Citywire for Financial Professionals
Stay connected:

View the article online at http://citywire.co.uk/money/article/a566060

Rich may bear brunt of pensions tax relief cull

The government's plans to scrap higher rate pensions tax relief could be restricted to those earning £150,000 a year or more, according to tax experts.

 
Rich may bear brunt of pensions tax relief cull

Pension tax relief could be restricted to 20% for those earning income of £150,000 or over, rather than penalising all higher rate taxpayers, according to tax experts.

Last week, chief secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander (pictured) said next month’s Budget could include a scrapping of the 40% pension tax relief given to higher rate taxpayers in an effort to save the government money.

Personal allowances given to taxpayers, including tax reliefs and tax credits, are the biggest expenses to the UK government, costing £28.8 billion per year - higher rate pension tax relief costs the government £7 billion each year.

Alexander told The Daily Telegraph: ‘If you look at the amount of money that we spend on pensions tax relief, which is very significant, the majority of that money goes to paying tax relief at the higher rate.’

Richard Mannion, national tax director at Smith & Williamson, said the government would have to be ‘very brave’ to scrap the relief for all higher rate taxpayers and predicted it could water down its plans to target those in the highest rate income bracket of 50% i.e. people earning income of £150,000 or over.

‘If the government was to do something it could restrict relief to 20% [for those paying 50% income tax] –that way they have not lost all the relief,’ he said.

‘The introduction of the 50% tax bracket has really bought attention [to the amount of tax relief being given].’

He noted there would be difficulty in policing tax relief on employer contributions to pensions, which automatically get full tax relief, which the government would then have to claim back from the individual.

‘With schemes paid into by the employer, the 50% tax relief is given so you would need to get the 30% back [from the individual] which could get messy,’ said Mannion.

Mannion warned that too much stripping back of pension benefits would make people reluctant to save and cost the government more in pension tax credits when people retire.

‘We have already seen a lot of reform of pensions – the lifetime allowance and annual allowance were reduced last year. It is already a far less liberal regime,’ he said.

‘Pension tax relief is expensive but if you get rid of it then people will stop saving. If you have this constant change then it will affect the amount of money going into pensions, which affects the amount in the market and affects the economy at a time when we’re trying to boost business.’

41 comments so far. Why not have your say?

sgjhaghsdg

Feb 13, 2012 at 17:50

Do they really intend to have a trigger point, where one penny over £150k means and you have to pay tax on money going into your pension? (Yes, this is what restriction of tax relief means.

They did this a few years ago: a penny of earnings over £130k and you had a "special" pension cap applied with one mighty blow, and the sods back-dated it!

While these measures don't affect many, they do give *everyone* the impression that HMG has declared war on private pensions, which puts everyone off saving.

report this

Jonathan

Feb 13, 2012 at 17:51

It does seem unfair that people paying 20% tax just get 20% relief on contributions and people on 40% get 40% tax relief.

report this

michael johnson

Feb 13, 2012 at 17:59

I suggest that Mr Mannions's comments are entirely self-serving.

All higher rate relief should be scrapped; such a move would only impringe upon the 13% of the working population that pay 40% income tax. Furthermore, consider Generation Y (the under-35’s), with whom the word “pension” does not resonate. The lure of tax relief is insufficient to overcome the aspiration to own a home, the need to repay college debt and the financial myopia of the “spend-now” culture, as well as pension products’ inflexibility. (That said, limited early access, for the sole purpose of home purchase, would help overcome this.)

Another tempting target for the Treasury is pension savings’ 25% tax-free lump sum (at retirement), costing some £2.5 billion per annum. To Generation Y, the prospect of 25% of some distant, uncertain return being free of tax is unlikely to change behaviour in respect of saving within a pensions framework. As an incentive for long-term saving, it is wholly ineffective and should be scrapped.

Subsequently, 20% up-front tax relief should be whittled away entirely (remember mortgage interest relief?) as the next generation places an increasing emphasis on ISAs for their retirement income, built upon a bedrock of income certainty provided by a much higher State Pension. The pensions industry would then need to refocus on delivering high quality asset management of (long-term) savings, the word “pension” having been consigned to history.

report this

RL

Feb 13, 2012 at 18:22

Many of those on £150k plus are probably close to their pension limit so this is soak the rich whilst just giving them a light spray. Nevertheless this is good for the housing market. Where else to get tax free gains?.... now there's a thought!

report this

sgjhaghsdg

Feb 13, 2012 at 18:27

@jonathan - It's not really unfair if you think about it. Pensions contributions are taken out before tax, and you then get taxed when you draw your pension.

Given the complex web of regulations regards how early you can draw on YOUR pensions savings, how fast you can draw them, and how they get taxed if you die before drawing everything, any further regulations regards taxing contributions or taxing lump sums with be the end of private pensions.

Future generations would then have to pick up the bill both for those in the public sector (gold-plated pensions) and the public sector (only state handouts due to onerous taxation and regulation).

report this

DP

Feb 13, 2012 at 18:39

£150k in London is not that much and the suggestion that it means that the person can cope with getting shafted left right and centre by the pathetic Lib Dem influence on the coalition is nonsense. I have three kids and commute in from Hertfordshire (£4k post tax just for that privilege) - and my pension pot is small !! Stop taxing those who get of their arses and make a success of things - that is the politics of envy and is why this country lacks any sort of aspiration. I paid £100k in tax last year - just to make life comfortable for the scroungers and work shy, soap shy waste of space majority. GET A JOB !!

report this

michael johnson

Feb 13, 2012 at 18:46

The deferred tax defense offered by those with vested interests in the pensions industry is a nonsense. Only 1 in 7 who pay 40% whilst working (collecting 40% relief) ever pay 40% income tax in retirement. Thus tax relief is a bad deal for the Treasury (40% out, mostly 20% back in). Furthermore, arguably, the wealthy do not need such an incentive to save, and even if it were deemed appropriate to reduce their tax burden, why not democratise the benefit and simply cut the higher rate of income tax?

But before savaging tax relief, its purpose should be debated. Many would accept that it is, ultimately, to reduce pensioner poverty, by encouraging more long-term saving. Then why not put an end to it and boost the basic state pension (costing some £51 billion) by roughly 60 per cent? That would be beautifully simple and, crucially, politically appealing, the beneficiaries (future pensioners) far outnumbering the recipients of tax relief. Furthermore, such a move would catalyse a virtuous circle, because the cost of Pension Credit (more than £8 billion, annually) would fall significantly. A saving in administration costs should also emerge, releasing yet more funds.

report this

Sinic

Feb 13, 2012 at 19:01

There is no moral justification for giving higher rate tax relief on pension contributions to higher rate tax payers. However you can hardly blame those of us who have used it as a legitimate means to mitigate our tax burdens. I am surprised the concession has lasted as long as it has. Mind you the government may cave in on private sector pension regulation the way they appear to be doing on wholly unsustainable, unfunded gold-plated, index-linked public sector pensions. To suggest that high earners will cease to plan and contribute towards their own comfortable retirement because tax concessions are reduced from 40/50% to 20% is ridiculous. It may not be through conventional pension funds but the outcome will be the same.

report this

Jonathan

Feb 13, 2012 at 19:01

sgjhaghsdg

The chances are that most people earning say £48k will only pay 20% income tax when they take their pension so they are in effect getting 20% saving on tax overall. So they are in the end getting a much bigger saving than someone who only pays 20% tax an contributes to their pension..

report this

Tortoise

Feb 13, 2012 at 19:18

My response to Mr Johnson is to point out that if the government takes away relief at 40% it will have to totally revise how pension receipts are taxed. As already stated, tax relief is largely recovered by taxing the return of your own money as income. The government will have to restrict the taxation of pensions to just the 20% limit and remove it from total income when calculating the age related allowance clawback. Technichal stuff, but as a tax accountant I am convinced that thegovernment does very well out of private pensions.

What should also be borne in mind is that the 28 billion a year so called cost of tax relief is primarily the cost of public sector pension relief. Last year, according to the ONS (pensions sheet 7.3) TOTAL investment into private pensions INCLUDING company contributions was about £18 billion of which the total relief could not have been more than 6billion. As stated, most of this is recovered later and the government also makes about £10 billion p.a by ultinmately taxing accumulated pension dividends at 20% rather than the normal dividend rate of 10% with a 10% tax credit.

All this will come under the spotlight if it rocks the boat too far. I do not think that Mr Alexander, Mr Cable and the rest of the liberals have the wit to work this out.

report this

James Burn

Feb 13, 2012 at 19:42

Another issue is how to tax final (or average) salary schemes. Although it is true that most people on these earn less than £150k, someone who gets a salary increase and after the increase gets a salary of above £150k will end up with a tax bill that year larger than the increase!

report this

michael johnson

Feb 13, 2012 at 20:34

Mr. Tortoise; I agree with you ref capping pensioner income tax at 20%, irrespective of income. I proposed this in June 2010 (see Simplification is the key, CPS), to accompany the introduction of 20% relief for all, thereby retaining higher earners' interest in pensions. Ref your public sector stats, bear in mind that employee contriutions are so low (e.g. Principal Civil Service scheme, at 1.5% or 3.5%) that their tax relief is tiny. ONS stats are seriously flawed; they exclude all SIPPs, for example. See Ch 8 Pensions Trends, table 8.13 for latest data (which also exclude SIPPs).

report this

Rob Morrison

Feb 13, 2012 at 22:04

Slippery slope for future tax payers to cover retirees lack of pension income, which is undoubtedly the outcome of successive governments taking more & more from pension provision incentives i.e. tax relief. There used to be the accepted approach from HMRC that monies into pensions were tax free & tax was paid on pension receipts. Now it's tax in & out. Understand why tax payers need to provide more revenue to Goverment coffers, as currently we are not meeting government spends needs. However ,I suspect in 20 - 30 years time, the increased taxation being applied today to pension input receipts, will rebound on the lack of pensioner wealth & therefore the increased need for state support.

Hey ho. What Minister in position today, will have any responsiblility 20 years hense for his/her poor judgement? . Example..........Brown removing tax credits on share dividends from pension investments. How has got away with this travesty??? . Where is he now & what can we do to redress the imbalance........nothing! Brown is an excellent example of how a politian just steps off the podium when they have no further interest in the process, or more importanlty culpability.

report this

Gary Herd via mobile

Feb 13, 2012 at 22:23

‘If you look at the amount of money that we spend on pensions'...Expenses...costing the government!

Erm, hello. Spend - you mean don't take. Are they so detached they forget this is people's hard earned money?

Agree relief looks unjust, but the language from these people is telling.

report this

John Moret

Feb 13, 2012 at 22:32

An interesting trail. Michael J is in the vanguard of pensions reform(abolition?) and makes many valid comments.Specifically on the tax relief down to contributions to SIPPs I'd be very surprised if this amounted to more than a £1bn p.a. The total SIPP market is valued at c £110bn and this has built up over 20 years -albeit with accelerated growth in recent years. However a large proportion -my guestimate is c 60/70% - of those funds arise from transfers from other pension schemes so there is no ongoing contribution relief on these funds.

In my view there is no question that the current tax incentives for pensions savings are economically unsustainable. There is also an inconsistency in approach to the tax reliefs for short term and long term savings - leading to confusion, apathy and anomalies such as the tax free lump sum at "retirement". An integrated approach to savings is needed - which is why I proposed several years ago that there should be a "savings authority" - independent of government but accountable to them - who should be responsible for designing and maintaining a sustainable long term savings regime. Without this there will always be concern that the "pensions/savings" promise will be subject to political interference - and more and more members of the public will jettison savings completely -with huge consequences for future generations.

Tinkering with higher rate pensions tax relief will do nothing to solve the fundamental problems.

report this

william saunders

Feb 13, 2012 at 23:03

If the government makes saving for a pension unattractive and people save in an ISA instead how long before they hit them?Encouraging saving is not a political priority as evidenced by the abysmally low interest rates on savings and the withdrawal of index-linked savings certificates.

report this

Reader61

Feb 13, 2012 at 23:38

They have the cheek to say higher rate tax exemptions are unaffordable yet they totally ignore the vast cost of their own final salary, gold plated schemes from secure jobs. If they did a little less well out of the public purse then anyone enterprenurial enough to be in the higher tax bracket would be left alone instead of taxed until the pips squeak.

report this

thinblackduke

Feb 14, 2012 at 02:26

Why are there different tax tiers anyway? Everyone paying exactly the same percentage would actually be fair because you automatically pay more, the more you earn. It would be considered ridiculous if we had two pricing tiers for food or fuel etc but that's the same as having twice as much tax deducted from your income. High earners not only pay more in tax, they also get less in the way of any benefits. Tax relief on pensions is actually the only benefit that comes their way!

report this

Tony Peterson

Feb 14, 2012 at 08:29

If you take the tax bribe to save in a pension plan you need your head examining, no matter what rate of tax you pay.

Once you have accepted the relief you will be burgled by future governments, if not present ones; and when you retire you will be offered a crap annuity which will shrivel with inflation, and any remaining capital will disappear when you die.

report this

Phil Pearson

Feb 14, 2012 at 09:29

The language from the Treasury is awful - they don't spend this releif, it's my money and they simply don't tax it, until I retire, when they will tax it.

Civil servants convenienetly ignore their own gold plated pensions whilst taxing the rest of us. Key problem is that we still act as a global superpower, starting wars in numerous countries, whilst we cannot afford it. Time to rein in all government expenditure but encourage hard working private sector workers to grow the economy, by letting us keep the small tax releifs that we currently have. More taxes = less consumption = less economy growth

report this

bigand

Feb 14, 2012 at 09:31

Pension is supposedly deferred wages, I pay no tax now and I pay tax when I take it out at the other end. If a 40% taxpayer gets taxed at 20% (i.e. only 20% relief) when they put the money in and then taxed at 20% when they take the money out. That’s 40% tax on the money – so I might as well pay 40% tax in the first place and put it in an ISA and pay no tax when I take it out.

Anyone who manages to pay enough into a pension to pay 40% tax when they take it out will by the same logic have paid 60% tax on the money – so they would be mad to put it in a pension.

Doing this will be a massive dent in the pensions industry.

report this

george_the_third

Feb 14, 2012 at 09:58

Bigand is right - so-called tax relief on pension contributions is part of the principle of "no double taxation."

There would be some sense in restricting 20% tax relief to the contributions liable to be taxed at the lower rate when returned at a later date as a pension.

Given the pathetically small annuity rates now available, and the adverse effects on pension pots of the Brown Raid, only the very highest earners would be liable to higher rate tax on their pensions.

So it would be logical to give only 20% tax relief for most people, but allow higher rate tax relief for the wealthiest. It all depends on what you mean by "fairness."

report this

Jonathan

Feb 14, 2012 at 10:28

bigand,

I detect your argument has some self interest, on the same basis why should someone who pays 20% tax put in any money when the may well pay 20% when they take their pension?

Although there may be "dent to the pensions industry", the money people don't put in pensions will go somewhere else (it has to) so other industries will do better from it (it's a zero sum game).

To me it seems much fairer to give everyone the same reduction (20%) on their contributions to pensions whether or not they pay higher rate tax.

report this

thinblackduke

Feb 14, 2012 at 10:44

Tax relief has to be given at the rate you've already been taxed on or it's totally unfair! If a standard rate tax payer earns £100 gross, the government takes £20 and that person has £80 left they can put in their pension. If a high rate tax payer earns £100 gross, the government takes £40 and that person only has £60 that they can put in their pension. Clearly it would be unfair, if both were not given tax relief at their prevailing rate, so that they can both put £100 into their pension.

report this

bigand

Feb 14, 2012 at 11:37

Jonathan,

Of course self interest, just like all the people who want to see higher rate tax relief removed because it does not affect them – that is the same self interest.

There is a concerted effort in the press and by government to try and turn people against higher rate tax relief so they can gobble it up in another tax take. To blissfully waste it in bureaucracy and self serving inefficient public spending.

If they want to save money when considering the benefits bill is greater than the entire income tax take, never mind the benefits capped at £26K, cap it at minimum wage (apart from the properly ill) then if you want more go get a job. Stop rewarding the feckless for having more babies….don’t get me started. The Squeezed middle won’t riot and complain they just work harder…. rant … no just let me pay more tax to fund garbage……

report this

Jonathan

Feb 14, 2012 at 11:47

thinblackduke

I can see nothing intrinsically unfair about giving everyone a maximum of 20% tax relief on pension contributions. One could equally that it is unfair that someone gets 40% tax relief and someone else get 20% when there is a good chance that both will pay just 20% tax when they take their pension, so wone would save 20% the other nothing. Also, there is no law that says tax must be fair, for example, look at stamp duty, if you pay an extra £1 for a property paying £250,001 instead of £250,000 you will pay an additional £5,000 tax.

report this

Jonathan

Feb 14, 2012 at 12:04

bigand

I don't disagree but cutting in just one place won't fix the country's problems as

economist Nouriel Roubini noted: "When governments reach the point where they are borrowing to pay the interest on their borrowing they are coming dangerously close to running a sovereign Ponzi scheme. Ponzi schemes have a way of ending unhappily. To get out of the Ponzi trap, governments will have to increase tax revenues, or cut spending, or monetize the debt--or most likely do some combination of all three."

And yes, I too find it shocking that there is any argument at all about the limit on benefits to a household on being reduced to the average household take home pay of £26k.

report this

Graham Barlow

Feb 14, 2012 at 12:18

I warn all of you saving for a pension when you get there like me ,the income from your pension is taxed at exactly the same as if you are working. The only concession is the age allowance which is phased out completely on income over £27000 p.a. There are millions of pensioners who saved hard for their pensions in my case a third of my income over the last 10 years at work. My reward for not being a burden on the state is to pay 40% Tax over a measley £35000 pa I looked upon the Tax relief on my pensions savings as merely a postponement of Tax until I started to draw the Pension.. They are now clawing back exactly the relief I was entitled to on saving. Now if I only got 20% relief I would not have saved ,only to pay 40% Tax on the income. You will be paying Tax twice. You will be saving at 21% and paying Tax at 40% or even 50% if your pension is as big as Goodwin's. The whole thing is a racket, it is confiscatory on hardwork thriftyness and responsibility. The fiscal folly of useless Politicians like Brown and Balls ,and now perpetuated in these jumped up nobodies like Alexander and Cable will come to haunt Briotain. I thank God I saved under Thatcher and Major at least we got a fair deal. This isnt it is grievance and envy brigade.

report this

S-ville

Feb 14, 2012 at 12:27

thinblackduke argues for a flat rate tax. Fine - just as long as every tax is the same rate (income, corporation, inheritance, capital gains), and everything gets taxed with no exemptions, thresholds or taper relief. So you pay a flat rate tax on everything - inherited (unearned) wealth, dividends, the lot.

Otherwise it's not a flat rate tax at all - those with decent tax advisers, or those who have the means to do it, will shift their resources around so they reduce their bill at the expense of the rest of us, so a 'flat rate' tax simply becomes a tax reduction for those in the higher bracket.

By all means, lets have a flat rate tax debate, but make sure it's an honest one.

report this

Jonathan

Feb 14, 2012 at 12:38

Graham,

I don't understand why you are paying 40% tax on a pension of £35k? When the tax limit for 40% is about £44k.?

report this

thinblackduke

Feb 14, 2012 at 12:48

jonathan

Do you think it's fair that those that had 20% of their gross taken away, get 20% back, whereas those that lost 40% only get 20% back? If 40% payers only get 20% relief, shouldn't 20% payers only get 10%?

As long as we have different rates of taxation, there will always be arguments and people trying to get round the higher rates. Everyone would understand a flat rate for everything and everyone would contribute a fair share.

report this

Jonathan

Feb 14, 2012 at 13:27

thinblackduke

Maybe, that's another way of increasing revenue it and would seem a way of keeping the current imbalance in contributions by just halving everyone's relief. But then people saving 10% tax on contributions would probably end up paying 20% when they draw it. Whereas most people getting 40% relief probably pay only 20% on their pension so still save overall.

report this

Andrew McDonald

Feb 14, 2012 at 13:30

Can we please get this clear, the government is not "spending on pensions tax relief" as the ginger (lib dem) nut would have us believe but providing an incentive to save over the long term.

The government needs to cut spending rather than keep trying to find ways of increasing the tax take. Remember what Gordon Brown did with to the pensions industry.....

report this

Tony Peterson

Feb 14, 2012 at 13:31

Lets get some serious probabilities onto this.

Most (but not all) us get old. (I am already).

All of us are going to die.

By my reckoning 90 - 99% of those on their deathbed (assuming their computational skills are still functioning), will repent of ever taking the tax bribe by buying into any pension plan (you've not got any of it to pass on).

And at least 80% of you will not have received back all of the real (inflation adjusted) contributions that you made.

The providers have got your tax breaks, and what is left of your capital.

Pensions are for gullible suckers. Mind you, as a gullible sucker you were important to keep the show on the road.

report this

Graham Barlow

Feb 14, 2012 at 14:37

£34500 approx Taxable at standard rate everything over 40% Tax , complete loss of age allowance as gross income over £27000. I pay aprox £11000 p.a Tax on an income of less than $50000 p.a. pension income. I am a widower and get no married man's allowance. Basically after a lifetimes work they still have the shirt off your back . The other aspect they all forget conveniently is that Pensioners are living longer and longer and the amount of Tax you are paying far exceeds any Pension contribution relief. I would love to discuss this with these nincompoops, but they would run a mile.

report this

Jonathan

Feb 14, 2012 at 15:49

Graham

Are you saying you don't get a personal tax allowance like everyone else when you retire that you add onto the allowance where you need to earn £44k before you pay 40%?

report this

Tony Peterson

Feb 14, 2012 at 15:57

Jonathan

Graham, once his age allowance is clawed back, gets only the same tax free allowance as those below pension age. The top margin of his income (presume he meant pounds not dollars) will be taxed at 40%.

report this

Jonathan

Feb 14, 2012 at 16:07

That's what I thought, so he does only pay tax at 40% on income over £44k not £35k as he said?

report this

sgjhaghsdg

Feb 14, 2012 at 16:20

If you use drawdown, and you would be only a few £k into 40% tax, you can defer your state pension for a few years. When you then take the "backlog" of SP, you ensure that your drawdown for the year is just within the age related allowance, and the tax on the backlog is then zero. This is because pulling down deferred SP doesn't push you into higher tax brackets of affect age related personal allowances. It's probably only worth doing this for few years, and then spend a year of your life living tax free.

report this

Sinic

Feb 15, 2012 at 11:58

Not renowned for being indecisive among my personal circle I do find myself vacillating from one view to the other on this issue. If you believe in a mixed economy or welfare capitalism as I do, you accept the principle of those who have more paying proportionally more into the communal pot. The principle falls down in practice as our hard taxed incomes are routinely wasted by profligate governments, and it is not those in need who deserve support who receive it, but those who, with no shame or personal sense of responsibility, milk the system.

Moving away from higher rate pension tax relief for a moment, any moderately well off couple who have routinely used their PEP/ISA allowances will by now, with only moderate success have a pot worth around £600k, the income from which is not subject to income tax at the point of payment, nor higher rate tax at all. Equally the same couple are able to enjoy capital gains tax relief on the first £10.6k of capital gains this year. This sum can be conveniently invested in this years ISA to yield a tax efficient income, or used as tax free income. The relatively worse off have never had the opportunity to build up the wealth which yields these tax concessions, and are often not in the position to contribute meaningful amounts into their savings anyway, let alone with 40% tax concessions. Our well off couple above are in the position, if they so choose, of enjoying a income of some £70/£80k per annum with no income tax to pay before they receive a penny from their pensions. I suspect very few pensioners from the supposedly squeezed middle will ever pay much tax at 40%, even if they received relief at this level. As for the very wealthy they have myriad solutions to mitigate their tax obligations and hardly need 40% tax relief to save for their retirement.

report this

chris robinson

Feb 15, 2012 at 14:57

It might seem a semantic point but tax relief (at any level) doesn't 'cost' anything; it simply means the taxpayer keeps more of what they earn with the government taking less.

there is an important technical issue relating to employer contributions to DB (aka final salary schemes); these are often well in excess of 20% of salary (in the Local Govt Pension scheme they are well north of that I understand) - but the actual figure is undisclosed certainly at an individual level. So, if this relief is reduced, it further widens the already substantial disparity between the lucky few (mainlypublic sector now) in final salary schemes and the majority in DC schemes.

the cynic in me says this is why the dear old civil servants and politicians like it so much.

report this

leave a comment

Please sign in here or register here to comment. It is free to register and only takes a minute or two.

News sponsored by:

The Citywire Guide to Investment Trusts


In this guide to investment trusts, produced in association with Aberdeen Asset Management, we spoke to many of the leading experts in the field to find out more.

Watch Now

Today's articles

Tools from Citywire Money

From the Forums

+ Start a new discussion

Weekly email from The Lolly

Get simple, easy ways to make more from your money. Just enter your email address below

An error occured while subscribing your email. Please try again later.

Thank you for registering for your weekly newsletter from The Lolly.

Keep an eye out for us in your inbox, and please add noreply@emails.citywire.co.uk to your safe senders list so we don't get junked.

Read more...

The Accumulator: FTSE see-saws on trade war fears

by Michelle McGagh on Jun 22, 2018 at 14:57

Sorry, this link is not
quite ready yet