Concerned that Labour govt might fleece me in upcoming budget?

[RightOh9oo]

Aibu to be concerned that Labour government might fleece myself/family in the next budget?

If they remove the right to UK pension for all, by making it means tested....I think I'll stop working this year. I'm early 50s, does anyone else feel like this?

I'm going without so much to save in my private pension, so no holidays to speak of.

Does anyone know what is in store in the upcoming budget?

Blossomtoes

I agree with you entirely (I usually do) on every point you make except that this level of pensioner wealth is typical because it just isn’t. All my contemporaries are pensioners, none of us have second homes or have ever had them and we’re all comfortably off.“

I wonder whether the age of the pensioner is important here? At 85 and 78 they’re on the older side. I recognise that younger pensioners don’t have it anywhere near so easy. The number of 68 plus people working in B and Q, etc. makes that pretty obvious.
They are very much part of a golden generation who, after a shaky start, benefitted from the introduction of the welfare state and private ownership.

My mum used right to buy (which I frankly think was abhorrent even though I benefitted from it) to lift herself and her family out of a classic south east London working class beginning. Sold the social housing at huge profit and moved into the private sector when prices were still 2 or 3 times annual salary, onwards and upwards.
My stepdad very much took advantage of the Del Boy city sales opportunities of the 1980s and 1990s. Not very well educated, street smarts.

Right place, right time. Neither of those routes are available to young families now.

Love them but it does piss me off when he bemoans poverty because he had to buy the 10 quid bottle of wine rather than the 20 because they’re “hard up”.

Putting that’s interesting but a bit scary. It does look a bit like a giant Ponzi scheme!

Yes. It was always going to be really difficult. Labour were very clear. It is going to be the pensioners and sick that will be hit. They need people working and paying tax - they have been really open about this. They won’t put people off working and business off employing. So they say. Public sector - whatever. It needs the private sector paying into society to fund it. Wealth creators.

They to me, seem more likely to deliver growth than the Tories who ruined it by taxing people out of productivity. Actively - to protect one generation at the expense of all others. Extra debt to increase growth would’ve been better that austerity in the first place. However, it needs to be for growth. Getting people back to work, infrastructure. Not more benefits or triple locked pensions. That’s a luxury now.

Anyone who thought Labour would not share the burden with pensioners and those on welfare haven’t been paying attention. Personally, I hope they don’t tax business and employers out of investment and employment. That will be the key. Shrinking the state and getting people working at full capacity is what the state needs.

It is. The burden for state sector pensions is massive. Those paying in now are paying the pensions of those nice, final salary schemes which were taken off them. It’s a huge house of cards that no-one will address until it collapses. That will be sooner, rather than later if they keep putting people of working/investing in the private sector.

Personally, I hope they don’t tax business and employers out of investment and employment.

I share this concern and not sure what Rayner is planning with policy but anything hampering growth via taxes will really be problematic

Not immediately but it will come at some stage.

I hope you are right, but I suspect that this will be a target. Labour have been influenced by the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IFS) who have promoted this idea. Perhaps by also allowing lower rate tax payers an increase over basic rate to encourage payments into pensions for those with a smaller pot. I agree this might have some unintended consequences but equally Labour want to make an intial impact.

It won’t. It’s spoken about all the time pension changes come in. It would cause huge issues for the economy. They have had the warning shot report on that this week. Too many public sector workers would be hit. They can’t risk them kicking off again. It would have many, many consequences, some of which I listed above. I’d happily bet it won’t.

I hope that they have properly thought it through, and so far I remain to be convinced. Right now, our instinct is to relocate. We are pension age, and not looking for a job. And, we do have enough money and savings to make it work.

The issue is - skilled, higher earners have been doing that for a while now, hence the conundrum. Usually to the tune of fuck off and take your money/skills with you, you won’t be missed, greedy, selfish, etc. There needs to be another approach.

@Aduvetday We actually have an approved greencard and are weighing up whether to make the move when the date becomes current - probably in about 18 months. My husband is an additional rate taxpayer and we do feel a bit rinsed.

The U.S. has pros and cons but the taxes are much lower and the salaries are a lot higher. The kind of work he does is much better paid there and generally comes with extremely good health insurance. There are family reasons to stay here and there are some things about the Uk that are simply better but the next couple of budgets may push us one way or the other.

Other countries tend to be easier to move to but they come with language barriers and similar or lower salaries to the UK.

The closest I can see it getting - and I may be wrong about this - is to reduce tax relief on contributions to non-workplace pensions and mandate that workplace pensions must invest at least X% in infrastructure projects / British companies / something else the Government likes, in exchange for keeping the full tax relief.

Snap.

I've read all those messages too. Happy to leave the NMW crew to get by without the UC top ups from the rest of us.

Our situation is very different. We are already 68, and not retired because we think the SME DH created should continue trading. It's profitable. and viable. But nobody wants to buy it, unless it's at a few cents to the dollar. So, don't hope for a cheap payday... We'd much rather give the company to the staff and wait.

Some reports suggest that they plan exemptions for Public Sector/Final Salary Schemes. Whilst this would go down very badly indeed Labour logic may be that with a big majority there is a time window where they can pretty much do what they want. Also if this is focused on tax payers at 40% and above they can trot out the old slogan about those with the broadest shoulders [again].

They won’t do it. Again for multiple reasons that the IMF and others have said. They don’t have the broadest shoulders. They are literally being taxed out of productivity and they are changing behaviour because of it. It’s the usual nonsense trotted out by the papers and the politics of envy crew. It’s just financial suicide economically.

If they kill off the private sector completely then there is no UK. We are bankrupt. We need people investing in pensions because without that money there is no investment in companies and infrastructure. That money is invested to grow. Higher tax payers are already taxed to the point it is harming productivity and those people will just work less, leave or salary sacrifice into a huge car. The first two are happening the third - it’s a joke in the financial sector where I am - we will have a car park of Porsches. It won’t happen.

The private sector is key. All those SMEs that produce goods and services and ultimately employ the majority of employees who pay tax and NI.

They take risks every day with financial management. The public sector doesn’t.

They are key to growth. Tax them to oblivion along with those top earners and you don’t have much of a base left. Balance is absolutely key here.

Whilst I’m not suggesting that those in the public sector don’t do valuable jobs, of course they do. We need them to do the jobs they do. They pay their paye tax etc. But it’s the private sector small, medium and large companies that pay significant corporation tax that can’t be overlooked. Disengage and disadvantage this majority market that takes huge risks at peril.

They need to be cautious otherwise they will disenfranchise the ‘squeezed middle’ earners. Yes the maybe working now and saving into private pensions but why do that when everything is means tested. People in their 50s will feel the rug being pulled.

Labour have got to get the balance right. If people are just going to feel financial pain the ‘swing voters’ may not give Labour a second chance

Agree on this. The public sector can only grow if the private sector is robust and thriving

Tax and policy that cuts that back will filter through to everyone. Labour seem to be giving mixed messages on various taxes and policy v growth. Why they felt the need to do such an early doom and gloom rose garden speech idk.

All that time to change behaviour and opt out, without being upfront on what it actually entails.

Labour seem to be giving mixed messages on various taxes and policy v growth. Why they felt the need to do such an early doom and gloom rose garden speech idk.

It really is incomprehensible to give such doom and gloom messages right from the get go without any balance of positivity of what they are going to achieve. It seems as though they have only just realised this as well.

Normally the message would be on the positive side with an underlying note that to achieve better things some pain is also necessary. Start with the positive, balance with some negative. Not just negative, negative and no positive.

It doesn't give UK businesses or individuals confidence. It's also a really elementary strategy that any business would employ to convey messages, so magnify that upwards to the government it makes it even less sense.

It's a bit like saying to somebody "do you want the good news or the bad news first?" You try and give a balance. Not just press forward the bad news without any good news.

I mean even this they can't get one message going

Yesterday 'Rachel Reeves urges end to remote working in favour of office return'

A few weeks ago

'Starmer backs working from home as ‘culture of presenteeism’ is bad for productivity'

But what they were thinking for doing that press conference, god knows