Today’s FT Westminster blog states pensions tax relief is once gain going to be kicked around and become a key battleground as part of the election. Labour are proposing to reduce the relief to 20% for those paying 45% tax.
To me the whole concept of removing such relief is crazy. It will mean people are taxed twice on their money, 25% on the way into the pension and at least 15%, but for those in question likely 30%+, on the way out. This results in an overall tax rate of 55%! Of course the result should just be that no pension savings are made but this is an odd message to give. We already have both an annual and lifetime allowance for tax relief. Do we really need any more restrictions?
My tweet response to this was quickly followed up by Greg Kingston (@GregKingston) who summarised the political landscape well with:
It is this kind of politics that leads to division and the desire, from those that can, to look into ever more complicated tax avoidance schemes. I’m all for a progressive taxation system buts let’s keep it simple and be honest about it – that way we are all in it together.
It also reminded me of this little story who I have no idea who to credit to. There are many variants around but they are worth remembering from time to time. In particular the first part shows why it is only reasonable for the those paying more to gain more out of cuts and reliefs and the second why we should always avoid being too envious of those who earn more than us.
Let’s suppose 10 people who work together go to a restaurant after every payday, and at the end of the meal the bill comes to £100. They agree to cover the bill according to how much they earn.
The manager pays £55
The two supervisors pay £11 each
The four file staff pay £5 each
And the three junior staff pay £1 each
The regular meals continue for a few months and eventually they manage to convince the restaurant’s owner that, as they’ve been frequent and loyal customers and the restaurant is doing very well, he could give them a 20% discount. This leaves them with a £20 windfall to divide between them.
The first idea the restaurant owner proposed was to split the savings evenly between them, so each gets £2 – leading to:
The manager paying £53
The two supervisors pay £9 each
The four file staff pay £3 each
And the three junior staff receive £1 on top of their (now) free meal
Obviously the 7 paying colleagues weren’t very happy with this arrangement – so the restaurant owner said “Fair enough, we’ll divide the windfall among you, proportional to how much you contributed to the original bill.”, leading to:
The manager paying £44
The two supervisors pay £8.80 each
The four file staff pay £4 each
And the three trainees pay 80p each
The trainees then complain that their share of the £20 windfall is 20p while the manager’s is £11 – how is this fair?!
Let’s see what happens if the situation was to be reversed: the restaurant hits on hard times and raises the prices by 20%, but nobody wants to simply order less food. The manager proposes everyone contributes an extra £2 each so:
The manager pays £57
The two supervisors pay £13 each
The four file staff pay £7 each
And the three junior staff pay £3 each
The junior staff are not happy at all – the cost of their meal has tripled! So, they suggest everyone just contributes 20% more than what they used to for the original bill:
The manager pays £66
The two supervisors pay £13.20 each
The four file staff pay £6 each
And the three junior staff pay £1.20 each
To which the manager says “Sorry, I’m not going to pay £66 for a meal – I’m already paying for much more than I get. In fact, if you’re going to insist, I’ll find some less demanding friends and go to a different restaurant with them.” – leaving the remaining colleagues to cover the (now £108) bill between the 9 of them.
The moral of the story?
Don’t go to restaurants you can’t afford… And if you do, don’t get greedy with other people’s money!