Potential capping of Salary Sacrifice (speculation)?

Cobbler_tone

DRS1 said:

Cobbler_tone said:

artyboy said:

snarffie said:

MeteredOut said:

Albermarle said:

masonic said:

Do we have a dedicated TFLS speculation thread yet?

It could be open permanently as if nothing happens in this budget, it will not be long before it all starts again before the next budget.....

I think a "Guess the next rumour thread" would be more interesting than regurgitating the same discussions around previous rumors.

I hear that alongside removing the two child cap on child benefit,  they're going to tax people if they've not produced any offspring by the time they're 40 (for women) and 50 (for men) - a kind of negative child benefit tax. There will be exemptions based on the production of a suitable medical certificate showing inability to have children.

This would be grossly unfair to those of us who have never claimed benefits, saved hard all our lives and wish to start a family aged 60-70.

That policy will never fly.

Will it?

It's "just" possible that this one was a bit tongue in cheek. 

I think it says a lot about this forum if anyone didn't realise the poster was joking.

Have you seen this thread?
IHT – unmarried and childless? Discriminatory IHT .. needs reform ! — MoneySavingExpert Forum

Quite entertaining but I'm not too fussed about when I'm dead. That thread wasn't a joke.

RogerPensionGuy

Salary sacrifice, TFLS, ISA, MPAA, LTA or any other acrnim. 

Looks like every budget they are all up on the table and comments come out saying they will, may or won't change. 

Pensions, ISAs, LISAs & the like should have a protected window of time that means no changes can occur without X years, 10 years minimum and better 20 years or more. 

Plus, and I'll use the LTA as good example, if changed, any protections should be sensible and not disadvantage people who are in a time zone whereby they stopped pension savings to enable the protections to be uses.

I saw the LTA cycle between 1.8M & 1M up, down, sideways and no regard for inflation and I kept adjusting pension input to try tracking it making my plans very awkward and unhelpful.

Then, bang its gone in a one liner on budget day a few years back.

A total bonkers way to play with pensions where people may saving at 20 years old or younger and use till maybe 100+ years.

I stopped employment earlier than planned as I essentially stopped filling pension due to the LTA and my net pay due tax just didn't feel balanced with my job hours, just another consequence of tinkering with pensions. 

artyboy

RogerPensionGuy said:

Salary sacrifice, TFLS, ISA, MPAA, LTA or any other acrnim. 

Looks like every budget they are all up on the table and comments come out saying they will, may or won't change. 

Pensions, ISAs, LISAs & the like should have a protected window of time that means no changes can occur without X years, 10 years minimum and better 20 years or more. 

Plus, and I'll use the LTA as good example, if changed, any protections should be sensible and not disadvantage people who are in a time zone whereby they stopped pension savings to enable the protections to be uses.

I saw the LTA cycle between 1.8M & 1M up, down, sideways and no regard for inflation and I kept adjusting pension input to try tracking it making my plans very awkward and unhelpful.

Then, bang its gone in a one liner on budget day a few years back.

A total bonkers way to play with pensions where people may saving at 20 years old or younger and use till maybe 100+ years.

I stopped employment earlier than planned as I essentially stopped filling pension due to the LTA and my net pay due tax just didn't feel balanced with my job hours, just another consequence of tinkering with pensions. 

And that's the key point - we focus on the short term tinkering as being a disincentive to saving into pensions, whereas the long term trend of constant rule changes possibly does far more harm.

If (I wish...) I was still 30 years old and relatively early on in my career, I'd have zero confidence that the pension scheme I signed up to would bear even the slightest relation to what I would have when I retired. If I could ever retire.

I stress that this isn't a political discussion point, because all parties/governments are guilty. But bottom line, all this tinkering is so damaging to public perception and confidence in 'the system'

masonic

I stuck to max matched contribution for the first 15 years of my career in part because of this. I also heard lots of scepticism from colleagues about whether it was worth doing even that.

Not saying I necessarily have any regrets. It means a large part of my retirement savings are accessible whenever I want them.

zagfles

Cobbler_tone said:

MeteredOut said:

Albermarle said:

masonic said:

Do we have a dedicated TFLS speculation thread yet?

It could be open permanently as if nothing happens in this budget, it will not be long before it all starts again before the next budget.....

 they're going to tax people if they've not produced any offspring by the time they're 40 (for women) and 50 (for men) - a kind of negative child benefit tax. 

TBF that happens already naturally and they support the economy for those who do. It's very strong personal justification (and lack of guilt) for the OH retiring at 54. No mat leave, career breaks, or other benefits associated with having kids. On the flip side I blame her for the declining population.   

And no providing the next generation of taxpayers. My two kids are both higher rate taxpayers already in their mid 20's and their taxes will be supporting all pensioners over the next few decades, in all likelyhood by far more than they were supported by taxpayers when children. 

Perhaps the state pension should be abolished and pensioners should be supported by their kids in return for the cost of their upbringing. Those who don't have kids will have had adequate opportunity to save extra for a pension as they didn't have to pay for kids for 18/21 years. 

Cus

Sorry if his has been explained earlier in the thread, but do the salary sacrifice reduction rumours impact future DB schemes and so public sector employees are not impacted?

MeteredOut

Cus said:

Sorry if his has been explained earlier in the thread, but do the salary sacrifice reduction rumours impact future DB schemes and so public sector employees are not impacted?

As with most of these rumours, there is absolutely no substance behind it, so no-one could possibly answer that with any degree of certainty. 

diveunderthebonnet

zagfles said:

Cobbler_tone said:

MeteredOut said:

Albermarle said:

masonic said:

Do we have a dedicated TFLS speculation thread yet?

It could be open permanently as if nothing happens in this budget, it will not be long before it all starts again before the next budget.....

 they're going to tax people if they've not produced any offspring by the time they're 40 (for women) and 50 (for men) - a kind of negative child benefit tax. 

TBF that happens already naturally and they support the economy for those who do. It's very strong personal justification (and lack of guilt) for the OH retiring at 54. No mat leave, career breaks, or other benefits associated with having kids. On the flip side I blame her for the declining population.   

And no providing the next generation of taxpayers. My two kids are both higher rate taxpayers already in their mid 20's and their taxes will be supporting all pensioners over the next few decades, in all likelyhood by far more than they were supported by taxpayers when children. 

Perhaps the state pension should be abolished and pensioners should be supported by their kids in return for the cost of their upbringing. 

Will their tax not be supporting themselves ie NHS, public services etc.

zagfles

diveunderthebonnet said:

zagfles said:

Cobbler_tone said:

MeteredOut said:

Albermarle said:

masonic said:

Do we have a dedicated TFLS speculation thread yet?

It could be open permanently as if nothing happens in this budget, it will not be long before it all starts again before the next budget.....

 they're going to tax people if they've not produced any offspring by the time they're 40 (for women) and 50 (for men) - a kind of negative child benefit tax. 

TBF that happens already naturally and they support the economy for those who do. It's very strong personal justification (and lack of guilt) for the OH retiring at 54. No mat leave, career breaks, or other benefits associated with having kids. On the flip side I blame her for the declining population.   

And no providing the next generation of taxpayers. My two kids are both higher rate taxpayers already in their mid 20's and their taxes will be supporting all pensioners over the next few decades, in all likelyhood by far more than they were supported by taxpayers when children. 

Perhaps the state pension should be abolished and pensioners should be supported by their kids in return for the cost of their upbringing. 

Will their tax not be supporting themselves ie NHS, public services etc.

Obviously, but workers in general pay more in tax than they take out in benefits, services etc, while pensioners generally take more out than they put in. NHS is used far more by pensioners than workers. 

Cobbler_tone

zagfles said:

Cobbler_tone said:

MeteredOut said:

Albermarle said:

masonic said:

Do we have a dedicated TFLS speculation thread yet?

It could be open permanently as if nothing happens in this budget, it will not be long before it all starts again before the next budget.....

 they're going to tax people if they've not produced any offspring by the time they're 40 (for women) and 50 (for men) - a kind of negative child benefit tax. 

TBF that happens already naturally and they support the economy for those who do. It's very strong personal justification (and lack of guilt) for the OH retiring at 54. No mat leave, career breaks, or other benefits associated with having kids. On the flip side I blame her for the declining population.   

And no providing the next generation of taxpayers. My two kids are both higher rate taxpayers already in their mid 20's and their taxes will be supporting all pensioners over the next few decades, in all likelyhood by far more than they were supported by taxpayers when children. 

Perhaps the state pension should be abolished and pensioners should be supported by their kids in return for the cost of their upbringing. Those who don't have kids will have had adequate opportunity to save extra for a pension as they didn't have to pay for kids for 18/21 years. 

I certainly wasn’t giving commentary on those who can/choose to have kids. I’d suggest those that do cost the country a lot more but then again with no kids there’s no future. Far too deep a debate for here!
My only comment is that if that is your path at least ‘try’ to be accountable in raising and funding them to adulthood. Some have like getting the puppy they can’t afford.