Georgie boy is after your pension money!

[delc]

£750,000 is a huge pension pot, thats why IMO the tax relief system is unfair, if you are a top earner you could amass this amount with the government putting a lot in,,but before I got to that stage my money would be invested elsewhere.

£750,000 might bring you in an income of £37,500 per annum, not inflation linked, at 65 years old, or somewhat less with an inflation link, or other benefits. Not a lot for high earning, hard working people with a reasonable sized house and children to support. Middle income folk could easily be affected by this, not just millionaires!

 

[evahakool]

£750,000 might bring you in an income of £37,500 per annum, not inflation linked, at 65 years old, or somewhat less with an inflation link, or other benefits. Not a lot for high earning, hard working people with a reasonable sized house and children to support. Middle income folk could easily be affected by this, not just millionaires!

If any high earning people have that amount in a pension fund I would think they would have other money invested elsewhere , it's still unfair these people get so much tax relief.


They also should be mortgage free at this stage and if they still have children to support at this stage they must have a lot of lead in their pencil.:thup:

 

[SocketRocket]

Quite - but they haven't hung about very long so must have had it planned on the back of their fag packet - just didn't want to tell us. But on the other hand they use the fact that something may have been in the manifesto as justification why they must implement it despite protestations that suggest it might be foolish or detrimental (see Tax Credits).

They never mentioned in their Manifesto taking in any Syrian Refugees. Does that mean they shouldn't take any?
They never mentioned Bombing in Syria.
They have to be able to react to circumstances whether it's in a Manifesto or not.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

£750,000 might bring you in an income of £37,500 per annum, not inflation linked, at 65 years old, or somewhat less with an inflation link, or other benefits. Not a lot for high earning, hard working people with a reasonable sized house and children to support. Middle income folk could easily be affected by this, not just millionaires!

£37,000 a year pension not a lot - what children will they have to support when they are retired ? Thats more than what most people earn as a living wage right now

 

[delc]

£37,000 a year pension not a lot - what children will they have to support when they are retired ? Thats more than what most people earn as a living wage right now

Depends on how old they where when they had children, and if the children go onto University they may need to be supported until at least their early twenties. And then there may also be grand children. The general idea is that people with high incomes when working and are used to a good standard of living need bigger pensions than the less well off. Dragging everybody down to the same level of poverty in the interests of equality seems to be more of a Labour ideal than a Conservative one!

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Depends on how old they where when they had children, and if the children go onto University, they may need to be supported until at least their early twenties. And then there may also be grand children. The general idea is that people with high incomes when working and are used to a good standard of living need bigger pensions than the less well off. Dragging everybody down to the same level of poverty in the interests of equality seems to be more of a Labour ideal than a Conservative one!

£37,000 a year poverty ?!

They dont "need" anything - they can make a choice but on £37,000 a year is more than enough income to support retired people.

 

[Deleted member 1740]

Depends on how old they where when they had children, and if the children go onto University they may need to be supported until at least their early twenties. And then there may also be grand children. The general idea is that people with high incomes when working and are used to a good standard of living need bigger pensions than the less well off. Dragging everybody down to the same level of poverty in the interests of equality seems to be more of a Labour ideal than a Conservative one!

So it's ok for the government to hand out money towards high earning pensions but not for people who need it?

 

[evahakool]

£37,000 a year poverty ?!

They dont "need" anything - they can make a choice but on £37,000 a year is more than enough income to support retired people.

I can agree with some of the things Dels saying, I would not like to drop the standard of living I have at the moment when I retire, . But I agree it's not necessarily needed.

 

[MegaSteve]

That is a very well articulated and heartfelt rant there sir, with one minor error. Cameron is the pig poker, not Osborne.

I wouldn't put it beyond Georgie boy indulging in sloppy seconds...

 

[Hacker Khan]

£750,000 might bring you in an income of £37,500 per annum, not inflation linked, at 65 years old, or somewhat less with an inflation link, or other benefits. Not a lot for high earning, hard working people with a reasonable sized house and children to support. Middle income folk could easily be affected by this, not just millionaires!

Isn't the idea that at 65 you are no longer supporting kids and you have paid for your house by then? So 37 grand seems quite a decent whack to live on in the real world.

 

[delc]

£37,000 a year poverty ?!

They dont "need" anything - they can make a choice but on £37,000 a year is more than enough income to support retired people.

Depends on how expensive one's hobbies are! One of the problems with being retired is that you have more time to persue your hobbies, but less money coming in to pay for them. You also have to heat your house for more hours a day, rather than sitting for 8 hours a day in a nice warm office provided by your employer!

The sort of pension tax changes carried out by Gordon Brown and proposed by George Osborne are the ultimate 'Stealth Taxes', because they don't affect you immediately, but will have a big effect on your income in the future, probably well after they are out of office. They also increase tax revenue now, but will reduce it in the future because pensioners (a significant proportion of the population) will be paying less income tax on their smaller pensions!

 

[delc]

No there was not.

Small companies have rarely been able to do so and of those that did many subsequently found the increased costs were at least partially responsible for their collapse.

You seem to be like many who worked for large(r) companies and in the public sector in having little understanding of the situation of the majority of the work-force who are employed by small(er) companies.

To cover for non contracted out employees working for small companies, there was the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS), but Georgie boy is scrapping that as well, in exchange for a modest increase in the Basic State Pension, which will just about keep you alive with no luxuries.

I believe that when the State Pension was first introduced, it was set at 2/3rds of average salary. It is now only worth about 1/5th and you have to wait longer to get it! The UK has one of the worse state pensions in Europe, which is why you need to do something to supplement it.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Depends on how expensive one's hobbies are! One of the problems with being retired is that you have more time to persue your hobbies, but less money coming in to pay for them. You also have to heat your house for more hours a day, rather than sitting for 8 hours a day in a nice warm office provided by your employer!

The sort of pension tax changes carried out by Gordon Brown and proposed by George Osborne are the ultimate 'Stealth Taxes', because they don't affect you immediately, but will have a big effect on your income in the future, probably well after they are out of office. They also increase tax revenue now, but will reduce it in the future because pensioners (a significant proportion of the population) will be paying less income tax on their smaller pensions!

But why should they have smaller pensions?

Are you saying that Higher Rate taxpayers will only contribute to their schemes if they get relief at the higher level?

If so they are remarkably short-sighted and ill advised as they would still be investing in largely tax exempt funds and getting 20% relief on their payments.

 

[delc]

But why should they have smaller pensions?

Are you saying that Higher Rate taxpayers will only contribute to their schemes if they get relief at the higher level?

If so they are remarkably short-sighted and ill advised as they would still be investing in largely tax exempt funds and getting 20% relief on their payments.

I note that the MP's themselves have a pretty gold plated pension scheme, while downgrading everybody else's! Higher rate tax payers are either going to have to pay bigger contributions out of their taxed income into their pension funds to get the same return, or pay the same and accept a smaller pension. A lot of quite ordinary people are now higher rate taxpayers, because in real terms, the threshold has been allowed to reduce over the years. Many of these people, particularly those with mortgages, student loans to pay off, and children may find it difficult to pay anything into a pension scheme.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

I note that the MP's themselves have a pretty gold plated pension scheme, while downgrading everybody else's! Higher rate tax payers are going to have to pay bigger contributions out of their taxed income into their pension funds to get the same return. A lot of quite ordinary people are now higher rate taxpayers, because in real terms, the threshold has been allowed to reduce over the years.

They are not going to have to pay larger gross contributions but the nett cost of their contribution will be higher.

In itself that is no reason why their pension benefits will be any lower.

Perhaps they could arrange for their employer to make a larger contribution although this would, presumably, be at the expense of salary.

Either way, in an era of benefit cuts etc; a restriction in the tax relief on pension contributions by higher earners does not, to me, seem unreasonable.

 

[delc]

They are not going to have to pay larger gross contributions but the nett cost of their contribution will be higher.

In itself that is no reason why their pension benefits will be any lower.

Perhaps they could arrange for their employer to make a larger contribution although this would, presumably, be at the expense of salary.

Either way, in an era of benefit cuts etc; a restriction in the tax relief on pension contributions by higher earners does not, to me, seem unreasonable.

So? They still have to pay more out of their taxed income to make the same nett contribution to a pension fund. Also benefit cuts apply to middle income families too!

 

[delc]

By the way, I already have my inflation linked (up to 5%) final salary pension, so I could pull up the ladder and say I'm alright mate. I am campaigning on this issue for the younger generations.

 

[MegaSteve]

One thing I have learnt, over the years, is that irrespective who is in no's 10 & 11 or the colour of the rosette's they wear... Their number one soft option target is PAYE person..

Just for once, I'd like to be treated with kid gloves in the manner that Google have... Then, I'd also have the possibility of laughing all the way to the bank as they surely are...

But, its never gonna happen... Is it???

 

[drdel]

What Mr Osborne seems to have forgotten is that retirees have the time and, in many cases, the money to spend on which he collects VAT and generally keeps money flowing around. Thus as usual with politicians he's kicking the ball down the road.

Most young people I know have student loans, desperately saving a deposit or paying high rents and saving to help kids with their education. Saving for retirement for many is just a luxury.

 

[delc]

What Mr Osborne seems to have forgotten is that retirees have the time and, in many cases, the money to spend on which he collects VAT and generally keeps money flowing around. Thus as usual with politicians he's kicking the ball down the road.

Most young people I know have student loans, desperately saving a deposit or paying high rents and saving to help kids with their education. Saving for retirement for many is just a luxury.

The reason that so many people are buying homes to let (and forcing up prices) is because they see that as a better source of income in retirement than a traditional pension!