March budget

michaels

chucknorris wrote: »

You are of course right, I know what you are saying makes sense, but I actually like my job, I know I suggested working on until I'm 66, but a significant part of my decision to work on for now, is that my wife who is only 46, still works. She is making noises about retiring in 3.5 years when she is 50, that would trigger my retirement, as her retirement would allow us to go away in the winter.

I am available for adoption if that would help you solve the problem of a lack of dependents.

I have plans for 16/17 so don't want to see changes until 17....

I can see huge short term advantages for the state if it switches to a scheme where you pay tax on income on the way into the pension and don't on the way out and this is the term over which govts think with the election cycle.

It is a double win for the govt, tax now when it is needed (of course it will also be needed in the future but that is somebody else's problem) and if everyone takes all their income and then has to decide to save it it is likely that a lower proportion will be saved so a nice boost to demand.

Another policy I would like to see is a big rise in fuel duty (not too dangerous with such low oil prices and inflation?) with the introduction of a price stailiser mechanism so that as prices increase the tax is cut so that the next big increase in oil prices does not hit the economy as hard.

What else?
I would favour some (4-6 50-100k homes) new towns built on railway lines about 30 minutes travel time into london.
HS2 scrapped and the money spent on driverless car technology
A new runway at LGW with LHR and LGW merged into a single airport via a 10 minutes magnev link.

kinger101

Mistermeaner wrote: »

True but it's still taxable on the way out

Closing the 25% tax free lump sum would be fairer

There needs to be something in it for basic rate taxpayers though. What's the point in getting 20% relief now if basic rate might be 25% when they retire?

I could envisage the lump sum might be axed (or reduced) though because chancellors are short sighted and only care about tax receipts during their own tenure.

Whatever happens, the more they tinker with pensions, the less likely people are to use them to save for their retirement, as the risk that they become broken promises increases.

[Deleted User]

Seems to me that GO needs to do something about savings and debt.

Watching footie just now, so can't be @rsed looking for links but IIRC folk on the forum have been bemoaning a rise in personal debt. This at a time when folk are being permitted (encouraged?) to withdraw large sums from long term pension saving to finance current spending.

At a time of low interest rates on savings, I can understand that folk are reluctant to save, but I can't see how low savings, 'raiding' pension savings and rising personal debt can end well.

I can understand why the Chancer of the Exchequer wants people to spend, as it benefits VAT revenue, but I can't say that the future looks particularly rosy.

WR

wymondham

I predict either:

Pension age will rise to 95 for both male and female and you'll need your parents signature to permit payments....

or

Retirement will become illegal

Thrugelmir

Tromking wrote: »

Hopefully an admittance that making a priority of rationing money for our public services has been a mistake. Osborne seems to be struggling to meet his deficit reduction despite the slash and burn in the public sector.

Costs money to rid an organisation of inefficient and unproductive workers. Redundancy costs are high in the public sector. (Up to 23 months gross pay is far above what those in the private sector receive). As a consequence the savings will take some years to flow through.

mystic_trev

chucknorris wrote: »

I had recently decided to probably work on until my state pension age (66), which would be another 8 years from now, but as they say 'man makes plans and the chancellor laughs'.

Chuck,don't do it. Retire now!

I retired at the ripe old age of 42, nearly 20 years ago, and have never looked back! One thing you'll find as you get older, is that the aches and pains start, probably sooner than expected. I'm still reasonably fit, but could never acheive the level of / type of Traveling I did in my first 15 years of Retirement, backpacking around the World, for much of the Year.

If you can afford it, do it!

mwpt

mystic_trev wrote: »

I retired at the ripe old age of 42, nearly 20 years ago, and have never looked back! One thing you'll find as you get older, is that the aches and pains start, probably sooner than expected.

My aches and pains have already started!

Probably comes from playing rugby all my life.

chucknorris

mystic_trev wrote: »

Chuck,don't do it. Retire now!

I retired at the ripe old age of 42, nearly 20 years ago, and have never looked back! One thing you'll find as you get older, is that the aches and pains start, probably sooner than expected. I'm still reasonably fit, but could never acheive the level of / type of Traveling I did in my first 15 years of Retirement, backpacking around the World, for much of the Year.

If you can afford it, do it!

Don't tell my wife, but I'd miss my dog too much. Only partly true, her outline plan is to retire in less than 4 years, but she is now taking 3 months unpaid leave in the summer every year, I don't do that much work then, so that is the start of testing the water of what retirement will be like.

chiefie

It would be good to see something credible around tax recovery from the big international firms who avoid it

zagfles

chiefie wrote: »

It would be good to see something credible around tax recovery from the big international firms who avoid it

Next you'll want everlasting peace in the middle east

They always try to sort out multinational tax avoiders. But it really needs co-ordinated international action. Not a lot one country can do on their own.