2024 UK politics - now with Labour in charge

Re "Send me £10k if you don't think it's a significant amount" hopefully it was clear that this was a tongue-in-cheek suggestion, even in the £33 per month for 25 years format, to demonstrate that the standard human reaction to being asked to hand over more money is to say "No". So a case will always have to be made by those wanting the money for that money to be handed over willingly. Obviously, if the government says "give me the money", one has no choice but to hand it over, but one can have revenge at the next General Election.

And this argument applies regardless as to whether the potential giver (taxpayer) could work round having less cash or even if they wouldn't really notice the impact.

I'm not averse to paying more tax to raise more tax revenue, but would prefer it to be via income tax, as it ticks most of the boxes re the definition of a good tax. (Simple, fair, not actively promoting adverse behaviour etc.)

Changing pensions legislation to promote the optimum retirement planning behaviour at a population level is a separate exercise, and shouldn't be confused by the desire / need to undertake a short term "cash grab".

Why would it be worse to lose an amount of money per month from earnings rather than savings (especially if you saved the income tax on those savings when you paid in)?

You say that changing pensions legislation to promote the optimum retirement planning is a separate exercise, yet you have said the tax free allowance should now have no set upper limit.

Using the same logic, that is the equivalent of having a whip round among other tax payers to give those with the largest pension funds a £100k retirement gift.

Given private healthcare is largely just the same medics with a different email address, how is it taking pressure off the NHS? And presumably the private cover is only for non-urgent care.

Not having a go at private healthcare at all, but I've never been convinced by the idea that it is helping the NHS. Might be helping the salary and pensions of consultants who work in both, of course.

My thoughts re the max size of the TFLS may be wrong. 25% of the pot built up via contributions that complied with applicable contribution limits feels the right approach to me, as that's what it was for decades prior to relatively recent tinkering, but I'd be open to a coherently argued strategy that a different regime is more appropriate. ("We need more tax" and/or "Those affected won't notice" don't cut much ice with me, but they may actually be valid reasons, taking everything else into consideration.) The gov's current approach of leaking ideas to the media to judge public (sector) opinion does not suggest there is any long term coherence involved.

Going off at a tangent, private hospitals are all fine and dandy when things go well, but whose A&E is used when operations in such facilities go wrong, as they sometimes do?

I don't have private health cover, I rely upon the NHS like the vast majority of the country. It's OK as long as you're alright though.

What an original response, never heard that before from a leftie 😀

As the LTA was only abolished this year, there won't be much by way of pension funds in excess of this that have built up yet out of high annual contribution limits, so the obvious solution would seem to be to return to the tighter annual contribution limits that used to apply when the TFLS limit was simply 25% of the fund value. 15% of gross earnings p.a. rings a bell, though with greater life expectancy and lower interest rate expectations these days, 20% feels more like the right figure.

Reducing the TFLS regime would need a stronger argument to convince me than it's a ready source of cash and those most likely to be affected will be able to survive. (e.g. what would reducing the TFLS achieve re fairness etc. that increasing income tax rates wouldn't achieve, given that the income tax system is broadly progressive?) And we'll gloss over the fact that Starmer has some special arrangements whereby his pension from his days as DPP will be tax free, so stinging the "rich" for more tax via pensions is just a little bit hypocritical.

Taxes are going up. This is inevitable regardless of who was in power. The only question is which ones and how that will affect each person differently.

Quite so. It annoys me that the electorate won't reward any party being honest about tax.

As someone who runs a business and employs a fair few people, I accept that under a Labour govt that I voted for, taxes will rise. What I take issue with is the ongoing ability of larger businesses to undertake all kinds of (admittedly legal) tactics to avoid paying their fair share of tax.

Such rises are also implemented by people who simply don't understand the economics of running a business. Even a small percentage increase in contributions or salary across all staff can add up to thousands of pounds a year on to your overheads. How do they think businesses pay for this? You can't just magic up an increase in sales or whack more on to your prices.

As I have said many times, the way multi-nationals are taxed needs to change from profit declared in a country to a tax based on their turnover in the country. Currently they can grant loans from subsidiary in country A to subsidiary in country B that wipe out the profits in country B, and then pay tax in country A at a very low rate.

Governments need to wake up to this urgently and act on it. They are losing billions in tax revenue by taxing multinationals on the same basis as domestic companies.

I assume that needs to be done at an international level though... not something countries will have any success with on their own.

Yes, it would be nice to see this. I am hoping that this govt will have the courage to actually implement it.