Rhossydd
Established Member
That was put in place by the last government. Reeves said nothing about VED that I heard. Quite possible those changes were deemed enough and not worth further changes.
So what are peoples thoughts and any potential impact on yourself
- Thread starter Spectric
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
Blackswanwood
Still Learning
I doubt many people know how IHT works and how Pensions are treated on death to start off with so they're probably not going to be that disappointed by this change.
You should have a read if the rules that Gordon introduced, it basically bankrupted / made company’s worthless (a number went under as a consequence with huge numbers losing their pension) I closed a number of final salary schemes simply because the schemes became unsustainable against the rules of equity as defined by the pension actuaries. Absolutely nothing to do with ageing population.
Please tell me when I’m going to die, I can then plan to deplete my pension fund accordingly. Clearly you have an insight nobody else has. So the options for everyone are: spend too much of your pension pot and run out of money before you die, or end up leaving something in your pension pot when you die. An incentive to do so was it could be passed in tax free to the next generation.
Fiscal policy is laid out in the manifesto, labour in opposition cried liars and fraud, it’s just we didn’t realise they were talking about their manifesto.
Rhossydd
Established Member
Which would be a very risky plan. Much like the 'with profits' endowment plans sold back in the 80s which failed and left people with insufficient returns to pay off their mortgages.
Get the wrong investments, or have tax free allowances change in the future, and you have no home and no retirement income.
Silly people, taking on mortgages that they will be paying off for say 25 years when they should know chancellors could change the rules on everything every 6 months. Yep, very stupid people, they should be punished for trying to buy a house for their family to live in securely.
AJB Temple
Finely figured
It seems you are not much of a man. You can't apologise for saying stupid and callous things about innocent people who will lose their jobs and trot out the usual tax tropes. As I said, shame on you Jacob.
Rhossydd
Established Member
It might be worth reminding you that pensions schemes were designed to buy annuities with. Only in relatively recent years (post '95) were regulations relaxed to allow the options of draw down that meant there might be some funds remaining after death that might become part of a person's estate.
Ridiculous comment. There have always been risk free methods of funding house purchase. The dreadful thing is how financial advisors have pushed risky strategies for home purchases that seem to allow higher levels of borrowing (because they profit from them) and failed to inform clients of the risks involved. To an extent this 'you can afford more by using this' tactic has helped drive the crazy rise in house prices.
..
RobinBHM
Established Member
Labour are putting more money into the NHS so their loved ones might live longer
What are the issues they are having? At first I assumed it was NI as that was then the focus of the thread but that doesn't make sense on the numbers really unless the business was really close to the edge. I've since realised it may be the minimum wage changes?
But if you have nothing then you can claim rent for a property and benefits as well as things like pension credits. Some people have worked very little in life, no pension but just lived for the day but in older age can claim a lot and get a free place in a care home, the rest of us have to pay.
Hypnotic Chimera
Directional Consultant Extraordinaire
And it is what led to a range of "compensation" schemes where it was proven that endowment pre-purchase illustrations displayed unrealistic growth margins
Steve Blackdog
Established Member
Overall very pleased with the budget. It’s such a relief to have grown-ups running the country.
Yes more money is being thrown at the NHS, a good businessman will tell you that no amount of money can fix a failed business. The NHS needs reforming from ground up so that the majority of the staff are medical and not paper pushers. The one thing that would help and will require funding is an IT system that works across all NHS trust and removes the need for those trolleys full of files being wheeled around and makes all data easily accessible between departments.
RobinBHM
Established Member
Rhossydd
Established Member
Yet again you've missed the point. It's about people getting poor advice to take advantage of tax loop holes. Not such a risk if it's only about avoiding some tax, a LOT worse if it risks loosing your home and possibly becoming bankrupt.
Ever been in a council funded care home ? You really wouldn't choose it.
The NHS isn't a business. It's a service that has has increasing demands on it along with increasing expectations of what it can or should do, without the funding to allow it to grow to meet those demands.
I'd suggest stop contributing to this, you're making yourself look silly.
Blackswanwood
Still Learning
You are confusing different things. Gordon Brown removed the tax credit on dividends.
Rules on the quality of assets that had to be held had nothing to do with this. These are set by The Pensions Regulator.
Put simply the changes were made as schemes were running too much risk in not reflecting improving mortality. De-risking meant more investment in gilts and less in equities. This also meant increased funding rates for employers to address projected shortfalls.
If you want a discussion on pension scheme funding let’s start another thread. I’m APMI qualified and have been a Trustee for several schemes over the last 22 years so may be able to keep up with your flawless knowledge of the topic.
The OBR report on the budget highlights that it’s a disaster. The OBR five year prediction is for recession within the next five years consumer spending is going to decline as everyone has less money in their pockets coupled with businesses investing less. Taxes are rising and public borrowing to hit new records. Anyone who thinks that Labour has ‘plugged’ the black hole is deluded, public borrowing is set to rise with the annual budget deficit increasing.
I’m not APMI qualified but I too was a trustee of several pension schemes for twenty years, a couple of years short of you. It all, if memory serves started with Robert Maxwell and ended in a tax grab of the pension schemes leading to reduced pensions for everyone and the death of final salary schemes and a reliance on contribution based schemes that are no where near as generous if trying to buy an annuity.You are confusing different things. Gordon Brown removed the tax credit on dividends.
Rules on the quality of assets that had to be held had nothing to do with this. These are set by The Pensions Regulator.
Put simply the changes were made as schemes were running too much risk in not reflecting improving mortality. De-risking meant more investment in gilts and less in equities. This also meant increased funding rates for employers to address projected shortfalls.
If you want a discussion on pension scheme funding let’s start another thread. I’m APMI qualified and have been a Trustee for several schemes over the last 22 years so may be able to keep up with your flawless knowledge of the topic.
Hypnotic Chimera
Directional Consultant Extraordinaire
Yep - I was thinking similar - could be the minimum wage rises - but for this relatively small blip to prompt a business to close just appears to be very suspect.
I agree, although it was also clear that this was a budget that they didn't want to be forced to have to do. Just seemed sensible. Nothing major. Best thing being no Austerity. Very mature.
One online calculator tells me I'll be £9 worse off. As highly paid help, I would have expected to contribute a bit more and wouldn't have been upset to do so...
Meanwhile, Jenrick continues to tell blatant and nasty lies during his campaign to become leader.
Blackswanwood
Still Learning
Yes - annuities became far more expensive as longevity increased and the world moved into a lower interest rate environment. The same factors impact final salary schemes when a member retires and takes their pension. If the original assumption was that members would on average live to age 74 and it turns out to be 75 it costs a lot of money. The scheme therefore needs more funding to secure the level of pension defined by the scheme rules. This is the main reason that many schemes closed to new members or capped benefits.
Maxwell is the murky end of the spectrum. He just used the pension scheme assets as his own funds. There is a long list of other schemes that were just poorly run hence the introduction of TPR and tighter rules.
The loss of the tax credit had far less impact than the fundamental economics of low interest rates and improving longevity which make final salary pension schemes an unviable proposition for employers.
Last edited:
