Most economists operate their own website and post their articles. Examples include Thomas Palley and Greg Mankiw. This is format I have followed, it is more flexible allowing me to post papers along with blog entries and articles. https://thomaspalley.com/ http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/
It is all my work I have produce the papers. The fact that you can't find that is evidence that the work is mine. The evidence of the works use is that the government has used it and I have letters stating they would use the work. There are direct extractions of my work that have been included in the Pension Tax Manual. Why are they suddenly hitting the economic targets now when previously they hadn't, it all about managing pension saving rates. It is not the universities that publish the papers it is think tanks like the IEA and the ASI who publish papers. The Bank of England would not publish it, it would be the Department of Work and Pensions or the Treasury or the Inland Revenue and the work would be the Pension Tax Manual, which there are direct extractions of my work included in them. If you want to see published article I have written for think tanks see below. These were published at the Adam Smith Institute. http://morganisteconomics.blogspot.com/search/label/Adam Smith Institute This was published at the Institute of Economic Affairs. https://iea.org.uk/blog/salary-sacrifice-–-should-it-be-sacrificed This is the Pension Tax Manual. https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/pensions-tax-manual Below is an extract from my book Modern Applied Macroeconomics 2006 - 2020 by Peter James Rhys Morgan, which puts forward alterations to the Pension Tax Manual. Could the way that pension payments are made be altered to fit in with the new individual pension saving method rather than the current pension system? Details of the 3 methods of claiming tax relief. RPSM 05101310 s191 ‘There are 3 methods by which a member can receive tax relief on their relievable pension contributions. A member may not choose which method of tax relief applies to their contributions; this is determined by the method the pension scheme is allowed to operate under the legislation.’ (Technical Pages: Contributions and tax relief: Member contributions: Methods of claiming tax relief: The different methods). RPSM 05101340 s191 (3) and s191 (4 and 8) [s191(3)] ‘Situation 1 – occupational pension schemes Net pay arrangements may be used if all the following criteria are met The pension scheme is an occupational pension scheme, and The member is an employee of a sponsoring employer of the pension scheme, and All the other contributing scheme members who are employees of the same employer are also receiving tax relief under the net pay arrangement. We expect most occupational schemes will continue to use the net pay arrangements for making member contributions and receiving tax relief. Situation 2 [s191(4 & 8)] Net pay arrangements may be used if the following criteria are met The pension scheme is a public service pension scheme (such as the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme or the Local Government Pension Scheme) or is a marine pilots’ benefit, and The member is an employee. A marine pilots’ benefit fund is A fund established under section 15(1)(i) of the Pilotage Act 1983, or Any scheme supplementing or replacing such a fund.’ (Technical Pages: Contributions and tax relief: Member contributions: Methods of claiming tax relief: Which scheme can use the net pay arrangement). Limitations to current NPAs. The scheme must be occupational. Employee’s can only be entitled to claim Net Pay Arrangements 'NPAs', if they are sponsored by the employer. Also all other members of the scheme are receiving tax relief through this scheme. Changes for practicality. First allow NPAs to be claimed through tax allowance after the individual has paid their National Insurance Contribution 'NIC' (using this method the state pension is not affected through salary reduction), so through receiving a tax allowance (Specific pension tax allowance, CPR or Tax free account) it enables the NPA to be attained without employer’s sponsorship and on an individual basis. Also the individual's salary is not reduced unlike in salary sacrifice schemes so mortgage applications are likely to be more successful. Finally employers do not get the chance to pay less National Insurance Contributions through salary reduction (in salary sacrifice schemes) and then not pass the savings on to employees' pension schemes. RPSM 05101350 (Note that this is only available if individuals are members of occupational pensions or public sector pensions). ‘Which individuals can make contributions under net pay arrangements. Only an individual entitled to tax relief who is Both a member of an occupational pension scheme and an employee of a sponsoring employer for that scheme, or An employee member of a public service pension scheme, or An employee member of the marine pilot’s benefit fund May have their relievable pension contributions relieved through the net pay arrangement. If a third party makes a relievable pension contribution in respect of a member the contribution cannot be paid via the net payment arrangement. Tax relief will be available to the member but by way of a claim – generally through the Self Assessment system. Where relief is given on relievable pension contributions through the net pay arrangement relief may not be given by any other method. A scheme member can only pay contributions to an occupational pension scheme under the net pay arrangement if all the other members who are employees of their employer are also making contributions under the net pay arrangement. An employer can not choose to let one group of employees in a scheme pay contributions under net pay and other group pay contributions under relief at source.’ (Technical Pages: Contributions and tax relief: Member contributions: Methods of claiming tax relief: Individuals who can use net pay arrangements). Changes for availability. Allow anyone to have an NPA, through post NIC but pre income tax pension contributions. Offer a personal allowance to anybody that pays into a private pension scheme. Flaws to this new system When income is lower than pension contributions the needed tax relief cannot be claimed through NPA. This is a problem under the existing system and the current solution is to; RPSM 05101360 s193 (4) States this as a limitation with the current system. It also suggests that the member of the scheme should make a claim to obtain the balance of the tax relief available on the contribution, this is generally done in the annual self-assessment system. ‘Claims for relief where net pay cannot be applied. There may be instances where insufficient relief has been given through the net pay arrangement because The amount of relievable pension contributions paid by a member to one or more pension schemes operating the net pay arrangement in a tax year is more than the employment income they receive from the individual’s sponsoring employer(s) for the tax year It is not possible for the sponsoring employer or employers to deduct the whole amount of the contribution from the individual’s employment income. In these circumstances a member may make a claim to obtain the balance of tax relief available on the contribution, generally via the Self Assessment system.' (Technical Pages: Contributions and tax relief: Member contributions: Methods of claiming tax relief: Claims for relief where net pay cannot be applied).' Since writing this paper the Registered Pension Schemes Manual 'RPSM' has been superseded by the Pensions Tax Manual 'PTM'. The Pensions Tax Manual is available at the UK Inland Revenue's website along with other technical papers including the Employment Income Manual 'EIM', which is the relevant technical paper for Retirement Benefit Schemes.
You are assuming the money they earn is coming from a job. There are many ways people can make income and extending the personal allowance for entering the new methods of generating income can make it more attractive for people to do more trade. Think more about making trade most cost efficient rather than people doing more than one form of employment. Think outside of employment and think about trade and contractual sales. But even if it is the case of people getting a tax break for performing more than one job at lesat they now get the tax break for doing it.
Yes, ok, I can see the benefit when it's not strictly employment but for vast majority, it's likely to be employment, isn't it? Devil's in the details as always.
At least here in the US, any income is taxable and any income stream can have an IRS identification code attached to it. Employed or Self-Employed - doesn't matter one bit to the US government. And the self-employed can have 401K's, Roth IRA's, and other types of DC retirement vehicles. Doesn't matter if you assemble tractors as a UAW member for John Deere or if you're a self-employed fly fishing guide in Montana. If you are a professional sports gambler in Las Vegas there is an IRS code for your work, you have to pay taxes, and you can have a DC retirement vehicle. I'm all for raising the annual contribution cap, btw. They could make it unlimited as far as I'm concerned.
I am trying to make it so there is another system 'D' style economy alongside the existing economic model through secondary or supplementary occupation I call it the 'Echo' economy. If you are interested in it I wrote a paper on my blog morganist economics called the SASI, which puts the model forward, it is in the Supplementary Income page. Below is the Executive Summary. "As an independent freelance macroeconomist, who supports cross party interests in an effort to improve macroeconomic efficiencies, I have provided the following paper, putting forward the suggestion of a Secondary Personal Taxation Allowance for Supplementary Income. I identify limitations in economic growth, wage caps, pay disputes and inflation control, as the main threats to macroeconomic prosperity. I conclude the resolution to 'All' of these limitations is supply side stimulus, preferably, through an expanse in secondary occupation. As macroeconomic control has become constrained taxation exemptions on further work, in addition to existing occupation, 'Supplementary Income', is the most viable option to expand economic output. Cost efficiencies for Supplementary Income, if the primary allowance is matched, range from £2,300 to £4,830, depending on the individual's taxation code and national insurance contributions. The suggestions put forward in this paper offer the possibility of a secondary, 'Free Market', economy of tax free trade or tax free employment. A Secondary Allowance for Supplementary Income, 'SASI', will offer the opportunity to maintain macroeconomic targets. It may also generate a secondary 'System D' style economy, which could support the primary economy through the current difficulties. I recommend the introduction of a Secondary Personal Taxation Allowance for Supplementary Income, equal to the existing Primary Personal Taxation Allowance of £11,500. I also recommend the introduction of a Supplementary Income Co-operative business entity, for large projects."
There are new products they could use to enable pension saving to become a macroeconomic tool. When inflation is high increase pension saving, when the economy needs stimulus pension pump or optimise the pension system. It shouldn't cost anybody anything, although even I think they went too far in the UK with the pension tax relief cuts and I think they made it a bit unfair on high earners. I have since lobbied to make it fairer which seems to have happened. In relation to tax reliefs there is massive potential to stimulate the macro economy through taxation exemptions in the personal allowance for supplementary income. If you are interest in the concept I wrote a paper on my blog morganist economics in the Supplementary Income page. This is the macroeconomic work I want to push next, I need to get economic growth to help resolve the high government debt a new system 'D' style secondary or 'Echo' economy is how I plan to do it. I am in the process of promoting it to Finance Ministers.
1. Good luck getting a welfare state government in a perpetual condition of cash flow deficiency to go along with deferring more taxable income. 2. Sovereign Wealth Funds have had very mixed results to date in terms of native macroeconomic "pumping". I'm using the term "mixed" kindly. To wit: How does the Norway Sovereign Wealth Fund going HUGE into US Tech Companies "pump" the Norwegian economy? Which gets to the core issue: it is naive to think that any sort of investment discretion will be directed to smart well thought out native stimulus. And maybe it shouldn't be: would a pension investment in Jaguar with a mandate to build EV's ultimately be better for the UK national interest than an investment in Tesla? JLR's financial outlook at present is somewhat negative and there is a brisk high yield business in CDS on JLR corporate paper.
Pension Pumping has been used and worked in the UK. In terms of the taxation exemption for supplementary income the anticipation is that people will move into doing other work or trade to gain the taxation exemptions, especially as the existing taxation is so high. This is the reason I think it will work, the high taxes on the existing work will provide a massive incentive for people to look for tax exemptions elsewhere. The opportunity of getting tax free income from further work will drive a desire to produce more output to maximise or compensate their heavily taxed income. The increase in output should lead to supply led economic growth, which is what they want to generate real GDP growth. You are also missing the element of international trade and encouraging investment into a nation. If the new measures offer low taxation for workers, it makes it cheaper to employ people or trade with people this can bring investment or demand for products from abroad. I have done a lot of work on taxation cuts in industries that generate capital goods, this was put forward in Euro Crisis and has been used in the UK it seems to be successful. When trying to attractive investment from abroad you have to look at what will make the country appealing to investors. Lower taxes and making it less expensive to employ people will be an advantage. Government action to free up the economy or develop a new additional economy 'Echo' on top of the existing economy will attract foreign interest, it is a new market that is built on top the existing market. New trade opportunities, new business models, new businesses to invest in, to buy from or that buy from you. There is also an opportunity for the government to develop 'International Commercial Innovation' by patenting new processes.
I am curious where you received your formal training in economics because most of what you propose is just flat out wrong. And please stop taking personal credit for the performance of the UK economy and for Brexit. The idea of "pension pumping' is a nebulous afterglow in the ether as compared to the massive structural systemic taxation issues inherent in the EU and the UK. This is what happens with the VAT and with high income tax rates. I read a paper published by the Milken Institute that estimated the EU shadow underground economy to be valued at $3T. Which sounds ludicrous. https://www.milkenreview.org/articles/the-curse-of-cash The US and Switzerland are thought to have the smallest shadow economies at 7.1 and 7.9% of GDP. There is a common thread among academics that more reliable data is available for the US economy courtesy of the IRS. Apparently EU Countries don't publish the results of tens of thousands of randomized tax audits. The OECD cites figures as high as 17% for VAT non-compliance in the EU. Encouraging workers to take a second job with another company or in another line of work is counterproductive. Second jobs are almost always much lower paying and less skilled than a person's primary occupation. So - it sounds like you're asking an Air Traffic Controller working 40 hours per week to take another less skilled much lower paying job in retail or in hospitality for the privilege of giving a pension manager discretionary investment funds? Have you considered the societal cost of having so many lower paying jobs being reshuffled? Why should an Air Traffic Controller take a second job and his marriage and family life suffer considerably just because he's taxed at an effective rate of 55%-plus? So a pension manager can pump? You're not creating more demand. You're not creating new technology. You're rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. That's simply not realistic nor is it practical. Why not allow that Air Traffic Controller to invest more of his gross pay into a deferred tax structured pension plan of his choice? Let him or her work the career that they have developed expertise and satisfaction in. Governments don't innovate anything. A motivated private sector innovates. Governments applying for Patents on intellectual property generated in the private sector kills off any and all incentives for talented Engineers and Scientists. The Soviet Union had millions of University trained Engineers and Scientists. Literally. They invented the streetlight, the satellite, the laser and the modern computer. Didn't do much with it. And they still felt compelled to undertake industrial espionage on a massive scale in the West. Here's the point: if you value innovation, you don't want the Engineer whose goal in life is to write the specifications to build a fence around a waste settling pond. You want the Engineer who dreams of getting bloody rich by developing a cell phone battery that can be charged, discharged, and recharged ten thousand times. Technology creators and developers require an extensive University research system and an infrastructure path that financially incentivizes Engineers and Scientists. Why does almost everything we touch and do rely upon technology developed in Silicon Valley, California? Because they've found a way to transform clever Engineers and genius Scientists into freaking Billionaires. Silicon Valley has a career path for that. The most innovative private sectors are the ones that encourage risk taking and capital investment in early and new technologies. Encouraging an economy where over-taxed and stressed-out citizens work a second job in order to provide pension managers with surplus discretionary assets stimulates zero technology development. Such a foolish policy would create distortions and further dislocations in the job market and would force full time workers into underemployment or unemployment - and further stressing the public welfare system by encouraging employers to cut full time employees and hire part time employees. It also makes a false assumption that pension asset managers will make investment decisions that are in the best long term interests of the Citizens and of the Nation. The Norwegian and UAE Sovereign Investment funds have plowed a gazillion dollars into US technology Companies. Not noteworthy technology in Oslo or Abu Dhabi. A pension manager is not going to create technology.