There are “good” 1% and “bad” 1%. Doctor making over £100k? “good”, an engineer making over £100k? “bad”.
Divide et impera.
While nobody talks about the rich hardly paying any taxes.
If the comments on here on budget day are anything to go by, the phrase “NHS doctors” will be used constantly, as it’s a get out of jail free for a massive giveaway to Tory mates.
He’s got one of those faces that get me reaching for the cabbages, hot Bovril and gravel…
Really fucks me off when these things are sold as “giveaways”. They’re not giving away anything, they’re allowing people to keep their own money *if* it’s in a pension. And it’s liable for tax when it comes out, regardless.
I don’t mind the existance of a Lifetime Allowance of yearly limits on what you cna pay in -if you didn’t have one rich people would be ploughing millions of money through them, especially as they get older. But in the grand scheme of things, we’re talking about tiny tweaks to a policy that fundamentally affects normal people. Indeed, as a policy, it’s really going to affect PAYE workers the most and give them more tax planning options.
Beyond that, of all things, it’s right the government should be encouraging pensions. We’re on track for an absolute disaster with pensions and we *NEED* people to be paying in their own private pensions and being able to support themselves in retirement. It’s critically important.
I’m in the 1% by this definition – I live in a semi detached house and currently drive a 15 year old car. Fuck me for wanting to keep some of my own earned money and take some strain off social funding by funding my own retirement.
I can’t help thinking he put this in precisely so that’s what everyone would talk about, rather than the total lack of anything helpful for anyone else.
Tax the poor, give to the rich seems to be the current Tory policy.
And so resumes the media’s bashing of hard-working, highly educated high-salary earners as if they’re the issue and are under-taxed, when in reality employees earning a salary above £100k are taxed a crazy amount and have little influence on politics and societal issues.
It’s the ultra wealthy who barely work and earn most of their income from investments and assets that are taxed much less or can enable tax avoidance altogether, while also meddling in politics, the media and funding think-tanks to influence people that are the real problem and causing the most disruption to society.
But yes, please do keep pushing this media narrative that people who deservedly earn £100k+, which in London (where most of those jobs are) doesn’t give you a luxury lifestyle at all these days, are the ones to attack. The ultra wealthy are laughing at you.
Of that lucky 1% how many are Doctors? Plenty of party donors and rich bankers methinks. How dumb is the Chancellor to think he can dress up this ” bung” to the already wealthy by linking it to Drs frankly risible
Personally, I think (like Truss scrapping the 45% tax) it would make tons more sense to move the boundaries instead of scrapping it altogether, making the pension pot limit 2m for example and/or inflation adjusted every year.
Just moving those boundaries would change the situation for the vast majority of the £100-200k per year workers and not give the mega rich multi million tax writeoffs.
The right wing media was acting like this is for for all those doctors, senior IT consultants etc who earn 200k or thereabouts. Which would be the majority of people affected by this move, but the minority of the tax lost.
Goong back to Truss and her 45% tax on over 150k earners, 160k means 10k taxed at 45% instead of 40%, so a £500 difference in your tax bill. Meanwhile a footballer on 200k a week has essentially had a 10k a week, half million pound yearly tax cut.
Surely it would make more sense to just move the 45% threshold to 200, 250k?
Surely it would just make more sense to raise the pension threshold in line with inflation?
Technically the LTA removal is given to everyone, just the wealthy can actually benefit from it
Plus, you don’t have to be rich to hit the current limit. The stock market has averaged 10% return over the long term. So if you are say 18, open a SIPP (Self invested pension), work for 50 years and put £250 a month into that pension, at a more realistic average growth of 7% you would end up with over £1 million. Get the 10% historical average growth and have over £3 million.
Also then remember you will be paying income tax when you start to draw down your pension.
We should not be penalised for doing the right thing and putting money away for retirement.
Blokes a dick, every department he has been in he has screwed up.
In 20 years time, high earners will have been able to fill their pensions earlier due to the annual rates so they will retire even earlier.
The reason that Hunt couldn’t make his removal of contribution ceiling to NHS Consultants only&his unnecessary gift to 1% wealthiest individuals is to give it to the rich donors who support the Tory Party. We do need an end to greedy profiteers using politics for their own ends!
>Starmer has said Labour would address the staffing crunch in the NHS by limiting the tax break to doctors only, rather than extending it to all high earners.
So, based on the article. Starmer thinks it’s OK to give preferential treatment to some sectors over another. At best that is divisive.
Whatever else you say about Jeremy Hunt, he is a veteran of the Department of Health and he knows his stuff. He also knows that the alternative is preferential treatment on arbitrary grounds.
Jeremy Hunt does the same for everyone.
>Starmer has said Labour would address the staffing crunch in the NHS by limiting the tax break to doctors only, rather than extending it to all high earners.
So, there is a long-standing principle that everyone is taxed the same that Starmer wants to over-ride.
19 comments
And so dividing starts.
There are “good” 1% and “bad” 1%. Doctor making over £100k? “good”, an engineer making over £100k? “bad”.
Divide et impera.
While nobody talks about the rich hardly paying any taxes.
If the comments on here on budget day are anything to go by, the phrase “NHS doctors” will be used constantly, as it’s a get out of jail free for a massive giveaway to Tory mates.
He’s got one of those faces that get me reaching for the cabbages, hot Bovril and gravel…
Really fucks me off when these things are sold as “giveaways”. They’re not giving away anything, they’re allowing people to keep their own money *if* it’s in a pension. And it’s liable for tax when it comes out, regardless.
I don’t mind the existance of a Lifetime Allowance of yearly limits on what you cna pay in -if you didn’t have one rich people would be ploughing millions of money through them, especially as they get older. But in the grand scheme of things, we’re talking about tiny tweaks to a policy that fundamentally affects normal people. Indeed, as a policy, it’s really going to affect PAYE workers the most and give them more tax planning options.
Beyond that, of all things, it’s right the government should be encouraging pensions. We’re on track for an absolute disaster with pensions and we *NEED* people to be paying in their own private pensions and being able to support themselves in retirement. It’s critically important.
I’m in the 1% by this definition – I live in a semi detached house and currently drive a 15 year old car. Fuck me for wanting to keep some of my own earned money and take some strain off social funding by funding my own retirement.
He should just say “we stole the idea from Labour”: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/sep/03/doctors-pensions-labour-would-abolish-cap-says-wes-streeting
[deleted]
I can’t help thinking he put this in precisely so that’s what everyone would talk about, rather than the total lack of anything helpful for anyone else.
Tax the poor, give to the rich seems to be the current Tory policy.
And so resumes the media’s bashing of hard-working, highly educated high-salary earners as if they’re the issue and are under-taxed, when in reality employees earning a salary above £100k are taxed a crazy amount and have little influence on politics and societal issues.
It’s the ultra wealthy who barely work and earn most of their income from investments and assets that are taxed much less or can enable tax avoidance altogether, while also meddling in politics, the media and funding think-tanks to influence people that are the real problem and causing the most disruption to society.
But yes, please do keep pushing this media narrative that people who deservedly earn £100k+, which in London (where most of those jobs are) doesn’t give you a luxury lifestyle at all these days, are the ones to attack. The ultra wealthy are laughing at you.
Of that lucky 1% how many are Doctors? Plenty of party donors and rich bankers methinks. How dumb is the Chancellor to think he can dress up this ” bung” to the already wealthy by linking it to Drs frankly risible
Personally, I think (like Truss scrapping the 45% tax) it would make tons more sense to move the boundaries instead of scrapping it altogether, making the pension pot limit 2m for example and/or inflation adjusted every year.
Just moving those boundaries would change the situation for the vast majority of the £100-200k per year workers and not give the mega rich multi million tax writeoffs.
The right wing media was acting like this is for for all those doctors, senior IT consultants etc who earn 200k or thereabouts. Which would be the majority of people affected by this move, but the minority of the tax lost.
Goong back to Truss and her 45% tax on over 150k earners, 160k means 10k taxed at 45% instead of 40%, so a £500 difference in your tax bill. Meanwhile a footballer on 200k a week has essentially had a 10k a week, half million pound yearly tax cut.
Surely it would make more sense to just move the 45% threshold to 200, 250k?
Surely it would just make more sense to raise the pension threshold in line with inflation?
Technically the LTA removal is given to everyone, just the wealthy can actually benefit from it
Yet when Labour suggest the same thing, the same newspaper…. [https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/sep/03/doctors-pensions-labour-would-abolish-cap-says-wes-streeting](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/sep/03/doctors-pensions-labour-would-abolish-cap-says-wes-streeting)
Plus, you don’t have to be rich to hit the current limit. The stock market has averaged 10% return over the long term. So if you are say 18, open a SIPP (Self invested pension), work for 50 years and put £250 a month into that pension, at a more realistic average growth of 7% you would end up with over £1 million. Get the 10% historical average growth and have over £3 million.
Also then remember you will be paying income tax when you start to draw down your pension.
We should not be penalised for doing the right thing and putting money away for retirement.
Blokes a dick, every department he has been in he has screwed up.
In 20 years time, high earners will have been able to fill their pensions earlier due to the annual rates so they will retire even earlier.
The reason that Hunt couldn’t make his removal of contribution ceiling to NHS Consultants only&his unnecessary gift to 1% wealthiest individuals is to give it to the rich donors who support the Tory Party. We do need an end to greedy profiteers using politics for their own ends!
>Starmer has said Labour would address the staffing crunch in the NHS by limiting the tax break to doctors only, rather than extending it to all high earners.
So, based on the article. Starmer thinks it’s OK to give preferential treatment to some sectors over another. At best that is divisive.
Whatever else you say about Jeremy Hunt, he is a veteran of the Department of Health and he knows his stuff. He also knows that the alternative is preferential treatment on arbitrary grounds.
Jeremy Hunt does the same for everyone.
>Starmer has said Labour would address the staffing crunch in the NHS by limiting the tax break to doctors only, rather than extending it to all high earners.
So, there is a long-standing principle that everyone is taxed the same that Starmer wants to over-ride.