioners over the next few decades, in all likelyhood by far more than they were supported by taxpayers when children. 

Perhaps the state pension should be abolished and pensioners should be supported by their kids in return for the cost of their upbringing. 

Will their tax not be supporting themselves ie NHS, public services etc.

Obviously, but workers in general pay more in tax than they take out in benefits, services etc, while pensioners generally take more out than they put in. NHS is used far more by pensioners than workers. 

But those pensioners were once workers, so I'm not sure what point this is making.

In general, over their life, most people receive more in services & benefits than they pay in taxes.

Cus

MeteredOut said:

Cus said:

Sorry if his has been explained earlier in the thread, but do the salary sacrifice reduction rumours impact future DB schemes and so public sector employees are not impacted?

As with most of these rumours, there is absolutely no substance behind it, so no-one could possibly answer that with any degree of certainty. 

Agree, but if I wanted a degree of certainty it wouldn't be on this speculation thread 😁 
I guess I am asking whether DB schemes have the concept of salary sacrifice?

DRS1

zagfles said:

diveunderthebonnet said:

zagfles said:

Cobbler_tone said:

MeteredOut said:

Albermarle said:

masonic said:

Do we have a dedicated TFLS speculation thread yet?

It could be open permanently as if nothing happens in this budget, it will not be long before it all starts again before the next budget.....

 they're going to tax people if they've not produced any offspring by the time they're 40 (for women) and 50 (for men) - a kind of negative child benefit tax. 

TBF that happens already naturally and they support the economy for those who do. It's very strong personal justification (and lack of guilt) for the OH retiring at 54. No mat leave, career breaks, or other benefits associated with having kids. On the flip side I blame her for the declining population.   

And no providing the next generation of taxpayers. My two kids are both higher rate taxpayers already in their mid 20's and their taxes will be supporting all pensioners over the next few decades, in all likelyhood by far more than they were supported by taxpayers when children. 

Perhaps the state pension should be abolished and pensioners should be supported by their kids in return for the cost of their upbringing. 

Will their tax not be supporting themselves ie NHS, public services etc.

Obviously, but workers in general pay more in tax than they take out in benefits, services etc, while pensioners generally take more out than they put in. NHS is used far more by pensioners than workers. 

Somehow I don't think those pensioners are rubbing their hands with glee saying "At last I get to use the NHS".

DRS1

Cus said:

MeteredOut said:

Cus said:

Sorry if his has been explained earlier in the thread, but do the salary sacrifice reduction rumours impact future DB schemes and so public sector employees are not impacted?

As with most of these rumours, there is absolutely no substance behind it, so no-one could possibly answer that with any degree of certainty. 

Agree, but if I wanted a degree of certainty it wouldn't be on this speculation thread 😁 
I guess I am asking whether DB schemes have the concept of salary sacrifice?

No reason why DB schemes shouldn't use salary sacrifice.  There was some comment earlier about what percentage of employers use salary sacrifice - quite low it seems but ones with lots of employees probably do it as it will give them a big saving.

Of course if that includes public sector employers then you have to wonder if that makes it less likely the Govt will make a change.

Grumpy_chap

Cus said:

Sorry if his has been explained earlier in the thread, but do the salary sacrifice reduction rumours impact future DB schemes and so public sector employees are not impacted?

I think that has been discussed in the round.  If the NI change (if it happened) applied to "employer contributions" which is what it probably would need to, then that would impact DB as well as DC.  Some DB schemes also have the concept of SS when the scheme rules allow the individual to buy additional years and / or AVCs (though these options are not always within the SS envelope).  I think, upthread, the potential impact to Medical Consultants if DB pension contributions were affected was suggested as a reason the rumoured change won't fly.

Cobbler_tone

Not forgetting that DB employee pension contributions can also shoot up and down, as demonstrated by the USS scheme. No doubt driven by fund health and liabilities.

zagfles

Cobbler_tone said:

zagfles said:

Cobbler_tone said:

MeteredOut said:

Albermarle said:

masonic said:

Do we have a dedicated TFLS speculation thread yet?

It could be open permanently as if nothing happens in this budget, it will not be long before it all starts again before the next budget.....

 they're going to tax people if they've not produced any offspring by the time they're 40 (for women) and 50 (for men) - a kind of negative child benefit tax. 

TBF that happens already naturally and they support the economy for those who do. It's very strong personal justification (and lack of guilt) for the OH retiring at 54. No mat leave, career breaks, or other benefits associated with having kids. On the flip side I blame her for the declining population.   

And no providing the next generation of taxpayers. My two kids are both higher rate taxpayers already in their mid 20's and their taxes will be supporting all pensioners over the next few decades, in all likelyhood by far more than they were supported by taxpayers when children. 

Perhaps the state pension should be abolished and pensioners should be supported by their kids in return for the cost of their upbringing. Those who don't have kids will have had adequate opportunity to save extra for a pension as they didn't have to pay for kids for 18/21 years. 

I certainly wasn’t giving commentary on those who can/choose to have kids. I’d suggest those that do cost the country a lot more but then again with no kids there’s no future. Far too deep a debate for here!
My only comment is that if that is your path at least ‘try’ to be accountable in raising and funding them to adulthood. Some have like getting the puppy they can’t afford.

The puppy's not going to pay taxes when it grows up

zagfles

GunJack said:

zagfles said:

diveunderthebonnet said:

zagfles said:

Cobbler_tone said:

MeteredOut said:

Albermarle said:

masonic said:

Do we have a dedicated TFLS speculation thread yet?

It could be open permanently as if nothing happens in this budget, it will not be long before it all starts again before the next budget.....

 they're going to tax people if they've not produced any offspring by the time they're 40 (for women) and 50 (for men) - a kind of negative child benefit tax. 

TBF that happens already naturally and they support the economy for those who do. It's very strong personal justification (and lack of guilt) for the OH retiring at 54. No mat leave, career breaks, or other benefits associated with having kids. On the flip side I blame her for the declining population.   

And no providing the next generation of taxpayers. My two kids are both higher rate taxpayers already in their mid 20's and their taxes will be supporting all pensioners over the next few decades, in all likelyhood by far more than they were supported by taxpayers when children. 

Perhaps the state pension should be abolished and pensioners should be supported by their kids in return for the cost of their upbringing. 

Will their tax not be supporting themselves ie NHS, public services etc.

Obviously, but workers in general pay more in tax than they take out in benefits, services etc, while pensioners generally take more out than they put in. NHS is used far more by pensioners than workers. 

But the vast majority of those pensioners will, by your own post, have been net contributors through their working lives, so have "banked" their usage for later life?

And if you look at it that way, then taxpayer subsidy of children (such as schools, child ben, maternity pay etc) is "loaned" until the children grow up and become taxpayers and repay it. It's not a perk to the parents. 

If you want to justify state pension on the basis of "I've paid in all my working life" then all child/childcare related subsidy is equally justified by "they will pay in all their working lives when they grow up". 

Cobbler_tone

zagfles said:

Cobbler_tone said:

zagfles said:

Cobbler_tone said:

MeteredOut said:

Albermarle said:

masonic said:

Do we have a dedicated TFLS speculation thread yet?

It could be open permanently as if nothing happens in this budget, it will not be long before it all starts again before the next budget.....

 they're going to tax people if they've not produced any offspring by the time they're 40 (for women) and 50 (for men) - a kind of negative child benefit tax. 

TBF that happens already naturally and they support the economy for those who do. It's very strong personal justification (and lack of guilt) for the OH retiring at 54. No mat leave, career breaks, or other benefits associated with having kids. On the flip side I blame her for the declining population.   

And no providing the next generation of taxpayers. My two kids are both higher rate taxpayers already in their mid 20's and their taxes will be supporting all pensioners over the next few decades, in all likelyhood by far more than they were supported by taxpayers when children. 

Perhaps the state pension should be abolished and pensioners should be supported by their kids in return for the cost of their upbringing. Those who don't have kids will have had adequate opportunity to save extra for a pension as they didn't have to pay for kids for 18/21 years. 

I certainly wasn’t giving commentary on those who can/choose to have kids. I’d suggest those that do cost the country a lot more but then again with no kids there’s no future. Far too deep a debate for here!
My only comment is that if that is your path at least ‘try’ to be accountable in raising and funding them to adulthood. Some have like getting the puppy they can’t afford.

The puppy's not going to pay taxes when it grows up

 Neither do the unaccountable.