Budget 2017

kidmugsy

jamesd wrote: »

undoing the triple lock would hurt a lot of poorer pensioners.

How so, if it were replaced by a link to earnings on the whole of the (old style) pension?

westv

westv wrote: »

But how would means testing be done if pensioners have a DC pot that they might draw odd amounts from?

Aretnap wrote: »

Same way as they already apply undrawn pension pots to other means testing benefits I imagine - calculate how much income they'd have if they used the pot to buy an annuity today, and then assume that they have that income for the purposes of the means test.

So an inflation linked annuity with income for surviving spouse?
Or the cheap option?

JoeCrystal

Nothing helpful for someone like me toward the retirement provisions. Look like I will have to make the use of that LISAs instead. Looking at the report, it is interesting I think to see a charge on QROPS? Good riddance.

3.46 Qualifying recognised overseas pension schemes (QROPS): introduction of transfer charge – The government will introduce a 25% charge on transfers to QROPS. This charge is targeted at those seeking to reduce the tax payable by moving their pension wealth to another jurisdiction. Exceptions will apply to the charge allowing transfers to be made tax-free where people have a genuine need to transfer their pension, including when the individual and the pension are both located within the European Economic Area.

ScoobyZ

I was hoping for improved tax relief for basic rate tax payers on pensions. Often referred to as the buy two get one free:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/11730761/Welcome-to-Britains-new-world-of-buy-two-get-one-free-pension-saving.html

jamesd

kidmugsy wrote: »

How so, if it were replaced by a link to earnings on the whole of the (old style) pension?

That's still less than the triple lock, though, and the poorer pensioners will be relying on the state pension for most of their income. I still think that the triple lock will be removed once the manifesto pledge expires, the increasing pensioner population will effectively force it.

Sapphire

Can someone please answer a question: what is the issue with the self-employed paying national insurance? This seems like a sensible idea, especially given that those who are not self-employed do pay it.

Whenever I've been freelance, I've always paid national insurance, and I don't know why people are protesting against this (it's possible I'm missing something?). I actually thought pretty much everyone paid it…

kidmugsy

jamesd wrote: »

That's still less than the triple lock, though, and the poorer pensioners will be relying on the state pension for most of their income. I still think that the triple lock will be removed once the manifesto pledge expires, the increasing pensioner population will effectively force it.

But on the additional pension it might well be bigger than CPI-linking.

The articles in the papers suggest that they might justify abandoning the triple lock as a trade-off for keeping pension age lower than it might otherwise be. That would help the working poor, wouldn't it?

jamesd

Sapphire wrote: »

Can someone please answer a question: what is the issue with the self-employed paying national insurance? This seems like a sensible idea, especially given that those who are not self-employed do pay it.

Whenever I've been freelance, I've always paid national insurance, and I don't know why people are protesting against this (it's possible I'm missing something?). I actually thought pretty much everyone paid it…

It is a sensible idea and even with this change the self-employed won't have to pay the 13.8% employer NI cost that an employer has to pay for an employee.

The issue is what the manifesto said, not whether it's a good idea. This government is establishing a reputation for ignoring it's undertakings, as it appears to plan to ignore the manifesto question asked in the EU referendum (leave the EU or not) and manifesto statement about staying in and expanding the single market by instead leaving both.

jamesd

kidmugsy wrote: »

But on the additional pension it might well be bigger than CPI-linking.

The articles in the papers suggest that they might justify abandoning the triple lock as a trade-off for keeping pension age lower than it might otherwise be. That would help the working poor, wouldn't it?

It would usually be better for the additional state pension than CPI.

The additional state pension isn't a large part of the state pension for the poorest pensioners, who tend to be those with patchy working lives so mostly getting the basic state pension and often a dependence on the higher and CPI linked pension credit. Increase BSP and ASP faster than CPI and at the edges what it does is make some worse of by taking them out of PC and the things it enables for those who get it.

The people benefitting most from higher ASP increases would be those with the most full and highest paid working lives who are more likely to not only have the higher state pension which follows from that but also a DB or other pension and savings or investments.

Sapphire

jamesd wrote: »

It is a sensible idea and even with this change the self-employed won't have to pay the 13.8% employer NI cost that an employer has to pay for an employee.

Thank you for the response.