SIPPs and inheritance tax

Albermarle

NottinghamKnight said:

Albermarle said:

Truly the land of milk and honey

It is true that the UK has a very tax friendly regime when it comes to non state pensions, ISA allowances etc . However this very largely mainly  benefits the better off . At least half the country could only dream of being able to put £5k pa in an ISA or pension, never mind £20K /£40K. Also IHT will never be an issue for the vast majority.

On the other side the benefits system is relatively stingy compared to most other West European countries and the NHS , although free, is underfunded.

Regarding pensions being outside the IHT net , it is probably a loophole that will be closed, or partially closed one day .

NHS isn't really underfunded, it's just very inefficient.

HEAJ6319-How-good-is-the-NHS-180625-WEB.pdf (ifs.org.uk)
The last four points in the Key Findings , don't really support that .

NottinghamKnight

It's virtually impossible to get independent data. There is an OECD report from around 15 years ago which is all I could find, excluding teh US then the UK had the second least efficient health system in the developed world, Denmark is worse apparently. Cancer recovery rates are amongst the worst in Europe, but the lack of ability to criticise the NHS is a serious weakness in any improvement, billions wasted on spurious and useless IT projects, and any criticism just gets reflected on politicians rather than the terrible management that is in place, with wages well above anything in most private sector companies. Front line staff are generally very good and not that well paid, nurses certainly, but paying £80k for a middle manager and HR bod just shows how much money is not being used effectively. 

zagfles

NottinghamKnight said:

It's virtually impossible to get independent data. There is an OECD report from around 15 years ago which is all I could find, excluding teh US then the UK had the second least efficient health system in the developed world, Denmark is worse apparently. Cancer recovery rates are amongst the worst in Europe, but the lack of ability to criticise the NHS is a serious weakness in any improvement, billions wasted on spurious and useless IT projects, and any criticism just gets reflected on politicians rather than the terrible management that is in place, with wages well above anything in most private sector companies. Front line staff are generally very good and not that well paid, nurses certainly, but paying £80k for a middle manager and HR bod just shows how much money is not being used effectively. 

Front line staff certainly are well paid in general, that's why there were all the problems with the tapered annual allowance in the NHS for doctors on £150k+ inc pension, and why we have so many foreign staff in the NHS who come here because pay is so much better than in their own country. Even nurses when you account for the value of their pension.

Marcon

Fuzzie said:

Pensions can’t be passed on through your will without being included in your estate for IHT liabilities.
I am no expert on these matters, but the above are my beliefs.

You're right, you aren't an expert - but at least unlike some you've acknowledged that!

Pensions can be passed on through your will without being subject to IHT, provided that payment to the estate is made at the discretion of the trustees/managers of the pension scheme.

Middlestitch

fred246 said:

When I went for my free meeting at Pension Wise the one thing that he went on and on about was that you should put money in a SIPP to avoid inheritance tax. The more I think about it the more I think that a government will just suddenly change the rules. How many people use a SIPP in this way? How safe is it to assume it will work? Can the rules just be changed overnight?

Which is OK if you'd specifically asked about how to minimise IHT in terms of your pension - people normally put money in a SIPP to save for their retirement. Most people would use a paid adviser for a conversation about minimising IHT, because using a SIPP is only one consideration and there are plenty of other ways to do so, some much more efficient and predictable.

Tax rules can be changed at any time, so it would be foolish in the extreme to blindly follow one course without considering others. Nobody here can guess what will happen any more than you can, so a maximum involving the words 'eggs' and 'baskets' could be a handy guideline.

Albermarle

Most people would use a paid adviser

I don't think Fred246 will be taking you up on that suggestion

bermudianmark

NottinghamKnight said:

NHS isn't really underfunded, it's just very inefficient.

I think its both underfunded and very inefficient.

NottinghamKnight

zagfles said:

NottinghamKnight said:

It's virtually impossible to get independent data. There is an OECD report from around 15 years ago which is all I could find, excluding teh US then the UK had the second least efficient health system in the developed world, Denmark is worse apparently. Cancer recovery rates are amongst the worst in Europe, but the lack of ability to criticise the NHS is a serious weakness in any improvement, billions wasted on spurious and useless IT projects, and any criticism just gets reflected on politicians rather than the terrible management that is in place, with wages well above anything in most private sector companies. Front line staff are generally very good and not that well paid, nurses certainly, but paying £80k for a middle manager and HR bod just shows how much money is not being used effectively. 

Front line staff certainly are well paid in general, that's why there were all the problems with the tapered annual allowance in the NHS for doctors on £150k+ inc pension, and why we have so many foreign staff in the NHS who come here because pay is so much better than in their own country. Even nurses when you account for the value of their pension.

Yes, I think doctors are well paid, certainly in comparison with most of the world as that is why we have so many foreign doctors, UK isn't the highest paying country as US and Australia would be higher, maybe Canada and certainly the Middle East. I'd disagree with nurses pay as I think they are often moderately underpaid, though having met with the nurse looking after my mother last year who had the Porsche key ring then maybe not all (yes there was one in the car park). 
My point though was that I don't mind paying a lot for a doctor, I do mind paying high five or even six figures for a manager with minimal qualifications, hr staff etc. My sister in law is an administrator in a South London hospital and whilst she isn't the most dynamic the stories about total ineptitude are quite scary, many staff on full pay whilst being investigated and taking years to get rid of incompetent staff, many of whom just retire. 

NottinghamKnight

bermudianmark said:

NottinghamKnight said:

NHS isn't really underfunded, it's just very inefficient.

I think its both underfunded and very inefficient.

But little point continuing to throw ever increasing billions to solve the first point when the second point exists.

german_keeper

arnoldy said:

bermudianmark said:

NottinghamKnight said:

NHS isn't really underfunded, it's just very inefficient.

I think its both underfunded and very inefficient.

When NHS can afford to give "gender reassignment" to school kids it's hard to believe NHS are short of money. 

I do hope you will reconsider the wisdom of posting such an offensive comment on an albeit obscure Internet forum.