Pensions - KPMG calls for significant increases to SFT and TFLS

Bear in mind deductions at the margin for higher-paid public servants are already 62%.

I assume hitting the SFT pushes that marginal rate above 70% over a lifetime.

I can see why someone would think it not worth the additional responsibility.

Grateful for anyone to correct my sums here.
 
Last edited:
Whilst I agree that the SFT needs to be increased, I struggle to understand why a public servant (or private) would refuse a promotion - with a higher salary and a higher pension benefit- just because a small portion of the increased pension might be clawed back over a 20 year period.

You're right, its a total red herring. I don't see any mass emigration of hospital consultants, or any public servants on 200k salaries.



Its the lower paid public servants, nurses, teachers, who are legging it overseas, because they can't afford housing.
The Irish hospital consultants are the best paid consultants in the world.



And they are not clamouring for this tax relief to be extended. In the UK , they were caught making up statistics, about NHS consultants, in order to bring in a scheme designed to help very rich people, get even richer .

 
Last edited:
Except you won't be working, you'll be retired...on an index linked pension. Comparing it to the average working wage is not a relevant comparison.
OK, I'll rephrase. My pension will be less than half the average working wage and fully integrated into the state pension.
If you are so adamant that improved pension arrangements for highly paid workers are beneficial, why not have the same zeal for those on average or lower wages.
My point is that highly skilled workers like consultants, will receive a very high wage. From that wage they can maximise the very generous tax relief for pensions. After that, if they are reasonably prudent, they can invest excess capital, from their post tax wages, in equities, or property, or whatever and create other income streams. They don't need even more help from the average working person, on average working wages.
 
OK, I'll rephrase. My pension will be less than half the average working wage and fully integrated into the state pension.
If you are so adamant that improved pension arrangements for highly paid workers are beneficial, why not have the same zeal for those on average or lower wages.
My point is that highly skilled workers like consultants, will receive a very high wage. From that wage they can maximise the very generous tax relief for pensions. After that, if they are reasonably prudent, they can invest excess capital, from their post tax wages, in equities, or property, or whatever and create other income streams. They don't need even more help from the average working person, on average working wages.
if only it wasnt the tax take from people like them that funded everything else....
 
There is no tax take from government employees, it's just a reduction in expenditure
That's quite the arithmetic gymnastics, one way of looking at but if that was the case you'd expect they would report it in that way
 
From the FT (paywalled):

Labour has abandoned plans to bring back the pensions lifetime allowance, in an £800mn U-turn which will be welcomed by wealthier savers including hospital consultants and headteachers.

Rachel Reeves, shadow chancellor, has dropped the proposal from Labour’s election manifesto, to be published on Thursday, because it would add uncertainty for savers and be complex to reintroduce, her allies told the Financial Times.
Very relevant to the Irish debate if the UK will continue to basically have no SFT.
 
Back
Top