{"id":76888,"date":"2024-07-24T08:33:41","date_gmt":"2024-07-24T07:33:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/?p=76888"},"modified":"2024-07-24T08:33:41","modified_gmt":"2024-07-24T07:33:41","slug":"will-reeves-remove-pension-tax-reliefs-for-the-wealthiest","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/2024\/07\/24\/will-reeves-remove-pension-tax-reliefs-for-the-wealthiest\/","title":{"rendered":"Will Reeves remove pension tax reliefs for the wealthiest?"},"content":{"rendered":"

This morning\u2019s Telegraph Business newsletter features these comments:<\/p>\n

\"\"
\n\"\"<\/p>\n

This is not the restriction on pension tax relief for the wealthiest that I propose in the Taxing Wealth Repor<\/a>t, but it would be a start. I would simply eliminate all higher rate tax relief instead, raising \u00a314.5 billion as a result. This proposal does, instead, raise a much smaller sum.<\/p>\n

There are a number of issues to mention here.<\/p>\n

First is the fact that this might even be under discussion.<\/p>\n

Second is the fact that the move is so timid, and retains as a result a massive inherent bias towards the wealthy.<\/p>\n

Third, there is the framing. This will apparently \u2018cost\u2019 the wealthy money when it in fact removes a subsidy they have unjustifiably enjoyed.<\/p>\n

Fourth, there is no link between this and the dominant issue of the day, which is the relief of child poverty. The Telegraph is howling at the possibility of reducing a massive state benefit for the wealthy, but not at the failure to provide benefits for children in need.<\/p>\n

And sixth, let\u2019s see if this happens. I suspect the story is well sourced. A leak has happened. So, will Reeves do it? I doubt it. Time will tell.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

This morning\u2019s Telegraph Business newsletter features these comments: This is not the restriction on pension tax relief for the wealthiest that I propose in the
 Read the full article…<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[204,35,16,147,118,29,97,209],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-76888","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-economic-justice","category-economics","category-ethics","category-inequality","category-labour","category-pensions","category-tax-justice","category-taxing-wealth-report"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76888","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=76888"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76888\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":76891,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/76888\/revisions\/76891"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=76888"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=76888"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.taxresearch.org.uk\/Blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=76888"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}