The whole purpose of government and civilisation for that matter is to ensure everyone is provided for and to ensure balance.
To address your responses -
- The changes to pension limits have little to do with doctors and more to do with a wealth tax break. If it was purely doctors then the limit would have been increased rather than abolished or purely targeted at doctors. Whilst you do pay income tax when you withdraw money, you pay it at a future rate which will have a higher threshold than todays income tax bands. Furthermore you also avoid national insurance so the overall tax rate is much less and you can withdraw 25% tax free.
- The argument that the tax rate is effectively 55% once you exceeded the threshold is also not really valid. I would have exceeded the limit but any way you look at it, if you are employed by a company it’s effectively free money being payed in, just the benefit is not as substantial.
- To quote the late Nigel Lawson, who I have a great deal of respect for, “there is little economic difference between income and capital gains tax”, between 1988 and 98, contrary to the claim that tax take reduced, it didn’t, it actually increased and the administration costs were also much lower, what did happen is that CGT could no longer be used as a loop hole so CGT revenue went down but income tax receipts increased. Most economists agree that aligning CGT is the right thing to do, including the IFS (Institute for Fiscal Studies). CGT is a progressive tax, however it does require some thought about how it’s implemented. You need to avoid taxing the increase in the value of an asset due purely to inflation (indexation) and only tax the net gain. The bigger target needs to be the taxing more of the share-based rewards arising from employment, and of the accumulated retained earnings in smaller companies. Likewise ensuring that hedge and wealth managers don’t get paid using the “carried interest” loophole which means their income is only taxed at CGT rates and not income tax rates.
- Pension funds are exempt from dividend tax.
- Regarding entrepreneurship there are already existing tax incentives that encourage investment e.g Business Asset Disposal Relief. However I do agree that risk based investment should be incentivised but not using the broad brush tools currently applied. Something much more targeted that incentivises the growth of smaller business that offer skilled employment and training, not just minimum wage jobs. This would prevent the use of small companies as a way to avoid tax and as a wrapper for assets.
Yes there is always going to be a disparity between what people earn and rightly so, should someone who has studied for years and become a doctor be paid the same as someone who decided that they couldn’t be bothered, of course not. Likewise those that have truly taken financial risks with their own money should be wealthier.
The problem is when that disparity grows to the level that we are at now, where many have little to no disposable income and the few can spend almost without consequence.
Sorry everyone if I have derailed the thread a little here. I will go back in my box.