Skip to main content

1-20 of 164 results for subject:Taxation

Department X
Department for Work and Pensions
Subject X
Competition

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Department for Work and Pensions (164)
More

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

moved Amendment No. 130EV: 130EV: After Clause 106, insert the following new Clause— ““Calculation of annuity rates (1) The Pensions Act 2004 (c. 35) is amended as follows. (2) In section 286 (financial assistance scheme for members of certain pension schemes), after subsection (3)(d) insert— ““( ) prescribing the annuity...

Member
Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 July 2008
Reference
703 c1075-6
House
House of Lords

moved Amendment No. 130EM: 130EM: Before Clause 105, insert the following new Clause— ““Charges in respect of pension sharing etc After section 168 of the Pensions Act 2004 (c. 35) (administration of compensation) insert— ““Charges in respect of pension sharing etc 168A Charges in respect of pension sharing etc (1)...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 July 2008
Reference
703 c1067-8
House
House of Lords

moved Amendments Nos. 130EA to 130EG: 130EA: Schedule 6, page 89, line 38, leave out from ““which”” to ““subject”” in line 40 and insert ““is”” 130EB: Schedule 6, page 90, line 9, leave out ““or have been”” 130EC: Schedule 6, page 90, line 25, leave out ““93(2)”” and insert ““(Activation...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 July 2008
Reference
703 c1066
House
House of Lords

moved Amendment No. 130ZZA: 130ZZA: Clause 89, page 43, line 36, leave out ““uprated”” and insert ““revalued”” The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to government Amendments Nos. 130ZZB to 130ZZM inclusive and 139D. Clause 89 provides a significant further step along the road of simplification of state second...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 July 2008
Reference
703 c1029-31
House
House of Lords

I am very grateful to the Minister for taking so long to explain the Government’s position. He said that a theme was running through these debates, and indeed there is. In this House, there is general dissatisfaction with the maximum age of 75, and we have voted on several occasions,...

Member
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 July 2008
Reference
703 c1018-9
House
House of Lords

I have no wish to make a comment on the voiceless clunking fist, except to say: what more could I ask? The Minister has probably gone much further than his brief, for which we all congratulate him. I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate. I say...

Member
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 July 2008
Reference
703 c1019
House
House of Lords

I understand that the issue has a long history in your Lordships’ House, certainly longer than I have been here, but just from the debates on last year’s Pensions Act I get a sense of déjà vu, or as the sports commentator said, ““It’s déjà vu all over again””. It...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 July 2008
Reference
703 c1010-1
House
House of Lords

moved Amendment No. 130ZB: 130ZB: Clause 93, page 46, line 23, leave out subsection (2) The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to government Amendments Nos. 130ZC, 130ZD, 130BZA, 130BZB, 130BZC, 130BAA, 130DA, 130DB, 130DC, 130DD, 130DE, 130DF, 130DG, 130DH, 130DJ, 130DK, 130DM, 130DN, 130DQ, 130DT to 130EK and...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 July 2008
Reference
703 c1041-3
House
House of Lords

moved Amendment No. 130BAA: 130BAA: Clause 94, page 46, line 43, after ““section”” insert ““— ““the specified scheme”” means the pension scheme specified in the relevant order or provision;”” On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendments Nos. 130C and 130D not moved.] Clause 94, as amended, agreed to. Clause 95 agreed...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 July 2008
Reference
703 c1048
House
House of Lords

moved Amendment No. 130EP: 130EP: Schedule 7, page 94, line 12, at end insert— ““ After paragraph 25A (inserted by paragraph 7 above) insert— ““Terminal illness lump sum: eligibility 25B (1) This paragraph applies to a person in relation to whom all of the following conditions are met— (a) the...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 July 2008
Reference
703 c1068-70
House
House of Lords

In our hour of need, as the noble Baroness says. I sense that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham, is moving because in that Division she voted against these amendments as she then held ministerial office. Last year, she did not appear in the voting Lobbies and I sense...

Member
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 July 2008
Reference
703 c1019-20
House
House of Lords

And growth. I hang on to the point that the range of tax benefits going into pension savings—deduction for the employer, deduction for the employee, tax-free build-up and the opportunity to get 25 per cent tax free—means that this is a much more tax-supported regime than that involving ISAs; that...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 July 2008
Reference
703 c1015
House
House of Lords

There is a big ““if”” about whether you could effectively describe the sort of regime that would cover the RIF. The proposition would facilitate the opportunity for someone to take a significant lump sum in one go as income or capital from the RIF. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, looks...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 July 2008
Reference
703 c1015
House
House of Lords

With all this talk of tax, I cannot resist getting up to the Dispatch Box. Does the Minister accept the proposition of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, which seemed to me to be perfectly reasonable? She said that if a scheme could be designed that neutralised the tax advantages that...

Member
Baroness Noakes (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 July 2008
Reference
703 c1015
House
House of Lords

Because of its tax impact, I do not see the merits of building on this proposal. With the exception of my noble friend, everyone who has spoken has been silent in advancing reasons for accepting it and, unless we know those reasons, it cannot be properly evaluated.

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 July 2008
Reference
703 c1016
House
House of Lords

I was looking askance because I was wondering, while I listened to the Minister’s defence, whether there are any amendments or safeguards—however guaranteed—that would ever persuade the Minister. He is simply fundamentally opposed to any change in this area whatever, regardless of what is put forward.

Member
Lord Fowler (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 July 2008
Reference
703 c1015
House
House of Lords

It depends on which taxpayer is involved and whether he is getting tax relief on contributions at the higher rate or the basic rate.

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 July 2008
Reference
703 c1016
House
House of Lords

Perhaps I may help my noble friend. When I was in the department, I argued for changes in this area but I could not persuade HMRC. The figures may well have altered now and I would not wish to go to the stake on them, but the work that I...

Member
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 July 2008
Reference
703 c1016
House
House of Lords

Perhaps I may say a brief word as one of those who the noble Lord said had been silent on this issue, although that is partly because we will move our own amendment later. I think that there is a genuine problem here and I sympathise with the Minister on...

Member
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 July 2008
Reference
703 c1016
House
House of Lords

At that time, they were almost entirely higher-rate taxpayers because they were the only ones who possessed such sums. Obviously the tax privilege would be considerably less. My estimate is that it would now be between 35 and 50 per cent on average if we included basic-rate taxpayers—for example, the...

Member
Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 July 2008
Reference
703 c1016
House
House of Lords