1/X) Being cynical for a moment, HMT might see the issue with low earners in net pay schemes as a Trojan Horse.

The call for evidence reads as though requiring DC schemes to move to RAS is the policy frontrunner. Why might HMT like that?

2/X) First, while the current tax regime stays in place, some 40% taxpayers moved to RAS may fail to claim their full relief. This could more than outweigh the cost of extra tax relief for non-taxpayers.

3/X) Second, it means the apparatus would be there to move from marginal rate relief to a flat top-up for all DC employer contributions. (Doing this for employer contributions, which account for the majority of relief, would need more work but could follow the same template.)

4/X) This could also pave the way for an acceleration of revenues via a T+EE system -you just make the flat rate top-up smaller in return for not charging tax on the way out.

5/X) They talk about making the RAS shift for DC only. Starting to separate the DB and DC regimes makes it easier to change the latter fundamentally w/o reopening public sector remuneration.

6/6) In the meantime, higher rate taxpayers would move from the simple system in HMT's 1st diagram to the complex system in its 2nd diagram.

Sorry - spotted a typo in the 3rd tweet in this thread. It should say the apparatus would be there to move to a flat top-up on *employee* contributions, with more work needed for *employer* contributions to follow a similar template. Apologies.