1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:25,340
the

2
00:00:25,340 --> 00:00:38,340
so

3
00:00:38,340 --> 00:00:44,640
please

4
00:00:44,640 --> 00:00:47,840
eyes

5
00:00:47,840 --> 00:00:50,720
and

6
00:00:50,720 --> 00:00:53,020
so

7
00:00:53,020 --> 00:00:55,060
please

8
00:00:55,060 --> 00:01:03,100
contributions would plug 15 billion of the deficit in Britain's finances. It said that

9
00:01:03,100 --> 00:01:09,700
a small measure could add up to a sizeable tax grab by Ms Reeves. Pension tax relief

10
00:01:09,700 --> 00:01:14,980
is known to be an error. Ms Reeves, as well as other chancellors, have considered cutting

11
00:01:14,980 --> 00:01:25,940
to raised revenue. So this is something she did in 2016. So she will give a flat rate

12
00:01:25,940 --> 00:01:36,940
of pensions tax relief of 33%, therefore taking 7% from the high earners and giving it to

13
00:01:36,940 --> 00:01:51,020
the basic rate taxpayers. So it says here, welcome boost for basic rate taxpayers and

14
00:01:51,020 --> 00:01:57,660
a cut in the saving subsidy for higher earners. Secure Stump has already admitted that the

15
00:01:57,660 --> 00:02:06,340
budget will be painful, but not everyone will feel that pain. In a statement last month,

16
00:02:06,340 --> 00:02:12,740
Labour ruled out increasing taxes on working people. Well, what is the definition of working

17
00:02:12,740 --> 00:02:21,260
people? I think the definition of a working people is anybody who is earning minimum wage

18
00:02:21,260 --> 00:02:32,220
or less or is a union member or is in the Labour Party. So here's a graph here that

19
00:02:32,220 --> 00:02:46,760
another thing is that because the tax relief for getting earnings will not go up in line

20
00:02:46,760 --> 00:02:59,540
with pensions, then lots of pensions will be taxed from the state. I mean, this is effectively

21
00:02:59,540 --> 00:03:08,220
ludicrous because pensioners should be protected. If they're well and able to work, they should

22
00:03:08,220 --> 00:03:17,180
pay the relevant tax. But I think having a pension which is paid out and then you pay

23
00:03:17,180 --> 00:03:24,020
tax on it, I mean, you should probably pay tax on your other pensions, but effectively

24
00:03:24,020 --> 00:03:36,660
you're going to have to pay a lot of tax which would either come from other pensions,

25
00:03:36,660 --> 00:03:45,180
either crude savings or the state pension. To address the 20 billion bill, the bank said

26
00:03:45,180 --> 00:03:51,740
that the Chancellor would likely scrap certain inheritance tax reliefs, reform capital gains

27
00:03:51,740 --> 00:03:59,300
tax and auto tax reliefs on pension contributions. So savers currently enjoy 20% tax relief on

28
00:03:59,300 --> 00:04:06,940
pension contributions with an extra 20% available for higher earners. A flat rate of relief

29
00:04:06,940 --> 00:04:16,420
would effectively abolish the additional relief. Now I've also heard that also you can take

30
00:04:16,420 --> 00:04:26,980
money out of your pension pot. I think it's 25% tax free. And I think that there's going

31
00:04:26,980 --> 00:04:37,380
to be a ceiling on this. It's either 100,000 or 150,000. So raising capital gains taxes

32
00:04:37,380 --> 00:04:50,340
to be equal with income tax, which I suppose is fair, but you don't have the risks and

33
00:04:50,340 --> 00:05:01,460
people who don't have a job usually have the capital gains. In addition, additional revenue

34
00:05:01,460 --> 00:05:07,060
for the excess according to Treasury analysis, scrapping inheritance tax on relief over

35
00:05:07,060 --> 00:05:19,700
states worth under 325,000 would raise 1.8. Scrapping inheritance tax relief on the states

36
00:05:19,700 --> 00:05:31,020
worth under 325 would raise 1.8 billion. Well, that's not good, is it? In an interview with

37
00:05:31,020 --> 00:05:36,640
the Sunday Times in 2006, Miss Reed was asked which aspect of the tax system she would change

38
00:05:36,640 --> 00:05:43,220
and said, pension tax would make it fairer. Pension tax relief seems to be geared towards

39
00:05:43,220 --> 00:05:50,180
the highest earners. Well, you're paying the most tax, so why shouldn't you get the main

40
00:05:50,180 --> 00:05:55,260
relief? If you're not paying a great deal of tax, why are you getting more relief? And

41
00:05:55,260 --> 00:06:02,660
the scrapping of inheritance tax relief on the states worth under, I don't know, I mean,

42
00:06:02,660 --> 00:06:17,460
the thing is that that means that everybody has to pay. That's a hard nut to crack. Reeves

43
00:06:17,460 --> 00:06:24,620
wrote in an article in the Times eight years ago that the current tax relief system was

44
00:06:24,620 --> 00:06:33,340
an unjust and ill-judged use of the nation's strained finances. Well, it's not yours until

45
00:06:33,340 --> 00:06:39,420
you pay the tax. And the flat rate of 33% would boost the pension pot to someone on

46
00:06:39,420 --> 00:06:47,780
the average wage, only if it's invested in the right thing and not with a lot of these

47
00:06:47,780 --> 00:06:59,940
basic, simple pension funds, which ironically don't even invest in the best countries, let

48
00:06:59,940 --> 00:07:08,780
alone sectors. I mean, some of them haven't even invested in the NASDAQ and standard and

49
00:07:08,780 --> 00:07:21,740
poor when we've had such meteoric rises this year and last year. So, and a flat rate of

50
00:07:21,740 --> 00:07:29,380
33% would boost the pension pot of somebody on the average wage by up to 15,000 over their

51
00:07:29,380 --> 00:07:36,500
working life. She said it would be simpler, fairer. Well, not sure about simpler. I mean,

52
00:07:36,500 --> 00:07:43,540
it's just a calculation that's made. And an important step towards boosting retirement

53
00:07:43,540 --> 00:07:53,220
savings. Well, not on the middle income. It's a squeeze on the middle income who pay more

54
00:07:53,220 --> 00:08:03,420
tax than the lower income, but get squeezed. And then the problem is that they don't want

55
00:08:03,420 --> 00:08:09,180
to, you know, the lower paid in retirement will have a better standard of living than

56
00:08:09,180 --> 00:08:17,300
the middle class. This would be a welcome boost for basic tax rate taxpayers and a cut

57
00:08:17,300 --> 00:08:23,720
in the saving subsidy for higher earners while still rewarding savings, but only if they

58
00:08:23,720 --> 00:08:33,500
are properly invested. There needs to be a raid on those funds which have high yearly

59
00:08:33,500 --> 00:08:49,900
costs, have high ongoing costs and are repeatedly in the lower quarter. Or they don't actually

60
00:08:49,900 --> 00:09:05,460
match what should be a decent amount. So, so tax relief could be rebanded as government

61
00:09:05,460 --> 00:09:12,820
back saving schemes. That's a bit hilarious. For every £2 that savers put towards their

62
00:09:12,820 --> 00:09:18,820
pension, the government could contribute another £1, a huge incentive to save for everyone.

63
00:09:18,820 --> 00:09:28,260
Well, I mean, we need to save because the government will see this that over time, they'll

64
00:09:28,260 --> 00:09:37,340
get receipts from investment companies. They'll get receipts from continually playing with

65
00:09:37,340 --> 00:09:46,580
the pension system. So this would see, you know, you give with one hand and you take

66
00:09:46,580 --> 00:09:53,780
with the other. And just because former Chancellor Rishi Sunak and George Osborne, among those

67
00:09:53,780 --> 00:10:06,300
to have reportedly considered a flat rate pension relief. So it's not going to be favourable

68
00:10:06,300 --> 00:10:16,560
where it's like most of these taxes, you say, well, somebody earning £50,000 probably pays

69
00:10:16,560 --> 00:10:23,140
three times somebody on minimum wage. And when they say, oh, look, I'm not getting any

70
00:10:23,140 --> 00:10:33,220
money back because they haven't given any money in tax through their earnings because

71
00:10:33,220 --> 00:10:41,980
they're on the threshold. Or it's barely enough. It's when you earn that more money and you

72
00:10:41,980 --> 00:10:53,260
reach the past your yearly allowance into your 20% and then into your 40% where you

73
00:10:53,260 --> 00:11:02,140
start paying serious amounts of taxation. So please can you comment on this video? Can

74
00:11:02,140 --> 00:11:09,300
you please support the channel by subscribing and clicking on the bell? Can you support

75
00:11:09,300 --> 00:11:18,180
it also by sharing with your friends and family so they get to know all this information about

76
00:11:18,180 --> 00:11:29,260
the potential likelihood of what is happening with their money? If you find this video interesting,

77
00:11:29,260 --> 00:11:38,500
please can you sponsor me and other channels that I have? Shouldn't cost too much and

78
00:11:38,500 --> 00:11:46,460
information will be in the show notes. And please, if you found this in this video helpful,

79
00:11:46,460 --> 00:11:57,140
can you donate also information in the show notes? So please can you investigate this

80
00:11:57,140 --> 00:12:08,200
further about how you are going to potentially be affected in the October budget, which is

81
00:12:08,200 --> 00:12:18,740
on Halloween day, which was probably chosen on purpose. And please can you support me?

82
00:12:18,740 --> 00:12:43,260
Thank you very much and see you on the next one. Bye bye.