We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The inevitable pre-budget speculation on pensions
Comments
-
aroominyork said:Bringing the House back to order... spouse 1 dies over 75, leaving SIPP to spouse 2 who dies under 75. Do beneficiaries of the SIPP pay income tax on withdrawals?Spouse 2 would pay income tax on withdrawals (but not IHT). Presumably it wouldn't change back to IT-free when passed to beneficiaries. However if Spouse 2 had their own SIPP, that would pass to beneficiaries income-tax free on death before 75.However IHT on the pensions could come into play after 2027 on second death.0
-
Perhaps others can confirm/correct whether an inherited SIPP retains its IHT-free status (pre-2027) after Spouse 2's death.LHW99 said:aroominyork said:Bringing the House back to order... spouse 1 dies over 75, leaving SIPP to spouse 2 who dies under 75. Do beneficiaries of the SIPP pay income tax on withdrawals?Spouse 2 would pay income tax on withdrawals (but not IHT). Presumably it wouldn't change back to IT-free when passed to beneficiaries. However if Spouse 2 had their own SIPP, that would pass to beneficiaries income-tax free on death before 75.However IHT on the pensions could come into play after 2027 on second death.0 -
No - if spouse 2 dies under 75 then this (currently) will be income tax free for their beneficiaries on withdrawal. If they keep it and die over 75 then it becomes liable for income tax again for their beneficiaries.aroominyork said:Bringing the House back to order... spouse 1 dies over 75, leaving SIPP to spouse 2 who dies under 75. Do beneficiaries of the SIPP pay income tax on withdrawals?In terms of being assessed for IHT (from 2027) then every time it moves to a non spouse it will be assessed.0 -
That is probably the 'fingers in the ears' viewpoint. They are quite obviously going to have to generate/save funds from somewhere....possibly not pensions, for now.kinger101 said:I still think they'll default to the easiest option of extending fiscal drag.
Gambling tax seems to be in the news today.
Really tricky time for them as they need to make some tangible changes, without decreasing their popularity further. Whilst the (new) other lot have 20 odd pages of crowd pleasing pledges (not pleasing for all of course) on the horizon. The issue is that too many people are not wise enough to read between the lines and there seems to be a constant thirst for instant gratification, so those out of power hold the next deck of cards....and repeat.2 -
Even this is controversial.Cobbler_tone said:
That is probably the 'fingers in the ears' viewpoint. They are quite obviously going to have to generate/save funds from somewhere....possibly not pensions, for now.kinger101 said:I still think they'll default to the easiest option of extending fiscal drag.
Gambling tax seems to be in the news today.
Really tricky time for them as they need to make some tangible changes, without decreasing their popularity further. Whilst the (new) other lot have 20 odd pages of crowd pleasing pledges (not pleasing for all of course) on the horizon. The issue is that too many people are not wise enough to read between the lines and there seems to be a constant thirst for instant gratification, so those out of power hold the next deck of cards....and repeat.
The general public, who mostly do not gamble, would I guess support extra tax on gambling profits.
However there is a big difference between on line gambling on slots, bingo etc and betting on sports where real people are involved. Especially for horse racing, which is reliant on betting levies, to support an industry employing up to 100,000 people.
Tax is never a simple issue, like pensions !1 -
Rioting on the streets? So you're saying you'd put bricks through shop windows if you were only allowed to have £175,000 tax free instead of £268,000?HedgehogRulez said:If the 25% TFLS was reduced id be rioting on the streets. It's a key element of my retirement strategy to utilise. Already narked by it being limited to £268k in recent years.
Ladders being pulled up by the oldies again! They've benefited from it, so why cant their children?
I don't think the Great British public would be behind you there.
When you say "they've benefitted from it" the "they" certainly isn't everyone over 65 because not many people will have had the absolute maximum lump sum, and many will have had no occupational pension at all nor lump sum, just their State Pension.3 -
I'd reframe it as 'a tiny percentage of the country would have a mild grumble' and carry on.snowlaser said:
Rioting on the streets? So you're saying you'd put bricks through shop windows if you were only allowed to have £175,000 tax free instead of £268,000?HedgehogRulez said:If the 25% TFLS was reduced id be rioting on the streets. It's a key element of my retirement strategy to utilise. Already narked by it being limited to £268k in recent years.
Ladders being pulled up by the oldies again! They've benefited from it, so why cant their children?2 -
It's well within living memory that punters used to have to pay 10% tax.Albermarle said:
Even this is controversial.Cobbler_tone said:
That is probably the 'fingers in the ears' viewpoint. They are quite obviously going to have to generate/save funds from somewhere....possibly not pensions, for now.kinger101 said:I still think they'll default to the easiest option of extending fiscal drag.
Gambling tax seems to be in the news today.
Really tricky time for them as they need to make some tangible changes, without decreasing their popularity further. Whilst the (new) other lot have 20 odd pages of crowd pleasing pledges (not pleasing for all of course) on the horizon. The issue is that too many people are not wise enough to read between the lines and there seems to be a constant thirst for instant gratification, so those out of power hold the next deck of cards....and repeat.
The general public, who mostly do not gamble, would I guess support extra tax on gambling profits.
However there is a big difference between on line gambling on slots, bingo etc and betting on sports where real people are involved. Especially for horse racing, which is reliant on betting levies, to support an industry employing up to 100,000 people.
Tax is never a simple issue, like pensions !0 -
It's easy to get caught up in the worry and I count myself in this category with planning to retire next year.Cobbler_tone said:
I'd reframe it as 'a tiny percentage of the country would have a mild grumble' and carry on.snowlaser said:
Rioting on the streets? So you're saying you'd put bricks through shop windows if you were only allowed to have £175,000 tax free instead of £268,000?HedgehogRulez said:If the 25% TFLS was reduced id be rioting on the streets. It's a key element of my retirement strategy to utilise. Already narked by it being limited to £268k in recent years.
Ladders being pulled up by the oldies again! They've benefited from it, so why cant their children?
Currently I have about £180k tax free (£720k total) in DC and also a £35k DB Lump Sum so about £215k tax free availability.
But when you think about it objectively then even if I managed to accumulate the max LSA before I actually retire and IF the LSA was reduced by £100k then it would be 20% tax on £100k = £20k.
Now I would be far from happy if that happened but objectively it is not the end of the world either when weighed against a total pension pot worth over £1m.
So personally speaking I have decided to ignore all speculation, stick to the plan and wait and see.4 -
Don’t need others to be involved. One man army. Sharpening toothpicks as we speak!snowlaser said:
Rioting on the streets? So you're saying you'd put bricks through shop windows if you were only allowed to have £175,000 tax free instead of £268,000?HedgehogRulez said:If the 25% TFLS was reduced id be rioting on the streets. It's a key element of my retirement strategy to utilise. Already narked by it being limited to £268k in recent years.
Ladders being pulled up by the oldies again! They've benefited from it, so why cant their children?
I don't think the Great British public would be behind you there.
When you say "they've benefitted from it" the "they" certainly isn't everyone over 65 because not many people will have had the absolute maximum lump sum, and many will have had no occupational pension at all nor lump sum, just their State Pension.0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards
