Generations of Brits troubled by tax cliff edges?

Birds ignore fiscal drag while on the patio

I can remember to being young and the alien world of tax. I am sure that there were people who were warning that young ambitious people like me could not cope with taxes as we faced in the last twenty years of the 1990s and of course they were wrong.

This weekend, the press is determined to show us how paying more tax than ever before will stymie our wish to do well. Here is a graph from the FT which makes a point, I have no idea what the vertical bar is telling me but its full of cliff edges that I might fall off.

But the accountants talking with the Financial Times are unanimous, the young and ambitious will stop being ambitious when faced with a higher share of income tax they pay relative than others.

Andrew Timpson, employment tax partner at RSM UK, warned that these measures, alongside plans to charge national insurance on salary sacrifice pension contributions, would make many people think twice about earning more.

I know people in their twenties and some earn the minimum wage and one earns over £250,000. Most complain about the need to get out of the housing horror of having to live with Mum and Dad or pay horror rent or get trapped in the leaseholders nightmare.

I do not hear young people worrying about income tax , national insurance, certainly not the cost of pension planning,

They spend a lot on festivals , on holidays in general and they find ways to enjoy themselves by being smart. They understand money through their phones, and like every generation before them , they ignore the droning on of tax specialists telling them they can’t be ambitious

This for instance

Nimesh Shah, chief executive of Blick Rothenberg, says people earning between £50,000 and £150,000 would feel the most pain from the measures.

He added that Reeves’ decision to extend the freeze, plus previous chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s decision to cut the threshold from which the top 45 per cent rate of tax applies, from £150,000 to £125,140, meant the top rate of tax was capturing more and more people. If the additional rate had risen in line with inflation, it would have reached around £210,000 today.

“It’s that middle group, the government knows that’s where they generate the most money, so it’s them they’re hitting,” says Shah. “It’s really killing any aspiration and ambition for people to earn more money.”

My memory of being young gets fainter but if I ever felt worried about the amount of tax I had to pay, I don’t remember it. I just got on with earning more to pay the bills. To suppose that people live their lives to minimise the impact of the fiscal drag is ridiculous.

It is also absurd to think that Governments are at best incompetent and at worst vindictive towards any one sector of society. The intergenerational transfers which are dreamed up by politically aware accountants and journalists to explain fiscal injustice is beyond me, my young friends- anyone in fact but the experts in tax and pensions who beset us with misery – after budgets.

Last night I was at the Swan Pub in Clewer listening to, singing with and eating Sri Lankan food. Some of the people in the pub were teenagers , most were workers and more than a few were pensioners.

In the four hours I spent enjoying myself, I did not talk with anyone who was interested in discussing anything but fun!

About henry tapper

Founder of the Pension PlayPen,, partner of Stella, father of Olly . I am the Pension Plowman
This entry was posted in pensions and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Generations of Brits troubled by tax cliff edges?

  1. Richard Chilton says:

    I am old enough to remember paying some Income Tax at 60%. The government then reduced my top rate to 45%. It didn’t make the slightest difference to how my career progressed. It did leave me concerned that the government was effectively giving me money that I didn’t need.

  2. PensionsOldie says:

    I agree!

    I think back to 1974 when I was starting out on my career and thinking of getting married and buying my first house. At that time Income Tax rates started at 33% and rose in fairly narrow bands (say 1.3 times the tax threshold) with 5% increases up to 83%. There was also a 15% surcharge on non earned income (from savings and investments. As a trainee on little more than half male average earnings my income was more than double the tax threshold with higher rates of income tax kicking in at something like twice average earnings.

    At that time husband and wife’s incomes were combined with a higher personal allowance for a married man, although there was a second personal allowance against a wife’s earned income. Mortgage interest rates were in high single figures, with occasional blips into double figures, and mortgages were restricted to not more than 3 times first income and a half of any second income and required a 15% deposit.

    Although I had briefly considered and rejected a job offer in New Zealand, this did not affect my decisions to get engaged and start looking to buy my first house in the relatively high cost area in which I had been renting on a house share basis.
    Looking back, I do not regret either decision, being happily married for 46 years and still living in my first house.

    I do believe the major barrier to a person in a similar situation today is the inflated values ascribed to houses, in no small part due to unsustainably low historic interest rates. Should a reduction in housing costs (and house prices) not be the number one objective of a Government seeking to promote growth and opportunities for our younger and next generations?

Leave a Reply