Retirement

[harpo_72]

All accepted…but homeowners have (should have) their ability to pay monthly mortgage payments stress-tested against increases in rate, and so when the rate goes up they have to pay it out of existing income or pull their belts in, they have nobody to pass the rate increase on to. Why should that not apply for buy to let owners. If they can’t afford an increase in rate then should they be in that business. It’s not the renters fault that the landlord may have over-stretched himself.

Just asking. I get the issues the landlords have to put up with.

Of course this all goes back to government and council affordable housing building policy and funding. And as already pointed out, landlords ever increasing their rents to the point of unaffordability will result in serious housing issues when the huge swathe of current renters about to reach retirement age find they have no way of paying the rent, or find it a massive struggle. What’s going to happen? Landlords giving 2months notice to vacate to 66-70 yr old couples who can’t pay their rent?

Landlords can’t just raise rates not if they are managed correctly. Legislation doesn’t allow it.
I agree that overstretching is an issue, and I know the percentage increase impacts and it has always been in my calculations.
What I am saying is renters cannot be insulated from this, especially if they chose to buy the property they would be paying a mortgage for it that would be roughly 40% more than their rent, if they have the 60% deposit. If not then they would be paying 100% more as a bare minimum…
My view maybe hard, but it’s like this if you cannot afford the house prices in that area, you live elsewhere and travel into work. If you want to rent then you have to respect the going rates and your paying to maintain someone else’s assets.
Is it taking houses away from people, no that’s like looking in a shop and saying everything should be affordable to all irrespective of value and I am entitled to have it.

 

[harpo_72]

I mean, yes, but we probably have a completely different group of people in mind...

Some are entitled to benefits.. others are not, likewise there are a bunch of people taking the mick at all levels. You cannot just highlight one particular section of society. It’s rife up all society

 

[Robster59]

It’s a fair point but the counter would be did they pay enough tax and maintain the system during their lifetime.. did they keep voting for the government that advocated spending cuts and low tax?

That is a remarkably sweeping statement. When I retire, I will have worked for almost 50 years, paid full tax, not drawn any benefits, not been a heavy user of the NHS and (not that it is relevant to this) I have not voted in the way you describe. I will still have to pay for pretty much everything I have to pay for whilst I have been working and on reduced income. And you want to penalise me more!?

 

[Robster59]

Guess why? I remember dealing with all sorts of issues relating to folk not using their housing benefit for housing! (Of course that's not EVERY case, but it was significant)

Sad but true. When they changed the system to give the money to the dwellers, the money was often spent on other things (cigarettes, drink, drugs) rather than putting a roof over their head. I know this as my partner used to work helping people in this sector.

 

[Doon frae Troon]

No apologies for repeating this as I am surprised how few know about it.

If you or your spouse are a few years short of the 35 years min for a full state pension you can buy extra years to make it up.
It is not a lot of money around £250 per year if I remember [check it out on the website]

It is a no brainer. [unless you pop your clogs a couple of years after retiring ]

 

[Alan Clifford]

I always get flack for this but I strongly believe state pension should be means tested instead of triple locked.

For example I don't think I should even get one with the private pension available

I think it should be linked to the minimum wage , so if that goes up so does pension.


You start off on minimum wage. Like benefits of your private pension goes above x amount your state drops off until it's gone

Then the poorest in society get a fair amount and the fortunate who can afford to save for retirement don't get the support

However it's always said "it encourages people to not save to get the state"

I'm really the opposite. Give everyone a living wage. Not means tested. Just think of all the civil servant wages we would save. Civil servants means testing poor people are just a cancer on society.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

I'm really the opposite. Give everyone a living wage. Not means tested. Just think of all the civil servant wages we would save. Civil servants means testing poor people are just a cancer on society.

This. Provide a basic living wage and flat rate of tax thereafter.

 

[Captain_Black.]

As has been mooted before.
If they raised the basic rate threshold to £20,000 it wouldn't cost the Treasury a great deal in the bigger scheme of things & it's an amount that could easily be recouped in other ways, but it would make a massive difference to the lower paid & some less well off pensioners.

 

[babylonsinger]

No apologies for repeating this as I am surprised how few know about it.

If you or your spouse are a few years short of the 35 years min for a full state pension you can buy extra years to make it up.
It is not a lot of money around £250 per year if I remember [check it out on the website]

It is a no brainer. [unless you pop your clogs a couple of years after retiring ]

This advice is correct except the amount per year is just over £800 I believe.

Well worth getting a gateway ID to view your pension record if you are able to topup the pension. Pretty sure I read that 2006-16 periods have to be done by 2025

 

[Red devil]

@Red devil just got this from the pensions meeting

On Funding as of 30 September the funding was 86.9% on the Technical Provisions basis and
111.6% on the updated side letter basis (basically on how well the shared and Guilts are currently doing). Total assets were £13.9bn
Current expectations are that we remain over 100% funded and will have a
surplus in excess of £1bn at current date. The December quarter end funding
update is expected to be received later this month.



yet our pension was under threat of change last 2 years to "save cost"

bear in mind my pension lent my company 100 million few years back

please keep your greedy hands off our pensions!!

why can't workers have good pensions? Especially when they are proven to fund themselves

They'd love to get rid of ours. It was part of the "pay deal" offered last April which was refused in no uncertain terms.
Ps. My section was well funded as well. Granted there's a couple of freight companies in deficit but that's it.

 

[Mandofred]

A couple of the things that allowed me to retire rather early from teaching (just short of 54)....I didn't get married until I was 49, no kids to raise....although my wife had 4 from a previous, but not in the money wasting years of MY life. And....my wife is eligible for US spousal social security....she gets about £650 a month...and had never worked in the US...madness. But I'm sure as heck not going to turn that money down.....

 

[PJ87]

They'd love to get rid of ours. It was part of the "pay deal" offered last April which was refused in no uncertain terms.
Ps. My section was well funded as well. Granted there's a couple of freight companies in deficit but that's it.

Looks like the paydeal has been accepted by the biggest two unions as of today for us. My union hasn't yet but only because we stuck it out to the members to vote rather than just the reps decide thought that was the idea.

God knows what unite are doing tho. I'm sure they will just go with the flow

Pension is safe until 2025 .. great they just kicking the can down the road .. they don't seem to realise taking on the pensions doesn't pit staff against management because it's their pension aswell so you lose all your support

 

[PJ87]

I'm really the opposite. Give everyone a living wage. Not means tested. Just think of all the civil servant wages we would save. Civil servants means testing poor people are just a cancer on society.

That seems fair but as @BiMGuy says 20k tax free then anything above probably taxed to pay for things

The leaders did their tax returns the other day (mods bear with this isn't politics just about taxes in general) rishi paid 450k tax but was only 23% of his overall earnings .. what is clear is capital gains needs moving in line with income tax as for example I paid 34% of my wages overall as tax after allowance etc, yet someone earning a lot more than me without a personal allowance paid a lot less of a %

That doesn't sit right

 

[Alan Clifford]

That seems fair but as @BiMGuy says 20k tax free then anything above probably taxed to pay for things

The leaders did their tax returns the other day (mods bear with this isn't politics just about taxes in general) rishi paid 450k tax but was only 23% of his overall earnings .. what is clear is capital gains needs moving in line with income tax as for example I paid 34% of my wages overall as tax after allowance etc, yet someone earning a lot more than me without a personal allowance paid a lot less of a %

That doesn't sit right

I'd like income to be tax free and more tax on spending. This could still be progressive; tax free food and heavily taxed golf balls and red wine. But wait, cabsav is heavily taxed already.

 

[harpo_72]

That is a remarkably sweeping statement. When I retire, I will have worked for almost 50 years, paid full tax, not drawn any benefits, not been a heavy user of the NHS and (not that it is relevant to this) I have not voted in the way you describe. I will still have to pay for pretty much everything I have to pay for whilst I have been working and on reduced income. And you want to penalise me more!?

You and me both, but we are in a minority given the government’s we have had in power. But it still is a shortfall that needs addressing. If you can’t accept that the issue is the money has been either not collected or misspent then what other reasons are there?

 

[harpo_72]

I'd like income to be tax free and more tax on spending. This could still be progressive; tax free food and heavily taxed golf balls and red wine. But wait, cabsav is heavily taxed already.

Not sure about no income tax, but luxury items do require high levels of taxation for sure … pop it on watches, premium brands , handbags, jewellery etc ..
I would also be looking at golden handshakes, wages over £100k, pension pots in excess of £1million..
I know it’s not popular but if you want parity and equality that’s how you get there.

 

[Crazyface]

Not sure about no income tax, but luxury items do require high levels of taxation for sure … pop it on watches, premium brands , handbags, jewellery etc ..
I would also be looking at golden handshakes, wages over £100k, pension pots in excess of £1million..
I know it’s not popular but if you want parity and equality that’s how you get there.

Agreed! As a side note. We have some NSI bonds (Ernie), don't win much, but you can check who does and where they are and how much holding they have. JESUS H.....There is ALOT of money swilling around. The amount of people that win that have £30K+ in there is astounding. And that's just the actual winners you can see each month !!!!!! I only put my paltry, comparatively, amount in when interest rates weren't bothering with.

 

[PJ87]

Not sure about no income tax, but luxury items do require high levels of taxation for sure … pop it on watches, premium brands , handbags, jewellery etc ..
I would also be looking at golden handshakes, wages over £100k, pension pots in excess of £1million..
I know it’s not popular but if you want parity and equality that’s how you get there.

Thing is these things were set decades ago and frozen .. not in line with inflation

London wages 100k is still high but not rich, you still have to work. Pension over a million had to have the limit removed as half the NHS were about to retire as they hit the cap

I agree with more tax but it needs to be adjusted for inflation

Personally everyone should get a personal allowance

20k tax free
20-60k 22 % tax
60-100k 45% tax
100k plus 50% tax

Pension allowance should be capped but 2 million back in line with inflation

 

[harpo_72]

Thing is these things were set decades ago and frozen .. not in line with inflation

London wages 100k is still high but not rich, you still have to work. Pension over a million had to have the limit removed as half the NHS were about to retire as they hit the cap

I agree with more tax but it needs to be adjusted for inflation

Personally everyone should get a personal allowance

20k tax free
20-60k 22 % tax
60-100k 45% tax
100k plus 50% tax

Pension allowance should be capped but 2 million back in line with inflation

You see there is the amusing side , NHS pension pots being delimited because they need to keep them .. so are these too generous and not mentioned in wage negotiations? ( just poking the bear here, NHS services are greatly appreciated)

 

[PJ87]

You see there is the amusing side , NHS pension pots being delimited because they need to keep them .. so are these too generous and not mentioned in wage negotiations? ( just poking the bear here, NHS services are greatly appreciated)

Unlimited is nothing to do with NHS tho unlimited is now to avoid tax on estates put into pensions raising to 2 mil would have solved it

But let's stop there .. don't want to go into politics