Unless you intend to die penniless

zagfles

coastline wrote: »

Its mentioned as revenue raised in "Other" early on in the figures and page 38 way lower down. Basically saying a reverse of recent changes .

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Funding-Real-Change.pdf

Based on this report.

https://www.ippr.org/research/publications/a-wealth-of-difference

https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/01/labour-tax-plan-could-stop-parents-passing-on-homes-to-kids-10095642/

If it includes homes then there's not many under £125,000 ? Basically hitting millions of Labour voters.

It's on the recipient, so eg if a £500k house house was left to 4 kids equally they could get £125k tax free. But then if they got other inheritances or gifts they'd be taxed on them, as it's a lifetime allowance.

It's not the daftest of their policies, I have to admit. But it will go down about as well as the Tories "dementia tax", which also wasn't a daft policy, it was just spun that way.

[Deleted User]

A couple of tenuous links above.

the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr) is just a think tank and the metro is owned by the same guy who owns the Daily Mail.

So, back to the question zagfles: Is it ok to tax inherited pensions but not houses, and why?

melanzana

Seems to me that to just spend and enjoy whilst alive is a timing thing, as others have mentioned. Can't just live in penury in the last years of my life either, nope not going to do that.

So any suggestions? I have no dependents and myself and OH are reasonably comfortably off. Never be rich and don't want to be either but happy with our lot. There is only so much you can spend per annum on yourself really, then it becomes boring and normal if you get me.

I suppose we are doing what we want, leave a sum in an account for the will disbursements. And then just go and do a bungee jump somewhere. LOL.

Timing is everything. I reckon many are terrified of ending up in a place we don't want to be in if the worst happens. But denying ourselves everything "just in case" is also a pain.

I just dunno.

Thrugelmir

melanzana wrote: »

So any suggestions? I have no dependents and myself and OH are reasonably comfortably off. Never be rich and don't want to be either but happy with our lot. There is only so much you can spend per annum on yourself really, then it becomes boring and normal if you get me.

Plant trees. Support others in less fortunate circumstances. Life is equally about giving as it is taking. Nor does it require extreme socialism to create a better culture in which to live.

melanzana

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Plant trees. Support others in less fortunate circumstances. Life is equally about giving as it is taking.

Yes we do things like that too. Not trying to sound like the great "I am" either, but I take your point.

It is a timing thing I reckon. With an eye to what may (or may not) happen I suppose.

Anyway I am very thankful to be able to ponder this.

[Deleted User]

A Labour spokesman asserted the plan is not currently part of their official policy.


Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/01/labour-tax-plan-could-stop-parents-passing-on-homes-to-kids-10095642/?ito=cbshare

Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/

Just to counter some links above.

In any case, unless you plan to die within the next five years, you shouldn't let the scaremongering affect your planning.

zagfles

ZingPowZing wrote: »

A Labour spokesman asserted the plan is not currently part of their official policy.


Read more: https://metro.co.uk/2019/07/01/labour-tax-plan-could-stop-parents-passing-on-homes-to-kids-10095642/?ito=cbshare

Twitter: https://twitter.com/MetroUK | Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MetroUK/

Just to counter some links above.

In any case, unless you plan to die within the next five years, you shouldn't let the scaremongering affect your planning.

What's the next 5 years got to do with anything?

zagfles

ZingPowZing wrote: »

A couple of tenuous links above.

the Institute for Public Policy Research (ippr) is just a think tank and the metro is owned by the same guy who owns the Daily Mail.

So, back to the question zagfles: Is it ok to tax inherited pensions but not houses, and why?

Err...see above, like I said before. Or do you think the costing document on Labour's official site is a "tenuous link" too?

It says they will reverse George Osbourne's cuts to IHT, which are basically the property allowance. And other than that, property counts towards the IHT threshold like all other (non pension) wealth.

bostonerimus

Audaxer wrote: »

bostonerimus, I know from previous posts that you have grown a significant pot over the last 30 years. Was it never your intention to spend any of that on yourself?

I bought my rental property back in 1997 and planned to use the rent to relieve some of the pressure on my DC pots. But I was still expecting to withdraw DC money at a low level to make ends meet. However, in 2004 I took a government job with both DC and DB pensions and by 2014 the mortgage was paid off and I realised that the rent and the DB pension would easily cover my retirement income needs with a few thousand left over each year. Since retiring in 2014 I've lived off the rent and DB pension and I also do some consulting and I put that money into a self employed pension and regular investments. Combine that with a fairly aggressive 75% stock portfolio and the pots just keep growing....there has to be a fall coming soon;). So things are pretty much on autopilot as my day to day spending would not need to change if I stopped the part time consulting or if the markets dropped by 50%. Additionally, in the mid 2020s I will start getting US and UK state pensions which together should add another $40k per year.

I will probably spend some of the DC money on myself, but it will be on large items rather than day to day living expenses and I will plan it along with gifts to relatives and charities. In fact I am trying to reduce my DC pots to avoid IHT so it would be good to die penniless having given it all away.

Dox

ZingPowZing wrote: »

Preserving your pension in a SIPP and living off your investments seems a pretty tax-efficient way of passing on your inheritance. Yet, this consideration never seems to cross the transom of financial advisers. Why?
Is it that advisers compartmentalise advice so that a pension transfer specialist will not tread on the toes of an IHT specialist?
The biggest sum most people have to deal with is their legacy.

I wrested a DB pension into a SIPP. Since I will never draw on it, it can grow up to its limit in a tax-sheltered environment, which I can hand down.
What's not to like?

What's not to like? Not having any cash to live on if you are neurotically sheltering your pension in a SIPP just so you can pass it on...