Protecting pensions from politicians - or preparing for a Labour coalition

msallen

stoozie1 wrote: »

I thought it was only those on an £80k salary, with children in private school who would be considerably worse off under the labour proposals?

How wonderfully naive :rotfl:

Triumph13

stoozie1 wrote: »

I thought it was only those on an £80k salary, with children in private school who would be considerably worse off under the labour proposals?

That depends. Are you talking before or after they tank the economy and collapse the tax base ?

hyubh

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

We also both paid into our occupational pensions, they were contributory, not just given to us like some public pensions are.

A strong majority of public sector schemes have always been contributory. Doesn't mean the employee contribution anywhere near actually funded the pension earned.

I do know we are very privileged to have them, but what do you suggest we do, give them up?

I suggest not acting upon hypocritical desires to try and shield your income from the UK taxman. Perhaps just as well a Labour victory is still extremely unlikely, so you won't actually face the question...?

Just to say my husband's Teachers' Pension is actuarily reduced because he took it early due to his health

An actuarial reduction does not somehow reduce the value of the pension package. It's purely to take into account (on a neutral basis) than the pension will be drawn earlier than originally intended.

and I only paid into my Local Government pension for ten years so it is not a huge amount).

And the average LGPS pension is something like £3800, which means absolutely nothing at all (well, apart from the extra admin cost from lots of small pension records to maintain and ultimately pay out). In particular, that you were 'only' a member for a decade doesn't mean you contributed more to your pension, in relative terms, than otherwise.

Spidernick

michaels wrote: »

It is not hard to remember Gordon Brown's first tax raid - his pension tax was one of the big reason that final salary pensions were stopped and many existing schemes are underfunded.

I can't see the much further left Momentum crew not planning something much more draconian - especially as higher taxes for top earners would otherwise see even more incentives for income diversion into pensions. And of course his backers in the public sector unions are protected with the only remaining final salary schemes so a win win for the union barons.

So highly likely is a removal of higher rate tax relief
Also likely is a reduction in the lifetime allowance and no indexation

What else?
The high annual isa allowance could be cut (ordinary people can't save 20k pa) and the lifetime isa helping those who can save doesn't really fit with Labour values.

And what about the tax free lump sum, doesn't seem very progressive so could it he stopped altogether or perhaps capped at say 50k

And if things go badly weong how about the Hungarian example where private pension pots were 'nationalised' i.e. confiscated.

So what is the answer - stuff isas now? Bitcoin and physical gold?!

If you think that the Tories are doing such a good job with those saving for a pension, can I suggest that you take a look at both the Lifetime Allowance and the Annual Allowance in 2010 compared to now!

stoozie1

msallen wrote: »

How wonderfully naive :rotfl:

I acknowledge that. I learn a lot from you all on here.

Thrugelmir

michaels wrote: »

So apart form the IOM which seems like a no-no there doesn't seem to be much people are suggesting.

Enjoy life a little. At the end of the day it's a roll of the dice for all of us. Little point in accumulating wealth you may well never spend. Make a plan for your retirement years. As the years pass you'll be spending less.

seven-day-weekend

hyubh wrote: »

A strong majority of public sector schemes have always been contributory. Doesn't mean the employee contribution anywhere near actually funded the pension earned. Ok..I know that.. But we did pay in



I suggest not acting upon hypocritical desires to try and shield your income from the UK taxman. Perhaps just as well a Labour victory is still extremely unlikely, so you won't actually face the question...? I have no intention of shielding my income from the tax man. I was thinking of putting my savings there,



An actuarial reduction does not somehow reduce the value of the pension package. It's purely to take into account (on a neutral basis) than the pension will be drawn earlier than originally intended. Yes I understand that, but it is still less per month than it otherwise would be



And the average LGPS pension is something like £3800, which means absolutely nothing at all (well, apart from the extra admin cost from lots of small pension records to maintain and ultimately pay out). In particular, that you were 'only' a member for a decade doesn't mean you contributed more to your pension, in relative terms, than otherwise.

I just meant it wasn't a lot of money - £180 pcm to be precise (plus the lump sum).

See my comments in blue above.

atush

Just to say my husband's Teachers' Pension is actuarily reduced because he took it early due to his health

If he retired due to ill health, he should have asked for an early retiral on health grounds and not had it reduced.

atush

michaels wrote: »

So apart form the IOM which seems like a no-no there doesn't seem to be much people are suggesting.

I suggest, use carry forward if available. Use S&S Isa allowance to the full. use savings and dividend allowance on top.

I suggest investing (in your pension or S&S isa) those shares or sectors that will do well if the conservatives are re elected (if you think that will happen). Such as, but not limited to etf currency hedging (ETFs 3x short euro long gbp) and into gold or other US denominated assets if you think labor will win.

thepurplepixie

alewin wrote: »

At the moment you can only keep £23,250 of your savings to pass on if you are in a Care Home.
If the Conservatives win again it will rise to £100K, so hopefully I will be laughing.

Some of the care homes I've seen won't give you much to laugh about.