The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[PokerBroker]

The IFS on recent material have stated that deregulation and lack of accountability by regulators was in part responsible.   

There are obviously major issues not just in the UK, but we could have done much more, I'd also agree to a certain extent that the worldwide crisis played a big role but there was an attitude that seemed to welcome risk much more than in other years.   

[DungBeetle]

corbyn has accused New Labour of creating the conditions for the financial crash. http://polho.me/1WWaGLA

This is quite interesting, seeing as the party line for the last 8 years has been to emphasise the word GLOBAL in every sentence and say "nothing to do with us guv". 

Meh, just more blame the bankers for all our problems nonsense.  What Corbyn thinks works best is if we have complete state control of large parts of our economy.  He isn't interested in the thousands of pages of legislation that financial services companies are already dealing with.  He wants to be CEO.  You'd think financial services was the big failure in the economy and not our biggest global success story.

No surprise he is attacking Blair either, wasn't that Labour's most succesful period in 100 years.  Is there a theme developing here?
 

Are you saying the banks weren't at fault?  Just because there was a period of success doesn't mean they shouldn't be criticised for their failings.   The de-regulation caused so many problems, alongside irresponsible steroid lending, corporate greed and lack of accountability.   It's accepted that the FSA/Bank Of England etc never knew who was doing what when the collapse came, it never happened overnight. 

Yes they were at fault for certain.  But Corbyn is being a bit more refreshing that someone like Yvette Cooper parroting "it was a GLOBAL crisis which started in America"

[PokerBroker]

This is pretty scathing of BoJo.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/03/even-boris-s-senior-colleagues-dread-tory-activists-handing-him-keys-downing

[Woodsey]

Phew, that was a possible vote changer for me.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35732604

[MintTrav]

Phew, that was a possible vote changer for me.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35732604

I wouldn't be surprised to see it resurrected - they don't want to annoy the well-off just before the Referendum. One policy of Osborne's that I agree with.

[doubleup]

Phew, that was a possible vote changer for me.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35732604

I wouldn't be surprised to see it resurrected - they don't want to annoy the well-off just before the Referendum. One policy of Osborne's that I agree with.

The "pensions isa" would be the single most destructive piece of legislation in modern times.  It would cost thousands (perhaps tens of thousands) of jobs, decimate investment and stoke massive intergenerational resentment.

[rfgqqabc]

.

[RickBFA]

Phew, that was a possible vote changer for me.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35732604

I wouldn't be surprised to see it resurrected - they don't want to annoy the well-off just before the Referendum. One policy of Osborne's that I agree with.

Osborne has already attacked the high earners pension provision in the new tax year irrespective of his U-turn on this.

I have clients who have worked their balls off, run successful businesses, pay 45% tax in chunks and from 2016/17 tax year can only contribute £10,000 into pension. One said to me, "makes me wonder why we bother taking risks and create jobs when this is how we are treated by a Tory Government."

I think he may resurrect it but it would be an big mistake. The incentive to save would be decimated.

[MintTrav]

Phew, that was a possible vote changer for me.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35732604

I wouldn't be surprised to see it resurrected - they don't want to annoy the well-off just before the Referendum. One policy of Osborne's that I agree with.

Osborne has already attacked the high earners pension provision in the new tax year irrespective of his U-turn on this.

I have clients who have worked their balls off, run successful businesses, pay 45% tax in chunks and from 2016/17 tax year can only contribute £10,000 into pension. One said to me, "makes me wonder why we bother taking risks and create jobs when this is how we are treated by a Tory Government."

I think he may resurrect it but it would be an big mistake. The incentive to save would be decimated.

They can only contribute £10,000 into their pension, and have to find somewhere else to put away the rest of their surplus income? Beats me how they find the motivation to get out of bed in the mornings.

[Woodsey]

Phew, that was a possible vote changer for me.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35732604

I wouldn't be surprised to see it resurrected - they don't want to annoy the well-off just before the Referendum. One policy of Osborne's that I agree with.

Osborne has already attacked the high earners pension provision in the new tax year irrespective of his U-turn on this.

I have clients who have worked their balls off, run successful businesses, pay 45% tax in chunks and from 2016/17 tax year can only contribute £10,000 into pension. One said to me, "makes me wonder why we bother taking risks and create jobs when this is how we are treated by a Tory Government."

I think he may resurrect it but it would be an big mistake. The incentive to save would be decimated.

They can only contribute £10,000 into their pension, and have to find somewhere else to put away the rest of their surplus income? Beats me how they find the motivation to get out of bed in the mornings.

I would change jobs and do an easier one if I was only allowed to put £10k away tax free. Knowing I would have to work until 65, I would take the easier route to 65.......so no I would not be motivated to get out of bed.

[RickBFA]

Phew, that was a possible vote changer for me.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35732604

I wouldn't be surprised to see it resurrected - they don't want to annoy the well-off just before the Referendum. One policy of Osborne's that I agree with.

Osborne has already attacked the high earners pension provision in the new tax year irrespective of his U-turn on this.

I have clients who have worked their balls off, run successful businesses, pay 45% tax in chunks and from 2016/17 tax year can only contribute £10,000 into pension. One said to me, "makes me wonder why we bother taking risks and create jobs when this is how we are treated by a Tory Government."

I think he may resurrect it but it would be an big mistake. The incentive to save would be decimated.

They can only contribute £10,000 into their pension, and have to find somewhere else to put away the rest of their surplus income? Beats me how they find the motivation to get out of bed in the mornings.

The people I'm talking about have started with nothing, took significant risks, put all their assets at risk to build their business.

These guys have created jobs in businesses which employ 30/40/50 plus people.

I don't begrudge them one penny. They have earned it.

They see the incentive to take risks being eroded by a Tory Government. They see it as a reason not to take further risks to create a larger business, employing more people.

I think someone on here, said something similar - which was he would take the pain of working harder, taking on responsibility as he could mitigate some tax liability by saving for the future - if that incentive to save is removed or reduced, he said he would not bother being ambitious and take an easier, less well paid job with less hassle.

Hardly a recipe to encourage risk taking, job creating individuals in future is it?

EDIT : Didn't see Woodsey's post whilst typing the above comments.

[MintTrav]

There were a lot of posts a while ago about the country needing to live within its means, and the necessity to cut benefits and services. Tax relief on pension contributions also affects government finances but this benefits higher earners. In short, poorer people should pull in their belts, but not the better-off. On the one hand we have people who have so little money they need government help; on the other hand we have people who have so much income above their needs that they can save more than £10,000 a year. And we are saying that the ones with the super-income should be left alone but the ones on benefits should be tackled. Not wanting to lose this tax relief that favours the well-off just seems pure self-interest / greed.

I can see what Rick is saying about incentives for risk-taking and knock-on effects on jobs, but I'm not convinced that they will actually stop doing it because they get less tax relief on their excess income - they will still be making excess income after all.

[RickBFA]

There were a lot of posts a while ago about the country needing to live within its means, and the necessity to cut benefits and services. Tax relief on pension contributions also affects government finances but this benefits higher earners. In short, poorer people should pull in their belts, but not the better-off. On the one hand we have people who have so little money they need government help; on the other hand we have people who have so much income above their needs that they can save more than £10,000 a year. And we are saying that the ones with the super-income should be left alone but the ones on benefits should be tackled. Not wanting to lose this tax relief that favours the well-off just seems pure self-interest / greed.

I can see what Rick is saying about incentives for risk-taking and knock-on effects on jobs, but I'm not convinced that they will actually stop doing it because they get less tax relief on their excess income - they will still be making excess income after all.

Of course the rich/better off should pay more. It's about the balance to create the environment for enterprise and risk taking to thrive. That environment ultimately benefits everyone.

I have no time for the politics of envy.

Higher earners are paying a higher price under this Government with the changes that will come in from 2016/17 tax year irrespective of the U-turn we have just seen.

For earners over £150k per year, pensions are becoming almost redundant as a tax planning/savings route, particularly with the LTA being moved to £1m. That is a big change for a Tory Government to make. Hardly in keeping with a Tory philosophy to reward hard work and saving.

For earners between £43k and £150k the move to a "ISA" style pension with no tax relief up front would have been a massive disincentive to save. Thankfully, Osborne saw it was too big a political risk to take - for now any way.

[doubleup]

A move to an "isa pension" wouldn't just have affected the "rich".  For such a change to be effective, employer contributions would have to be assessed as a benefit in kind and taxed in the hands of employees.  This would result in a significant number of people moving into the 40% bracket.

[neeko]

Who would trust future governments to keep the promise of a pension contribution taxed on the way in and tax free on the way out.