It is much harder for those working, where their wages are under pressure from the threat of unemployment and being replaced by some east European. Also if you are on benefits even saving too much can cut your benefit so why bother.

There was an interesting article that I read somewhere about someone using an ISA as the core of a pension plan. It actually made a lot of sense, because there was no risk from a stock market collapse and until interest rates hit zero it grew better than the stock market, especially when you include fees.

I read somewhere that the tax take from the new 50p band will not even cover the costs of administering it. If that is true then what's the point?

I doubt that. The tax would be administered and collected by employers anyway. If you were self employed then you would still have the same costs of preparing your returns.

Yes but that income will be used to buy assets which will only be taxed at 18% and even then it may not get taxed at all as they move their assets offshore, so there will be no gain to the economy, only a loss. As for higher wages for the average working person they will not be able to spend it on better food because what will happen is that rents or property prices go up so meaning more is spent on mortgages. Twenty years ago they said that low taxes will trickle wealth down to the masses. Well it did not work out that way. In the west midlands average income over the last decade has actually fallen. Where was the trickle down? House prices have risen but wages have not. It has only been sustained because you now need two incomes to provide a home, rather than one in the 1970's.

As for raising top rates of taxes, they are high enough already, but all that happens is that they will play off one tax regime against another for personal benefit. Do you honestly think that Switzerland will accept 3 million plus Brits wanting to avoid the UK rates?

While we're on the subject, isn't it amazing that all these Governemt departments have suddenly announced millions of pounds of savings. If it was that simple to do, why haven't they done it already? Why wait till now?

This is exactly what I've been thinking - if "efficiency savings" have been possible all along, why not make them during the boom times when you're in a better position to implement the changes?

New inefficiencies creep in all the time, and they probably keep all these announcements for the budget to show that they are doing something. Actual day to day running of departments is by the civil service mandarins, not ministers.

You mean the best mates of those with the power to hire people into pointless goverment jobs?

The inefficiency in spending is going into the pockets of those involved, they won't give it up until they have to.

Well as they concentrate on one target they take their eyes off another. When things are not being improved they fall into a state of malaise. The problem is at the middle levels.

The simple answer is there are no efficiencies to be made. As was widely reported the government didn't even achieve its goals on the last round of cuts (sorry, "efficiencies"). Yes Minister will tell you that they don't actually make any savings, they just re-classify things and massage figures until they achieve the desired effect.

I had not heard that phrase until listening to Marvin Bragg on the wireless a couple of days ago.

</random coincidence>

I have been watching DVD's of Yes Minister.

....and another thing:

"Private sector workers will take a £4.75billion hit to their pensions to pay for the economic recovery - while public sector workers will escape cuts. In further evidence of a pensions apartheid, public sector workers have avoided a raid on their gold-plated schemes. They will simply have a limit placed on contributions to stop them building up huge pots so quickly - saving the public purse around £1billion a year."

I have to disagree

When I was on a low income I lived off cheap food. Now I earn a bit more I can spend on good quality food.
Yes the %age is not in line with the increased salary but I can now spend more on other things ( a nicer house, a car etc)
I can also save more towards a pension

At very high income levels people will invest in none porductive assets but then again they can afford very good tax accountants and so dont pay the increased tax. In nearly all cases any increase in tax hits the middle class who earn enough to pay it while not enough to avoid it

As for progressive income taxes it will make it much harder for the rich to avoid paying their share. Consumption taxes hit the working and middle classes disproportionately. The rich have already avoided much of the tax with lower income taxes and can avoid consumption taxes as well.

I think that a review of public sector pensions would be a very good thing. First of all get rid of the final salary schemes that reward those who get a boost in their career at the expense of the average person. Have average salary schemes. The caps would cause problems with judges who have huge pension pots as a result of high salaries and long careers. Though why anyone needs a pension of more the £50 000 is beyond me.