Well done George dropping pension changes

wotsthat

What I'd do is set the LTA at £1m but that would be the only restriction. £1m is a good target and I don't see why it matters how people get there whether it be slow and steady or a mad dash nearing retirement. I'd throw the recycling of lump sum payments on the bonfire too - people should get their tax back on all payments.

To prevent !!!! taking I'd say once an income has been drawn (beyond the lump sum) then your tax relief days are over. Currently payments are limited to £10k when income has been drawn but I'm going further.

Not that much is going to happen in the next budget with the referendum coming up.

N1AK

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Thank god sense has prevailed; I'm sure this will be revisited at some point but DC pension. Savers need every bit of help they can get compared with db and public sector schemes - this would IMO have been to the detriment of the young for the benefit of the old.

The rumoured changes would have made no difference to the old as they have already paid in. Given the unsustainable level of government expenditure, and the refusal to ask the old to pay anything towards fixing it, whatever happens instead will invariably be to the detriment of the young.

I think the current system is actually quite good, however I would have no issue with the government limiting the total amount of higher rate tax relief you could earn to say £200,000; by that point you'd have contributed £500k into pensions. You could then either save more after tax, or continue to contribute to pensions but with relief limited to 20%.

Alan_Brown

I'd suggest removing the 25% tax free lump sum would simplify things. There would be no concerns about people recycling pensions, the £10k limit to pensions once they are drawn could be removed and it would promote using pensions for retirement purposes rather than buying luxury goods or paying down debt. Losing a fortune in taxation if people decide to withdraw their whole pension should put most people off from this course of action. The tax rebates are there to encourage people to take care of themselves in retirement, not to have a tax free spending binge.

A maximum percentage of salary contribution should be reinstated. This used to be 15% in the old days and I don't see this being a problem for most people. A lifetime allowance of £500k would be absolutely fine for most people. The figure could increase each year in line with RPI.

Anyone with an income that would provide a pension pot larger than £500k would be able to afford financial advice to invest in more sophisticated retirement strategies anyway.

We should remember the basic purpose of pensions. They are there to provide a retirement income and the state should encourage this for everyone, but only up to the point where a comfortable retirement is achieved. There are plenty of other investment vehicles for non-retirement purposes.

N1AK

wymondham wrote: »

Maybe he realised if he keeps shafting people who save (ie pensions) then they just might not bother anymore...

I think he's smart enough to have considered that considerably earlier than you that said I'm not sure it's the reason he won't do it:
1/ People who can afford to save large pots will still want a secure retirement and thus have a big incentive to save even if the tax benefits vanish.
2/ Even if people didn't bother it wouldn't be his problem as these people wouldn't become dependent on welfare until after they stop working decades after he stops being chancellor.

chucknorris

wotsthat wrote: »

I'd assumed it would just be you and the dog with your wife flying!

I drove down with my son and put up the tent. The next day we drove to the airport to collect wife, daughter and MIL.

I've just noticed your response. We've talked about it, but it isn't ideal, as I said my wife only gets slightly sea sick, but if she flew I don't think they would let me have a 'dog cabin' (where dogs are allowed) as they don't allow you to leave the dog alone in the cabin. When I looked at the kennels on the ship, I decided that I wouldn't want to leave him there, the dogs were constantly barking and seemed quite stressed.

Also the difference between your family travelling and mine is that neither of your party was travelling alone, whereas both of us would be, although of course my dog would be with me.

In fact, when we initially planned to go there, they had not introduced the dog cabins. Our plan was for me to sleep in the kennel in a sleeping bag on the floor next to his kennel cage (which they said I could do), despite having paid for a double cabin (which my wife would have been in). Luckily a couple of months before we went, they introduced dog cabins, it was a god send.

There are two other options, private jet (dogs are allowed in the cabin), but that is too expensive, even if using 'empty legs'. The other option is something that we would consider, paying someone about £1,000 to drive our dog down in our car, and we fly. The only problem that I have with this is that I would have to be able to trust them to look after my dog. A variation on this would be to invite friends to have a (totally) free week's holiday with us, both at the start and at the end of our stay, that would get over the trust issue.