LTA

Albermarle

 However, pension investors and pensioners will surely speculate about the measures a Labour Government would take.

'Speculate' being the critical word in this sentence.

RogerPensionGuy

This last year, I have seen Labour be more clearer about stuff it may or maybe no do if they take power and it's looking 95% like they will take over.

Unfortunately they haven't reversed their comments last match 2023 about the LTA. 

I think government feels prudent pensioners are low hanging fruit and unfortunately there are big debts and big ongoing spending needs, but so I feel this low fruit will be getting picked soon. 

Unfortunately I am just activating a nice DB scheme maybe a few years before I ideally wanted on balance because of the Labour threat.

A consequence of activation of my DB, 40% income tax and the MPAA, I have joined the unemployed masses and my employment sector is very low on people like me, this all because they cannot stop tinkering with pensions.

The latest NI cuts show pensioners are being treated as low hanging fruit.

It will be interesting to see what negative pension changes Labour make and how quick they do it. 

Tommyjw

RogerPensionGuy said:

This last year, I have seen Labour be more clearer about stuff it may or maybe no do if they take power and it's looking 95% like they will take over.

Unfortunately they haven't reversed their comments last match 2023 about the LTA. 

I think government feels prudent pensioners are low hanging fruit and unfortunately there are big debts and big ongoing spending needs, but so I feel this low fruit will be getting picked soon. 

Unfortunately I am just activating a nice DB scheme maybe a few years before I ideally wanted on balance because of the Labour threat.

A consequence of activation of my DB, 40% income tax and the MPAA, I have joined the unemployed masses and my employment sector is very low on people like me, this all because they cannot stop tinkering with pensions.

The latest NI cuts show pensioners are being treated as low hanging fruit.

It will be interesting to see what negative pension changes Labour make and how quick they do it. 

Seems very odd to make decisions off of completely imaginary scenarios then blame people who have yet to make these completely imaginary changes.

Hoenir

RogerPensionGuy said:

The latest NI cuts show pensioners are being treated as low hanging fruit.

Another reason why "what if" scenarios end up going round in endlessly circles. As people focus on the micro, i.e. what matters to them. Rather than the macro, what's best for the entire UK economy.  

RogerPensionGuy

I feel making decisions on today's rules are perfectly okay.

However pensions span maybe ages 18 to 68 or more likely 71ish I suspect in the future. 

That's about 50 years of so called doing the right thing and that's great for individuals and indeed our society etc. 

The above is much better suited to super stability, but unfortunately these last 17 years various governments have kept adjusting too much pension stuff and I feel more luck than planning. 

Labour haven't rolled back on their comments on LTA, but they have rolled back on other comments. 

So it's not unreasonable to personally plan for possibles and I've decided to act positively on my pensions because of governments tinkering and in doing so I have joined the unemployed masses prematurely. 

If governments keep flipping rules on pensions they shouldn't be surprised what people do. 

I feel like buying a meal, bike or car the rules can change, I can juggle stuff about like the way diesel cars have been treated these last 6 or 7 years, looks like battery EV cars may get the diesel treatment these next 6/7 years and lets not forget petrol cars cause more global warming than diesels, so power for cars is looking very fluid.

Sorry for drift away, but I feel very strongly pensions are not to be treated like football goal posts on wheels. 

EdSwippet

RogerPensionGuy said:

So it's not unreasonable to personally plan for possibles and I've decided to act positively on my pensions because of governments tinkering and in doing so I have joined the unemployed masses prematurely. 

If governments keep flipping rules on pensions they shouldn't be surprised what people do. 

A few years ago I retired four years earlier than planned because my pensions hit the about-to-be-slashed-again LTA. Fixed protection 2016, and then out. Carefully considered, over a year of analysis and modelling led up to it. For me this was an entirely rational move, given my financial circumstances.

Absolutely no regrets. A net win for me (micro), and a net loss for the UK economy (macro). I am a walking example of the type of problem the LTA created. Regardless of your political view, it seems like there should at least be some agreement on the incontrovertible fact that poorly thought out policy and chronic short-termism generates bad economic outcomes.

For what it's worth, over the years successive Conservative chancellors have been considerably worse for pensions than previous Labour ones. Although, neither party is to be trusted. A plague on both their houses.

Pat38493

Tommyjw said:Seems very odd to make decisions off of completely imaginary scenarios then blame people who have yet to make these completely imaginary changes.

eh what?   No not odd - it seems to me that this is official UK govt policy on just about everything    However don't forget to blame the people for other things that happened in the past that had nothing to do with them.

JoeCrystal

RogerPensionGuy said:

Sorry for drift away, but I feel very strongly pensions are not to be treated like football goal posts on wheels. 

However, improving and expanding the choices and options related to pensions is still essential. Auto-enrollment has been one of the successful policies of governments since the '00s—likewise, all these pension freedoms for the DC pensions pots. I think the main focus will be to improve the contribution rates on auto-enrollments since they are still abysmal.

You need to face the fact that pensions will be endlessly tinkered with; unfortunately, all you can do is react to whatever the government changes, the legislation, etc. I fully expect the pension systems for both DB and DC schemes to be less generous and more flexible.

I am somewhat confused by your mention of endless rules tinkering and precisely on what? The LTA rules? The Pension Age? The 'A' Day rules? Generally speaking, I think that, as someone who works solely in the private sector and with companies that never bothered to contribute to pension schemes

I remember talking to the HR manager back when I was working with that company, and the problem was the company board didn't trust pension schemes at all, so they only did the minimum required by law. So, of course, they won't contribute to their employees' pension schemes. Thank you very much! None of the board members have contributed anything according to the annual reports and have refused to sacrifice salary for pension schemes. Other benefits include childcare vouchers. Cycle to work and other benefits are but not pension contributions themselves!). So yes, I am happy that it is now compulsory for employers to contribute!

Malthusian

Sterlingtimes said:

The Labour Party really should be honest about its intentions so that we can plan ahead, perhaps by investing in low-growth low-risk investments to avoid punishment. 

If the Labour Party does re-introduce the LTA, you won't be worse off with higher-growth investments, you will just keep less of your higher growth.

There could in theory be an edge case where you get less reward for taking the same amount of risk, but that only applies if your current value is right up against the hypothetical LTA threshold. If you are already over it, and Labour is taxing you 55% of all growth, then for every 10% the market goes up you gain 4.5%, and for every 10% it goes down you only lose 4.5% (HMRC takes the rest of the hit). 

And the Labour Party or any party being "open" about its intentions makes no difference. In another year or five their intentions will have changed. 

Albermarle

EdSwippet said:

RogerPensionGuy said:

So it's not unreasonable to personally plan for possibles and I've decided to act positively on my pensions because of governments tinkering and in doing so I have joined the unemployed masses prematurely. 

If governments keep flipping rules on pensions they shouldn't be surprised what people do. 

A few years ago I retired four years earlier than planned because my pensions hit the about-to-be-slashed-again LTA. Fixed protection 2016, and then out. Carefully considered, over a year of analysis and modelling led up to it. For me this was an entirely rational move, given my financial circumstances.

Absolutely no regrets. A net win for me (micro), and a net loss for the UK economy (macro). I am a walking example of the type of problem the LTA created. Regardless of your political view, it seems like there should at least be some agreement on the incontrovertible fact that poorly thought out policy and chronic short-termism generates bad economic outcomes.

For what it's worth, over the years successive Conservative chancellors have been considerably worse for pensions than previous Labour ones. Although, neither party is to be trusted. A plague on both their houses.

So should  it be Reform, Lib Dems or Greens instead, or maybe they would not stick 100% to their manifesto commitments either ......

As Winston Churchill said, ' Democracy is the worst form of Government, apart from all the other ones !'