[petejh]

Teachers with fewer students would tend to get better outcomes than teachers with more students, yes?

Well clearly no. Do some reading up and get back to me - there's a critical number. But it's not more = bad / less = good. Same with childcare, obviously.

[Will Hunt]

Teachers with fewer students would tend to get better outcomes than teachers with more students, yes?

Well clearly no. Do some reading up and get back to me - there's a critical number. But it's not more = bad / less = good. Same with childcare, obviously.

You sound very certain so I assume you've done the reading yourself. What did you find? (Remember that we're talking about 1-3 year olds here so studies looking at older children won't be comparable).

[lukeyboy]

Obviously the core demographic of old rich people have been well looked after in this budget, as usual.

Yeah those fucking health care staff hey, what have they ever done for us.

generate more jobs in childcare and have a host of other indirect benefits.

Well they're not exactly scrimping on staff as it is with the highest ratio of staff to kids in Europe! 

It seemed a pretty useless budget announcement to me as it will only really affect people who don't already have kids (or just babies)

Aka 'people in the near future', as per most policy announcements.

Some very selective and snarky cherry picking there Pete.

Have you missed that huge amounts of NHS staff have been on strike at historic levels, due to pay and awful working conditions? It's a very big stretch to claim this government is looking after them.

More jobs is still more jobs.

Understand that policies don't always happen straight away, but as I say they've had over a decade to do this, and other policies that suit their demographic don't have this sort of delay in being implemented.

[Bradders]

Teachers with fewer students would tend to get better outcomes than teachers with more students, yes?

Well clearly no. Do some reading up and get back to me - there's a critical number. But it's not more = bad / less = good. Same with childcare, obviously.

I really hate to do the whole "as a parent" thing, but this is something someone could only ever say when they're not a parent.

[Bradders]

Also, I get the point you're making Pete around the ratio and why British kids shouldn't be any different to others, but it's highly reductionist to look at it on just those numbers and say it should be matched.

Yes in Germany it's higher, but are their staff better educated, better trained, better paid? Is staff retention better? Do they have better facilities that makes management of a higher number of children per staff member safer? Etc. Etc.

To be clear I don't know the answers to any of those questions but it's important not to focus on a single figure out of context I think.

[Oldmanmatt]

Teachers with fewer students would tend to get better outcomes than teachers with more students, yes?

Well clearly no. Do some reading up and get back to me - there's a critical number. But it's not more = bad / less = good. Same with childcare, obviously.

Holy crap Pete, did you actually think that one through?
Of course there will be teachers, who are not very good regardless of the number of students, just as there will be some who can hold a class of 40 enthralled; they’re rare outliers.
Plus “do some reading”?
Nah, post some links.
Even without further reading, based on prior knowledge from similar training in staffing for a variety of roles and purposes; the “perfect” ratio doesn’t exist, but the range of those ratios that produce the better outcomes are well established.
Even putting aside any formal training, decades as a Scout leader, Cadet instructor, Sailing instructor, Climbing instructor (the last decade running a climbing wall taking groups from pre-school age to year 13 etc), make me wince at that comment. I think my former insurance providers, at the wall, would just collapse laughing.

[ali k]

it's highly reductionist to look at it on just those numbers and say it should be matched.

Yes in Germany it's higher, but are their staff better educated, better trained, better paid? Is staff retention better? Do they have better facilities that makes management of a higher number of children per staff member safer? Etc. Etc.

I seem to remember listening to an episode of Analysis on this subject and this was the argument made about the disparity in child ratios in England - staff training/qualifications/pay etc being higher in other comparable European countries (and Scotland which has 1:5).

[MischaHY]

Yes in Germany it's higher, but are their staff better educated, better trained, better paid?

I just went and did a quest around about this and I would say broadly speaking it should be similar. Entry timeframe is 3-4 years on both sides, average wage ~33-35k (pre-tax), high end wage ~40-45k. If anything the UK side should be earning more because taxation is lower.

I get the impression that the germans have simply got more tax money to sling around due to industrial export and manufacturing amongst other things which makes it somewhat tricky to compare because the government picks up a greater portion of the bill. That being said I have a very poor understanding of these things so am happy to be called out on that.

[andy popp]

while in Denmark and Sweden—countries that the shadow Secretary of State has explicitly advocated—there are no national staff ratios at all.

Denmark also doesn't have a statutory minimum wage. Doesn't mean people earn less.

[ali k]

Yes in Germany it's higher, but are their staff better educated, better trained, better paid?

average wage ~33-35k (pre-tax), high end wage ~40-45k.

Bit confused about this. If you’re saying the average person working in childcare in Germany earns €33-35k that’s way more than in UK!

[petejh]

and other policies that suit their demographic don't have this sort of delay in being implemented.

This is where I think you, along with most posters on this car crash of a site when it comes to politics, are utterly misunderstood. Essentially what you're doing is framing a complex issue - in this case the tax treatment of the trinity of: pensions lifetime allowance, pension lump sum, pension contributions,  in terms of 'tory and labour', left/right, socialist/capitalist.

It's a total bullshit way of understanding the issue. But it's quite understandable because it's how politicians work to use rhetoric to convince people of their simplistic narratives.

The real world effects of changing the pension lifetime allowance and annual contribution allowance, on taxation and on enterprise, are not what Labour portray nor are they even what the tories portray and they're not what you read in the guardian or telegraph.

There are short term tax and spending effects that can be understood through either a conservative lens or a progressive lens. And there are long-term tax and spending effects that can be understood through either a progressive lens or a conservative lens.

Here's a concrete example:

The pension lifetime allowance has been abolished, yes. Nasty tories pandering to rich bankers (oh and doctors, yeah we like doctors they're the goodies) boohoo pantomime villain tories etc. etc.
But... the tax-free lump sum of 25% of total pension pot that you're allowed to withdraw from your pension has been frozen for the last decade and is to remain frozen until at least 2028. With not even any increase for inflation. The long term effect of that is that high earners can massively boost their pension pots, but the real-terms value of the 25% tax-free lump sum they can withdraw is massively eroded by inflation. Even at 3% per year inflation, never mind the current 10%. Do the maths and you see that middle earners who will also be boosting their pensions, are most likely not impacted or less impacted by this tax-take. While high earners will, overall, end up paying more tax on their pensions because there'll be a much bigger pot of money remaining to be taxed.
Remember that after the 25% lump sum is withdrawn, all pension income is taxable. Therefore the net effect of this policy is, longer term, higher taxes for high earners, deferred from today into their future. Quite rightly many will say, looking on enviously at these big pensions that the young of today will find impossible to build due to the high cost of living - you'll get no argument from me on that point, life is far more expensive for the young of today then it was for the boomers. But many people would argue that the sensible solution to that inequality is to try to scrape back some from the boomers in a way that doesn't destroy current and future enterprise or penalise risk and hard work. Tough problem to solve with no right answer.

Labour supporters are currently complaining it isn't fair because we're all too stupid to understand the nuances of a combination of 1/ increased contribution 2/ frozen tax allowance and 3/ inflation.

Fuck me people are dumb.

 

[lukeyboy]

and other policies that suit their demographic don't have this sort of delay in being implemented.

This is where I think you, along with most posters on this car crash of a site when it comes to politics, are utterly misunderstood. Essentially what you're doing is framing a complex issue - in this case the tax treatment of the trinity of: pensions lifetime allowance, pension lump sum, pension contributions,  in terms of 'tory and labour', left/right, socialist/capitalist.

It's a total bullshit way of understanding the issue. But it's quite understandable because it's how politicians work to use rhetoric to convince people of their simplistic narratives.

The real world effects of changing the pension lifetime allowance and annual contribution allowance, on taxation and on enterprise, are not what Labour portray nor are they even what the tories portray and they're not what you read in the guardian or telegraph.

There are short term tax and spending effects that can be understood through either a conservative lens or a progressive lens. And there are long-term tax and spending effects that can be understood through either a progressive lens or a conservative lens.

Here's a concrete example:

The pension lifetime allowance has been abolished, yes. Nasty tories pandering to rich bankers (oh and doctors, yeah we like doctors they're the goodies) boohoo pantomime villain tories etc. etc.
But... the tax-free lump sum of 25% of total pension pot that you're allowed to withdraw from your pension has been frozen for the last decade and is to remain frozen until at least 2028. With not even any increase for inflation. The long term effect of that is that high earners can massively boost their pension pots, but the real-terms value of the 25% tax-free lump sum they can withdraw is massively eroded by inflation. Even at 3% per year inflation, never mind the current 10%. Do the maths and you see that middle earners who will also be boosting their pensions, are most likely not impacted or less impacted by this tax-take. While high earners will end up paying more tax on their pensions. Quite rightly many will say.
Remember that after the 25% lump sum is withdrawn, all pension income is taxable. Therefore the net effect of this policy is, longer term, higher taxes for high earners, deferred from today into their future.

Labour supporters are currently complaining it isn't fair because we're all too stupid to understand the nuances of a combination of 1/ increased contribution 2/ frozen tax allowance and 3/ inflation.

Fuck me people are dumb.

You've really undone it with your sign off. I have better things to do than engage with this sort of vicious and aggressive discussion, I was just here to openly discuss the pros and cons, not to throw insults. Count me out.

[petejh]

It's not meant to be vicious or aggressive, more exasperated at peoples' seeming inability to view issues without resorting to tribalism - a failure of rational thinking imo. I apologise if it comes across that way.

[Wellsy]

 

and other policies that suit their demographic don't have this sort of delay in being implemented.

This is where I think you, along with most posters on this car crash of a site when it comes to politics, are utterly misunderstood. Essentially what you're doing is framing a complex issue - in this case the tax treatment of the trinity of: pensions lifetime allowance, pension lump sum, pension contributions,  in terms of 'tory and labour', left/right, socialist/capitalist.

It's a total bullshit way of understanding the issue. But it's quite understandable because it's how politicians work to use rhetoric to convince people of their simplistic narratives.

The real world effects of changing the pension lifetime allowance and annual contribution allowance, on taxation and on enterprise, are not what Labour portray nor are they even what the tories portray and they're not what you read in the guardian or telegraph.

There are short term tax and spending effects that can be understood through either a conservative lens or a progressive lens. And there are long-term tax and spending effects that can be understood through either a progressive lens or a conservative lens.

Here's a concrete example:

The pension lifetime allowance has been abolished, yes. Nasty tories pandering to rich bankers (oh and doctors, yeah we like doctors they're the goodies) boohoo pantomime villain tories etc. etc.
But... the tax-free lump sum of 25% of total pension pot that you're allowed to withdraw from your pension has been frozen for the last decade and is to remain frozen until at least 2028. With not even any increase for inflation. The long term effect of that is that high earners can massively boost their pension pots, but the real-terms value of the 25% tax-free lump sum they can withdraw is massively eroded by inflation. Even at 3% per year inflation, never mind the current 10%. Do the maths and you see that middle earners who will also be boosting their pensions, are most likely not impacted or less impacted by this tax-take. While high earners will, overall, end up paying more tax on their pensions because there'll be a much bigger pot of money remaining to be taxed.
Remember that after the 25% lump sum is withdrawn, all pension income is taxable. Therefore the net effect of this policy is, longer term, higher taxes for high earners, deferred from today into their future. Quite rightly many will say, looking on enviously at these big pensions that the young of today will find impossible to build due to the high cost of living - you'll get no argument from me on that point, life is far more expensive for the young of today then it was for the boomers. But many people would argue that the sensible solution to that inequality is to try to scrape back some from the boomers in a way that doesn't destroy current and future enterprise or penalise risk and hard work. Tough problem to solve with no right answer.

Labour supporters are currently complaining it isn't fair because we're all too stupid to understand the nuances of a combination of 1/ increased contribution 2/ frozen tax allowance and 3/ inflation.

Fuck me people are dumb.

It's been frozen as 25% of the lifetime allowance which means currently, at its lowest ever, its been frozen at £268,275. So if you had 100% of the lifetime allowance you could have a pension of £40,241.25 (which you'd pay income tax on) and that tax free lump sum of 268k which is tax free before you encountered any additional tax concerns.

I think it's pretty stupid of a government to pretend that this policy incentives saving or is cost effective in getting people back to work since roughly 1% of the pop would ever be concerned by the LTA and the tax cost of getting people back to work as a result of abolishing it is roughly 70k per person.

Overall your assessment is pretty empty and your depiction of the criticism as foolish socialist rhetoric is silly. In a time of squeezed public finances this is explicitly a tax break for the top 1% of pensions. That is inarguable.

If you're curious I'm a pensions tech and I calculated and settled several people's lifetime allowance charges last week. Your assessment is wrong and you calling people stupid is uncalled for. Why don't you listen for once and you might learn something, either that or go back to fiddling with your investment portfolio, whatever 

[Stabbsy]

and other policies that suit their demographic don't have this sort of delay in being implemented.

This is where I think you, along with most posters on this car crash of a site when it comes to politics, are utterly misunderstood. Essentially what you're doing is framing a complex issue - in this case the tax treatment of the trinity of: pensions lifetime allowance, pension lump sum, pension contributions,  in terms of 'tory and labour', left/right, socialist/capitalist.

It's a total bullshit way of understanding the issue. But it's quite understandable because it's how politicians work to use rhetoric to convince people of their simplistic narratives.

The real world effects of changing the pension lifetime allowance and annual contribution allowance, on taxation and on enterprise, are not what Labour portray nor are they even what the tories portray and they're not what you read in the guardian or telegraph.

There are short term tax and spending effects that can be understood through either a conservative lens or a progressive lens. And there are long-term tax and spending effects that can be understood through either a progressive lens or a conservative lens.

Here's a concrete example:

The pension lifetime allowance has been abolished, yes. Nasty tories pandering to rich bankers (oh and doctors, yeah we like doctors they're the goodies) boohoo pantomime villain tories etc. etc.
But... the tax-free lump sum of 25% of total pension pot that you're allowed to withdraw from your pension has been frozen for the last decade and is to remain frozen until at least 2028. With not even any increase for inflation. The long term effect of that is that high earners can massively boost their pension pots, but the real-terms value of the 25% tax-free lump sum they can withdraw is massively eroded by inflation. Even at 3% per year inflation, never mind the current 10%. Do the maths and you see that middle earners who will also be boosting their pensions, are most likely not impacted or less impacted by this tax-take. While high earners will, overall, end up paying more tax on their pensions because there'll be a much bigger pot of money remaining to be taxed.
Remember that after the 25% lump sum is withdrawn, all pension income is taxable. Therefore the net effect of this policy is, longer term, higher taxes for high earners, deferred from today into their future. Quite rightly many will say, looking on enviously at these big pensions that the young of today will find impossible to build due to the high cost of living - you'll get no argument from me on that point, life is far more expensive for the young of today then it was for the boomers. But many people would argue that the sensible solution to that inequality is to try to scrape back some from the boomers in a way that doesn't destroy current and future enterprise or penalise risk and hard work. Tough problem to solve with no right answer.

Labour supporters are currently complaining it isn't fair because we're all too stupid to understand the nuances of a combination of 1/ increased contribution 2/ frozen tax allowance and 3/ inflation.

Fuck me people are dumb.

Possibly me being dumb here, but taxation isn't my field. Isn't the lifetime allowance charge significantly higher than marginal tax rate that any income would be taxed at? So yes, you "redirect" funds from tax-free cash to income by freezing the maximum tax free cash, but I'd expect the removal of the lifetime allowance to be dominant and total tax bill for higher earners to go down.

[Wellsy]

55% for a LTA excess lump sum, 25% for a LTA excess pension (but that's a charge, you'd pay that, then income tax).

It's a tax cut. The result of this is you'll pay less tax if you have a pension worth 1.5 million or whatever. If you have a pension worth a paltry say, 950k, it won't make a single difference to your income.

[Will Hunt]

peoples' seeming inability to view issues without resorting to tribalism

At least some of this exists only in your head. When I posted up about nurseries it was just to try and offer some explanation of the complexities and knock-on effects of the policy because I know there are lots of people on here who are interested in politics but don't have any knowledge of the childcare system. You seemed to think this was a rant against the Tories. As it happens I think the government's policy is an improvement but not a complete solution.

[Stabbsy]

55% for a LTA excess lump sum, 25% for a LTA excess pension (but that's a charge, you'd pay that, then income tax).

It's a tax cut. The result of this is you'll pay less tax if you have a pension worth 1.5 million or whatever. If you have a pension worth a paltry say, 950k, it won't make a single difference to your income.

Thought so, but Pete's certainty almost had me fooled.

[seankenny]

It's not meant to be vicious or aggressive, more exasperated at peoples' seeming inability to view issues without resorting to tribalism - a failure of rational thinking imo. I apologise if it comes across that way.

Pete, some time ago I posted a link to a paper estimating the impact on inflation of The Thing You Don't Like To Talk About. You immediately found what you thought was a mistake, cue can’t trust those Remain voting academics who don’t understand the will of the people stuff (in subtext if not explicitly written, I can’t remember now). Anyhow the paper could certainly have been clearer but the basis of your error was not understanding that the overall impact of various regional effects was proportional to the population size of that region. Not a difficult point to grasp for a smart guy like yourself.

The thing is, everyone gets the wrong end of the stick sometimes. Human beings are tribal, it colours all their judgements. Didn’t Kanneman - who got a Nobel for his work on implicit biases - say he still fell for them after decades of studying? Of course the person most at risk from being coloured by their own biases and tribalism is the one who projects all that stuff onto others.

[petejh]

55% for a LTA excess lump sum, 25% for a LTA excess pension (but that's a charge, you'd pay that, then income tax).

It's a tax cut. The result of this is you'll pay less tax if you have a pension worth 1.5 million or whatever. If you have a pension worth a paltry say, 950k, it won't make a single difference to your income.

It isn’t that simple though, is it. Which if people take off the political blinkers they would see.

Just saying ‘it’s a tax cut’ ignores, firstly, the fact that pension tax benefit received is tax deferred to pension age. Secondly, the real world effect of inflation on a ‘frozen’ 25% tax free lump sum. And ignores the changes in tax-free lump sum as a proportion of total pension pot that the increase in annual allowance will, as inflation works through the system, enable middle to high earners to accumulate.
Thirdly, and possibly most importantly for Labour when they likely win the next election - is that the increased wealth in pensions that this policy will encourage - and which is currently sheltered from IHT - will be there for Labour to change the IHT policy on, which they’ve signalled they will. One of their policies that I agree with - be free to make good money while alive but don’t perpetuate inequality by unfairly benefitting your kids when you snuff it.

I think, long term, this simplification of the tax system for pensions makes a lot of sense, and sets it up for Labour to go on and make the unpopular decisions around IHT that the tories won’t.

[Oldmanmatt]

It's not meant to be vicious or aggressive, more exasperated at peoples' seeming inability to view issues without resorting to tribalism - a failure of rational thinking imo. I apologise if it comes across that way.

He says, almost as if that isn’t exactly the primary determinant in our selection of government, decision makers and their subsequent policies and therefore a rather pertinent aspect to consider…

[petejh]

Sean, what on earth are you talking about.

[Wellsy]

You don't know what you're on about, this is my day job, it's a tax cut (in immediate and absolute lifetime terms) you are wrong and that is that.

[seankenny]

Sean, what on earth are you talking about.

I’m talking about the time you did exactly the thing that makes you so cross when other people do it. You’re as rational as everyone else, which is to say, occasionally but not so much.

Anyhow, on the pensions thing, I don’t understand it so I shall just quote the non-partisan IFS’s response:

“However, the fact that employer pension contributions escape National Insurance contributions entirely, along with the complete exemption of pension pots from inheritance tax, will still see this policy provide further substantial tax breaks to those with very high levels of pension wealth.”

[Bradders]

But... the tax-free lump sum of 25% of total pension pot that you're allowed to withdraw from your pension has been frozen for the last decade

That is not correct. The lump sum tax free allowance has always been 25%, with no monetary limit; I.e. it was unaffected by inflation given it's a proportion rather than an amount.

The monetary limit is a new restriction implemented only in this budget.