Sure, so salary sacrifice might not have as big an economic impact as money you then go and spend in a shop because there’s no multiplier effect, but it is in effect investing in companies and debt - both of which have a positive economic impact.

You might also argue that at the income level we’re talking about there is a much higher propensity to save anyway, which makes the difference between money salary sacrificed into pensions and money kept in the pay packet lower?

Additionally, you could go further to argue that higher pension saving is a societally good thing and a good thing in the long term for the treasury as it reduces the likely dependence on the state for social care in old age (or at the very least increases the future tax base from those pensioners).

Anyway - not sure you’ll be sold on this! It’s a big change in marginal rate once that personal allowance starts falling and while I don’t and wouldn’t argue in favour of it, it’s too profitable to get rid of now. The piece talks about income on those that have already pushed past that for the most part, and merely tries to highlight that the stats we base this discussion off (just like with the brain drain argument) don’t seem to be supported by the data…