Protecting pensions from politicians - or preparing for a Labour coalition
Comments
-
I think you will find carers will be more like £60 per visit. I don't know much about them but the old buddy across the road has a carer turning up in a 4 x 4 Porsche with a council badge on her jacket.
That's clear. Prior to my father going into a care home (which was self funding as he had assets between £22-£100K) he was having two visits a day for £600 per month. Admittedly it would likely cost double that in London.0 -
seven-day-weekend wrote: »He retired because of his health. He did not take ill-health retirement, but took early retirement as soon as he reached the right age. Therefore it was actuarily reduced.
If he retired because of ill health, he would have done better to investigate ill health retirement as that is what it is for?0 -
If he retired because of ill health, he would have done better to investigate ill health retirement as that is what it is for?
He would not have got ill-health retirement. Taking early retirement was his way out.
He had an excellent NUT Rep working with him to negotiaite the best deal.(AKA HRH_MUngo)
Member #10 of £2 savers club
Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology: Terry Eagleton0 -
It is not hard to remember Gordon Brown's first tax raid - his pension tax was one of the big reason that final salary pensions were stopped and many existing schemes are underfunded.
I can't see the much further left Momentum crew not planning something much more draconian - especially as higher taxes for top earners would otherwise see even more incentives for income diversion into pensions. And of course his backers in the public sector unions are protected with the only remaining final salary schemes so a win win for the union barons.
So highly likely is a removal of higher rate tax relief
Also likely is a reduction in the lifetime allowance and no indexation
What else?
The high annual isa allowance could be cut (ordinary people can't save 20k pa) and the lifetime isa helping those who can save doesn't really fit with Labour values.
And what about the tax free lump sum, doesn't seem very progressive so could it he stopped altogether or perhaps capped at say 50k
And if things go badly weong how about the Hungarian example where private pension pots were 'nationalised' i.e. confiscated.
So what is the answer - stuff isas now? Bitcoin and physical gold?!
Has someone hacked your account? This is a hysterical reaction.
Changes to pensions do not generally affect what you have earned to date, just what you gain in the future. Pensions and ISAs are essentially based on tax concessions for future contributions to them. Therefore, it follows that removing future tax concessions or giving more of them can happen. There is no right to have a tax free lumpsum or tax relief on contributions or investment return.
How do you know that a Conservative Government will not change the tax rules? For several budgets it has been predicted that they would limit tax relief on contributions to basic rate tax. They have already reduced the lifetime/annual allowances in the past 7 years.
As to public sector pensions some of the higher paid public servants are already affected by the reduced Lifetime Allowance.
How will you guarantee bitcoins, gold etc retain their value?Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
seven-day-weekend wrote: »Yes it does, not a lot I can do about that is there. Just pointing out that we do contribute as well. We also both paid into our occupational pensions, they were contributory, not just given to us like some public pensions are.
I do know we are very privileged to have them, but what do you suggest we do, give them up?
ETA : Just to say my husband's Teachers' Pension is actuarily reduced because he took it early due to his health, and I only paid into my Local Government penssion for ten years so it is not a huge amount).
So your husband's was not just given to you like some public sector pensions. The TPS is an unfunded scheme.
You should be more grateful for your pensions.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
This highlights how poor the Conservatives have been at presenting their plans. You have many people who think that being able to keep £100k is worse than the current position but they do not know that the current position, for savings, is worse.
Under the current system, older people who have assets worth more than £23,250, including the value of their property, must part-fund the cost of the care they receive.
Even the independent said:
The average UK house is worth £215,847 - so while the Conservative care package is actually a better deal for poorer pensioners, the vast majority of homeowners who require care are going to be worse off.
However, the independent also blew it by saying:
The Conservative manifesto pledged to raise the means-tested floor at which older people will start paying for their care to £100,000 - but, crucially, under their proposal, people would be forced to sell their homes to pay for domiciliary as well as residential care.
No-one will be forced to sell their homes. It can be deducted from the estate.
So, a combination of misreporting by the media and bad presentation and incomplete information by the Conservatives along with people not actually comparing the current system with proposals has led to a lot of opinions based on incorrect information.
A very valid point. I think the big issue with the proposal is their unwillingness to explain the upper limit. Whatever you think of it the outcome would be different it was low (say 200K) or high (say £1m). One would protect inheritances to a degree, the other would (for most people ) be unlimited.Then you have to add on that we seem to have a large proportion fof the UK that has a sense of entitlement but don't want to pay for it. They want more money or the NHS. They know there is a crisis of funding in many areas. However, ask them to pay a little more for it, and there is uproar.
This is the crux of the matter. Inheritance is good fortune not a right.This is probably why Corbyn has become more popular as his proposals tick the spending boxes but gloss over the realistic tax sources. I doubt many plumbers/builders (or anyone with a limited company) earning around £25k a year realise that the Labour proposals will see them immediately worse off by around £1400 a year in increased taxation. If you earn to the £45k basic rate tax band as a company director, you would be around £3,300 worse off a year. Remember just a few months back when the Conservatives had to backtrack on the NI increase on self employed that would have averaged 60p a week because of the outrage. Where is that outrage when Labour are proposing thousands?
The Conservatives have not denied that they may raise NI for all those employed or extend it to the retired ( by merging it with income tax). How would that affect your figures above?
Labour have said that only those earning over £80K will pay more tax. I am not convinced that they can deliver this with their spending plans but where do the above figures you quote come from as they conflict with the figure stated. Taxing a limited company is not the same as taxing an employee of a limited company, particularly when that employee is a director paying less tax by taking a low salary and paying less tax on a large dividend. An option not available to employees on PAYE.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
Corporation tax would increase so limited companies would have less to pay out as dividends.0
-
So your husband's was not just given to you like some public sector pensions. The TPS is an unfunded scheme.
You should be more grateful for your pensions.
I am grateful!(AKA HRH_MUngo)
Member #10 of £2 savers club
Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology: Terry Eagleton0 -
It is not hard to remember Gordon Brown's first tax raid - his pension tax was one of the big reason that final salary pensions were stopped and many existing schemes are underfunded.
I can't see the much further left Momentum crew not planning something much more draconian - especially as higher taxes for top earners would otherwise see even more incentives for income diversion into pensions. And of course his backers in the public sector unions are protected with the only remaining final salary schemes so a win win for the union barons.
So highly likely is a removal of higher rate tax relief
Also likely is a reduction in the lifetime allowance and no indexation
What else?
The high annual isa allowance could be cut (ordinary people can't save 20k pa) and the lifetime isa helping those who can save doesn't really fit with Labour values.
And what about the tax free lump sum, doesn't seem very progressive so could it he stopped altogether or perhaps capped at say 50k
And if things go badly weong how about the Hungarian example where private pension pots were 'nationalised' i.e. confiscated.
So what is the answer - stuff isas now? Bitcoin and physical gold?!
all speculation.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards