This. (Although it sounds like you clean your oven too often
)
The Budget kite-flying has been awful. Process should be: a) look at some ideas and cost them; b) speak to experts in government and outside about any unintended consequences or risks for these ideas; c) weigh up and decide; and d) keep silent until the Budget. The kite flying has caused real world consequences for business planning and for individuals: some private sector people with biggish pensions have taken their tax free lump sum immediately which is (probably) uncessary and unwise.
This is the thing. I have opinions on whether we should raise income taxes or not; but unless they do something truly radical I'm not really that bothered. What I am bothered by is my UK investments tanking because the markets are spooked by this bizarre tactic of pledging not to raise taxes, then effectively briefing the public that they will raise taxes, then realising it's unpopular (revelation - raising taxes is unpopular) and saying actually we won't raise taxes, and then instead raising taxes by stealth (lowering the thresholds for paying taxes, rather than raising the rates of tax).
If you think it's right to raise taxes, then raise taxes. Don't do this ridiculous opinion polling by media approach to decide your budget. Either you think your economic policy is raising taxes or you don't. And then, like you say, keep schtum until the budget day.
A few years ago I moved my investments to specifically exclude the UK because I already have a vested interest here (salary in GBP, rent/mortgage, etc) and I just don't trust our political system to deliver growth any more. Who is going to invest in a government like this, or in companies controlled by a government like this? It's just so volatile that there's no confidence in our markets.
BTW, it drives me mad that pension tax relief is seen as a legitimate part of annual budget planning. Pension reform should be once every 10 years at most and should ideally have cross-party support. It also drives me mad that ministers and civil servants with government guaranteed, defined benefit, index linked pensions have so little empathy with private sector pensions where investment, longevity and inflation risks are borne by the individual. (As an aside, while a private sector pension pot of £500m sounds absolutely huge, it equates to a pension of c. £20k per annum - a decent income but hardly super-rich.)
Yes the stuff around pensions is ridiculous. On the one hand we're telling people we want to reduce benefits, but on the other we're making it more difficult to invest in a pension. Auto-enrollment was great, however the default pension provider, NEST, has this insane approach to investment whereby if you're young your pension may be invested something silly like only 10% equities, because they don't want young people to be spooked by their pensions going down. This is instead of educating workers about how assets like equities will go up and down. The best time of your entire life to invest your retirement savings into equities is when you're fresh-faced graduating, but the government's preferred pension provider does the exact opposite! That's before we get on to the tinkering with annual allowances, lifetime allowances, etc. And Reeves
reportedly looking at capping salary sacrifice at £2k/year. That's £167/month, meaning lots of low-middle earners will end up paying NI on pension contributions, which is a ridiculous tax rise as this is the main target group for
increasing private pension contributions to reduce the reliance on pension credit and benefits in retirement.
I just think this government isn't serving the working class well, or the middle class, and in the absence of those, it's going to aggravate this wealth disparity we have which is at record highs. Labour has lost its way.
