Early Retirement - (nearly) one year on

Spreadsheetman

Nullboris wrote: »

jUST MY THOUGHTS

I would advise anyone who is thinking of retiring early (or at all) to try going part time first.
This allows you to keep your hand in and is also a bridge to full retirement.
the beauty is that some pl need a a few years of de-compression, so that full stress can wear off.
Also be wary as sometimes you can be retired early due to ill-health without adequate funds, and have to rely on the VERY generous Gov to support you , till SPA /s

I'm going PT in October this year even though I could afford to stop completely.

I'm not really expecting it to work out though, for one I'm unsure if I will continue to add value to the business if I'm not fully engaged. Also I think once I get a sniff of freedom I won't be able to bear working at all. Likelihood is that I'll stop completely in the following June when the biggest work project I get involved in each year wraps up.

Ganga

MallyGirl wrote: »

That is why I go for unlimited contents. I did the room by room thing and it came to a pretty big number to replace everything.
I go for unlimited buildings as no one knows how much it would be to rebuild. It is not listed but is a detached Victorian house in a conservation area with cellar/coach house at the bottom of the garden/orangery. I know it would be a lot less than it would cost to buy but its valued at a million so I would hope so.
Unlimited option for both aspects means we cannot be under insured (when we remember to renew).

God forbid it ever happens but if the house had a small fire/burst pipe etc it would not touch the other parts ( orangery etc )

MallyGirl

orangery is attached to the house. Coach house would be safe as separate.
Trouble is, if only part of the property is damaged but you have not insured to the full value of the property then they pro rata the payout. Best to be careful.

coyrls

k6chris wrote: »

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/29/tax-homes-treble-labour-plans-land-value-tax/

Not very convincing.......

Further to publication of this article, we have been asked to point out that the land value tax proposals by the Labour Land Campaign (LLC) appeared in a draft document that is not LLC policy, and suggested an introductory rate of 0.85% of land value, only rising to 3% later. We would further clarify that the document is one of many proposals as to how a land value tax could be advantageously implemented to replace unfair, economically inefficient taxes, that the Labour Land Campaign is not affiliated to the Labour Party and that its research does not inform Labour Party policy.

michaels

3% of land value of our home is only 15k, easily affordable on our household pre tax income of 11k

bluenose1

michaels wrote: »

3% of land value of our home is only 15k, easily affordable on our household pre tax income of 11k

I don't think you have to worry.
A Labour spokesman said: "This is desperate nonsense from the Tories. Labour has no such plans."

JoeEngland

coyrls wrote: »

Not very convincing.......

As the old saying goes, the only certain thing in life is death and taxes, and taxes on death.

molerat

No doubt Corbyn & Co will have looked at the Scottish council tax option of increasing the proportion of the charge for higher bands. Something that can hit your planning.

Kevin1984

Thanks for your story mine is very similar. I did something looked upon as risky but doing great. I transferred my DB scheme.
Going great so far but not for everyone but for those who have not drawn DB scheme yet ask an IFA. You can generally get one scheme valuation per year yourself or use IFA (IFA generally needed if you transfer plan) lots of advantages either way so worth considering both options.