No change to tax free cash on 26 November

BikingBud

tiptop1_2 said:

Anything could still happen. The govt are changing their minds every day. It's ridiculous.

This isn't how a govt on top of their game act, it's a shambles.

Oh no they're not!

Albermarle

Secret2ndAccount said:

All I would ask is that, whatever they say on Nov 26th, they do it, and don't do another U-turn 3 weeks or 3 mths later.

I think there is a big difference between not following through on speculation about tax rises ( even though they had a hand in this speculation themselves) and actually reversing a policy announced in a budget. The latter is a proper U turn, rather than what we have seen on the last week or so. 

Secret2ndAccount

Albermarle said:

Secret2ndAccount said:

All I would ask is that, whatever they say on Nov 26th, they do it, and don't do another U-turn 3 weeks or 3 mths later.

I think there is a big difference between not following through on speculation about tax rises ( even though they had a hand in this speculation themselves) and actually reversing a policy announced in a budget. The latter is a proper U turn, rather than what we have seen on the last week or so. 

So are you saying they won't do it?

Albermarle

Secret2ndAccount said:

Albermarle said:

Secret2ndAccount said:

All I would ask is that, whatever they say on Nov 26th, they do it, and don't do another U-turn 3 weeks or 3 mths later.

I think there is a big difference between not following through on speculation about tax rises ( even though they had a hand in this speculation themselves) and actually reversing a policy announced in a budget. The latter is a proper U turn, rather than what we have seen on the last week or so. 

So are you saying they won't do it?

As I can not see into the future, I can not definitively say anything .
However not doing something that was only speculated/ indicated is not really a U turn
Especially if it conforms to  actual stated manifesto commitments .

Cobbler_tone

Albermarle said:

Secret2ndAccount said:

Albermarle said:

Secret2ndAccount said:

All I would ask is that, whatever they say on Nov 26th, they do it, and don't do another U-turn 3 weeks or 3 mths later.

I think there is a big difference between not following through on speculation about tax rises ( even though they had a hand in this speculation themselves) and actually reversing a policy announced in a budget. The latter is a proper U turn, rather than what we have seen on the last week or so. 

So are you saying they won't do it?

As I can not see into the future, I can not definitively say anything .
However not doing something that was only speculated/ indicated is not really a U turn
Especially if it conforms to  actual stated manifesto commitments .

You’re right, I prefer flip flopping. These are some u-turns.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jun/16/keir-starmer-biggest-u-turns-since-labour-came-to-power

michaels

The thing is, given all the noises re policy, how can we trust the 'promises' over the tfls, perhaps even the night before the budget they will decide there is another spending commitment they need to make and that the tfls will pay for it.....

MK62

There are more effective ways of raising near term tax revenues than targeting the TFLS........but that doesn't necessarily mean it wouldn't be on the radar for tax revenues over the longer term. I've always doubted that the TFLS upper limit would get slashed from £268,275 to say £100,000 in one fell swoop, but a more modest cut, to say £250,000, at this budget, followed by further "modest" cuts at future budgets could be a quieter way to implement that policy, should it actually be policy, over time.

Grumpy_chap

MK62 said:

I've always doubted that the TFLS upper limit would get slashed from £268,275 to say £100,000 in one fell swoop, but a more modest cut, to say £250,000, at this budget, followed by further "modest" cuts at future budgets could be a quieter way to implement that policy, should it actually be policy, over time.

Any tinkering with the TFLS, even the speculation about it being reduced, is probably sufficient to force behaviours whereby individuals reaching the minimum age to access the fund simply draw as much as they are able to.

The media reports that some people were sufficiently spooked before the last budget that they withdrew their TFLS to avoid the speculation.
That seems to be repeating this year.
If there is a cut to, say £250k this budget, then a cut to, say £240k next budget, the outcome would almost certainly be that the majority simply "take the lot" as soon as possible to avoid losing the TFLS in the future.

All aspects of pensions funding need to be balanced and stable for a long term, not a plaything to be done with at the whim of the day.

Albermarle

MK62 said:

There are more effective ways of raising near term tax revenues than targeting the TFLS........but that doesn't necessarily mean it wouldn't be on the radar for tax revenues over the longer term. I've always doubted that the TFLS upper limit would get slashed from £268,275 to say £100,000 in one fell swoop, but a more modest cut, to say £250,000, at this budget, followed by further "modest" cuts at future budgets could be a quieter way to implement that policy, should it actually be policy, over time.

Far too much potential admin and political headaches for very little reward for the Govt.

hugheskevi

Grumpy_chap said:

MK62 said:

I've always doubted that the TFLS upper limit would get slashed from £268,275 to say £100,000 in one fell swoop, but a more modest cut, to say £250,000, at this budget, followed by further "modest" cuts at future budgets could be a quieter way to implement that policy, should it actually be policy, over time.

Any tinkering with the TFLS, even the speculation about it being reduced, is probably sufficient to force behaviours whereby individuals reaching the minimum age to access the fund simply draw as much as they are able to.

I think quite a lot of our taxation regime is inadvertently incentivising people to do that.

The freezing of tax thresholds over an extended period and mooted income tax rate increases means many will want to extract as much as possible to fill basic rate rate band as soon as they can. Whilst in a pension, the money is a target for whatever policy a government might favour, TFLS freeze/reduction, IHT change, higher income tax rate, frozen/reduced income tax bands, levy on pots, etc, whereas once out and in an ISA the policy change risk is significantly mitigated. In an ISA it is easier to respond to adverse policy change too, as you do not have the soft limit of higher tax bands/personal allowance withdrawal to deal with should you wish to extract large sums.

Whereas in the past I was considering whether my wife and I should access our DB pensions at age 55 or leave them later, my considerations now are about whether we should access them before age 55 or not (protected minimum pension age from 2006 change). It now looks like I will be a higher rate taxpayer in all years after age 55, so despite poor actuarial reduction factors, moving income from being subject to 40% tax to being subject to 0% or 20% is looking increasingly attractive.