news & politics:discussion

[mattiloy]

47 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

 

Struggling to believe that ’lots of’ retired doctors have frantically picked up the phone to the bma, which most won’t be a member of anymore, between 2pm yday afternoon and 8am this morning and who aren’t responsible for anything to do with rejoining the profession to announce their intention of rejoining the profession.

[steviewevie]

16 minutes ago, hodgey123 said:

Given the huge focus of this Budget on keeping people in work for longer or incentivising people to rejoin the workforce, it beggars belief why asylum seekers are not allowed to work in the UK whilst their applications are processed. Would not expect the Tories to introduce any policies along these lines given very recent history but it would be refreshing if Labour had the balls to do so (again, think it is very unlikely).

ridiculous idea. What we need to do is make their lives as unpleasant as possible as punishment for risking their lives to come here.

[lost]

16 minutes ago, hodgey123 said:

Given the huge focus of this Budget on keeping people in work for longer or incentivising people to rejoin the workforce, it beggars belief why asylum seekers are not allowed to work in the UK whilst their applications are processed. Would not expect the Tories to introduce any policies along these lines given very recent history but it would be refreshing if Labour had the balls to do so (again, think it is very unlikely).

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/dec/09/labour-would-fast-track-asylum-cases-from-safe-countries-to-clear-backlog

Quote

Cooper told Radio 4’s Today programme: “We would fast-track cases from designated safe countries – that does include Albania – where there’s been a very recent big increase in people arriving. And what it means is that if cases are clearly unfounded, they can be swiftly decided and swiftly returned.

Labours policy seems to be to not even look at the application if they are from a safe country and kick them out.

[Neil]

12 minutes ago, mattiloy said:

Struggling to believe that ’lots of’ retired doctors have frantically picked up the phone to the bma, which most won’t be a member of anymore, between 2pm yday afternoon and 8am this morning and who aren’t responsible for anything to do with rejoining the profession to announce their intention of rejoining the profession.

from what's been said over the years, lots of those doctors didn't want to retire, so they might take the opportunity to return to work

[Guest]

The IFS director, Paul Johnson has said that abolishing the cap on tax free pension savings “probably won’t play a big part, if any, in increasing the number of people in work”. Which I’m sure Hunt knows so he’s really only doing it to give the rich even more money. 

[lost]

Its a labour (Wes Streeting) policy they nicked:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/09/02/wes-streeting-conservatives-planning-lose-next-general-election/

Quote

he (Streeting) wants to abolish the pensions cap that deters many experienced doctors from working late into their careers and which he calls “crazy”.

But hang on! The pension cap is well over a million quid. Won’t working class Labour voters be angry about extending tax breaks for the already well-off? “I’m not pretending that doing away with the cap is a particularly progressive move,” he says. “But it is one that sees patients seen faster, and will inevitably save lives. I’m just being hard headed and pragmatic about this.” 

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, lost said:

Its a labour (Wes Streeting) policy they nicked:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/09/02/wes-streeting-conservatives-planning-lose-next-general-election/

 

This isn’t correct. Labour’s policy would’ve abolished the cap for Drs whereas the Tories abolishes it for all wealthy workers. 

[Guest]

I am enjoying the budget getting torn apart today, the Tories increased tax for low paid by not increasing personal allowance but essentially give a tax break to wealthy workers by removing the pension ceiling. It deserves to take torn apart. 

[mattiloy]

13 minutes ago, Neil said:

from what's been said over the years, lots of those doctors didn't want to retire, so they might take the opportunity to return to work

Yes I agree with that. But to refer to my previous post, it has little to do with pensions, lots to do with working conditions over many years. I don’t think many would like to return full time because nothing has changed on that front. The trouble is that even to return to part time work, a GP has to do a full 6 months of a supervised clinics to a minimum number of weekly hours, effectively becoming a trainee again, even if they’ve been gone for just one year and have decades of experience. So most won’t bother.

[lost]

10 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

This isn’t correct. Labour’s policy would’ve abolished the cap for Drs whereas the Tories abolishes it for all wealthy workers. 

hmmmm I read articles quoting the telegraph article saying its the "doctors cap" as its referring to doctors but in the original he simply says "the pensions cap" It clearly isn't labour policy as they are going to reverse it for everyone so I guess no harm done stealing it.

Edited March 16, 2023 by lost

[Ryan1984]

Are people generally unimpressed with this budget?

I saw people get excited about childcare and then realise it a) doesn’t come in until next April (just in time for the election then) and b) potentially puts child minders out of pocket E.g. if they charge £6 per hour, the government will only give them £4.60 or something like that.

Basically, Never Trust a Tory.

[mattiloy]

I looked at the accounts of the largest early years childcare provider - busy bees group - yday after the budget.

200mil in turnover, 80 mil in gross profit, 60 mil pre tax, 30 mil post tax.

The return on equity is enormous. Don’t know what its like across the sector, but if they aren’t paying their staff enough, it has nothing to do with policy, and everything to do with greedy owners trying to extract as much profit from the business as possible. 

Incidentally the ultimate beneficial owner of busy bees group is the ontario teachers pension plan.. Much like with foreign ownership of the rail operators, UK taxpayer money subsidising profits going overseas.

State provision is the answer.

Edited March 16, 2023 by mattiloy

[Neil]

1 hour ago, mattiloy said:

Yes I agree with that. But to refer to my previous post, it has little to do with pensions, lots to do with working conditions over many years. I don’t think many would like to return full time because nothing has changed on that front. The trouble is that even to return to part time work, a GP has to do a full 6 months of a supervised clinics to a minimum number of weekly hours, effectively becoming a trainee again, even if they’ve been gone for just one year and have decades of experience. So most won’t bother.

they won't slot into the same jobs easily again, because those places will have moved on.

[steviewevie]

22 minutes ago, Neil said:

they won't slot into the same jobs easily again, because those places will have moved on.

maybe it's more about stopping doctors who were planning to retire in near future rather than attracting people back...?

[steviewevie]

Govt has made pay offer to NHS unions, now unions have to put it to their members.

Should have done this months ago, but I guess govt thought they'd win.

[Neil]

3 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

maybe it's more about stopping doctors who were planning to retire in near future rather than attracting people back...?

it's made a difference to a midwife i know, who's pension would have got less if she'd kept working to pre-budget conditions.

[lost]

12 minutes ago, Neil said:

it's made a difference to a midwife i know, who's pension would have got less if she'd kept working to pre-budget conditions.

That's interesting and probably points to why the government didn't just hand the benefit to doctors if nurses are hitting these limits too. 

[mattiloy]

 

[Guest]

The Tories have abolished the cap on pensions to ensure they can give more money to the rich.

[Neil]

3 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

The Tories have abolished the cap on pensions to ensure they can give more money to the rich.

The richest have been maxing out their pensions for more than twenty years it's a great way of giving free money that the plebs can't get the measure of. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Neil said:

The richest have been maxing out their pensions for more than twenty years it's a great way of giving free money that the plebs can't get the measure of. 

Doesn't it also mean that those well off people can now swerve inheritance tax somehow?

[cellar]

30 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Doesn't it also mean that those well off people can now swerve inheritance tax somehow?

I've been trying to figure this out, because I don't think its as straightforward as that (to be clear, I hate these changes, I'm just talking numbers). And I have seen articles talking about this "potential loophole," but I'm not convinced. In fairness its still early days, and I haven't had a proper read up on everything!

People can theoretically avoid a bit more inheritence tax from the extra £20k a year they put into the pension, at the point that it is passed over. But once received, accessing the money is still subject to taxation depending on that person's marginal tax rate (aside from 25% of the current LTA - a figure that is being frozen).

I don't imagine people would put more than £60k a year into a pension to try to avoid IHT because anything over the yearly allowance is added to your Income Tax bill for the year, at the rate you pay tax. Given that if you are putting that much into a pension, you're probably a Higher or Additional Rate taxpayer (40/45%), and IHT is 40%, it doesn't make sense - especially since the person receiving it would pay more tax on the other side. I guess if you just had extra cash sitting around, and were not working, you could whack in extra that way - but you still would get the Basic Rate tax on that (I think) - and the person on the other side would be getting the same.

There is also the fact that if a pension pot gets paid to someone who wasn't the designated person, for whatever reason, an unauthorised person charge is applied at 55%. So another risk.

And finally, future govs might change these rules.

All in all, seems far more trouble than its worth (if it is even worth anything) to try to hide money in a pension, especially when there are more efficient methods of getting around IHT.

 

Sorry for wall of text - also just in case, none of this should be construed as advice 😀

[steviewevie]

a lot of gonorrhoea about apparently.

[Neil]

2 hours ago, Ozanne said:

Doesn't it also mean that those well off people can now swerve inheritance tax somehow?

most well off people already swerve it, as far as i'm aware.

[steviewevie]

6 minutes ago, Neil said:

most well off people already swerve it, as far as i'm aware.

that's what accountants are for.