Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

The budget 2014

256 replies

VikkiMumsnet · 14/03/2014 15:32

George Osborne is all set to deliver this year's budget on Wednesday 19th March.

Here's a useful link for what's expected to be covered. Headline issues are likely to include property tax and stamp duty, as well as an increase in the personal tax allowance (up to £10,000).

What do you want to see as part of the budget, and what are you dreading coming up? Share your thoughts below.

OP posts:
ShadowOfTheDay · 20/03/2014 13:43

but - it makes no sense at all to take advantage of the tax concessions to save the pension - then have to pay a ton of tax to get at the money and end up with a crappy retirement...

I guess there will be a few stupid people... so I guess I do believe that sometimes people do stupid things, but not generally, if the quality of your immediate future depends on it.......

Contrarian78 · 20/03/2014 15:33

Shadow I think that's the logic the government are using.

JaneinReading · 20/03/2014 15:39

Giving money to pay off your child's mortgage or even to give the child a deposit on a flat might well be a wise investment and lawfully avoids IHT when the time comes if you live 7 years particularly if the said child would take you into their home if you fell on hard times.

Contrarian78 · 20/03/2014 15:48

I'm not sure you'd do that. Interest rates would have to be through the roof. At best it'd cost 160k(ish) (can't be bothered to do the maths) to give a "gift" of 100k. That means that said pensioner would have paid 60k to the exchequor............a reasonable contribution indeed.

I've done a pretty simple calcualtion (excluding NI) to work out what you'd need to earn/drawdown to net 100k.

tryingreallytrying · 20/03/2014 16:37

Tom Watson MP (aka the man who SHOULD be Prime Minister, as one of the few MPs with both a fully-working conscience and bucketloads of courage; a genuine public servant) explains why the pension reforms are a lousy idea on his blog - quoted in the Guardian - far more clearly than I could:

"The annuities market evolved in the UK as an early example of the state, the individual and the private sector co-operating to protect one another from the everyday risks that we all face. It’s a deal. When you pay into a pension the state doesn’t treat that like it does other income or even other savings – it gives you special tax breaks, special rewards and special protections. Why? Because in the end, whilst saving for a pension protects you it also protects the wider community ...

What the Chancellor announced yesterday fundamentally threatens that deal. It says to the individual – pay into this pot, take the tax breaks and the special protections, then do whatever you want with it later on. It’s a one-sided charter for tax avoidance that misunderstands why our carefully constructed mixture of the public and the private works for pensioners and works for the UK as a whole."

tryingreallytrying · 20/03/2014 16:45

The last thing the younger generation wants or needs is the nation's banks of mums and dads to have access to a few hundred K from their pension funds, to lend out. On the contrary, they need a huge investment in supply, ie house building programmes galore, and a clamp down on demand, to allow prices to fall to levels where they can buy a property based on their own salaries, only.

Measures like this pension change and Help to Buy will have an - entirely deliberate - effect, the opposite to what is claimed. Far from helping ordinary people or making them richer, they will push up house prices and keep them up, and keep all of us poorer, by ensuring we all have to pay masses more for a roof over our (or our children's) heads, while the rich landowning class get richer and richer, by doing nothing at all. Angry

tryingreallytrying · 20/03/2014 16:59

And contrarian - you're wrong about the amount of tax you'll have to pay to get cash out of your pension.

It will be 20% for most people, not the huge sums you claim:

"currently when people retire they can take up to a quarter of their pension pot as a lump sum payment, tax free, but if they want more than that in cash then they would have to pay 55% tax. Next year that will change so that any extra money retirees want to take out of their pension will only be taxed at their ‘marginal rate’ - that will be 20% for the vast majority of people, 40% for those with incomes above about £41,000 a year." (Guardian)

Contrarian78 · 20/03/2014 17:11

Excepting the 25% tax free point (which was the case before the budget changes) then I don't think I am wrong. Not massively anyway. A drawdown of the magnitue I descibed would surely be treated as income (I don't know if you'd lose your personal allowance) and taxed accordingly.

Contrarian78 · 20/03/2014 17:14

Its a one-sided charter for tax avoidance that misunderstands why our carefully constructed mixture of the public and the private works for pensioners and works for the UK as a whole.

That would be the case if pension income wasn't taxed (on the way out).

Pension saving has ALWAYS been about deferring tax, rather than avoidining it.

tryingreallytrying · 20/03/2014 17:31

No, that's way too simplistic. If pensions had historically been taxed identically to incomes and treated identically, no-one would have bothered taking them out - they would have just kept the cash in a savings account or whatever. There are huge advantages to pensions over just saving yourself, in that you save more tax when you're earning (esp if you're a higher-rate taxpayer) than you'd pay back as a pensioner. Plus employers contribute - extra free money. Plus you qualify for benefits etc as if you have no income - how is that now going to work, given potentially we will all have access to pension cash from 55? Does that mean no-one over 55 can qualify for means-tested benefits any more? As it would hardly be fair if they did.

Seems very back-of-fag packet policy-making to me.

Basically bribing taxpayers before the election. But by a cunning stroke, it's their own pension security you're bribing them with. But the Tories are hoping people are too venal and short-sighted to notice this. Hmm

PigletJohn · 20/03/2014 17:53

If arranged carefully, pension contribs can avoid not only income tax, but also both employers and employee NI contribs, which makes them a terrific deal for people able to do that.

Depending on your proximity to a tax band, salary sacrifice to increase your pension contribs can put you in a lower band.

ihategeorgeosborne · 20/03/2014 18:07

I suspect that the next move will be the abolition of 40% tax relief on pension contributions. Then no one will bother saving into pensions anymore, apart from the public sector unless they too are abolished. Those that can afford to will pile into property, even more so than now. Those that can't will be stuffed Hmm .

StatisticallyChallenged · 20/03/2014 18:48

Funny Ihategeorgeosbourne, I was musing last night about whether this will impact house prices. I could see a fair number of people putting their pot in to buy to let.

caroldecker · 20/03/2014 19:08

Typical of the left leaning that people cannot be trusted with their own money. The state spends money badly, people spend their own money better. If we really think that people cannot make descisions, then benefit should be paid in food, shelter and heating rather than cash - which would be stupid and demeaning

TeacakeEater · 20/03/2014 19:18

Statistcally, this is the direction I can see it going - the housing market in one form or another.

StatisticallyChallenged · 20/03/2014 19:32

Yup, which I don't necessarily think is a good idea for everyone. If you have reasonable wealth and can afford to have investments in several different places generating income - then having property as part of that is a good idea in general.

I suppose what I fear is people taking their pot, putting it all in to one buy to let (quite possibly only as a deposit given the average pot size) and really having all their eggs in one potentially quite volatile basket. It's fine if you have other things to help you ride out the bumps but otherwise, not so much.

I'd love to see some new long term income products with better returns, maybe something with a guaranteed minimum but also linked to your investment returns? But in general anything with guaranteed income over the long term is actually relatively hard (nowadays!) for companies to make much from because of solvency/capital regs. Maybe there'll be something super innovative!

TheHoneyBadger · 20/03/2014 22:48

it sounds very much like a deliberate ploy to stop people over 55 claiming benefits to me. which funnily enough is about the time when people may be at high risk for major health problems developing such as heart problems etc. pension was not treated as an asset but if it is possible to draw it down then it will be and thus they'll be counted as having over x amount of savings and not be eligible.

so joe blogs with 20k in his pension won't qualify for sickness benefits when he has a heart attack and subsequently is incapacitated until he's cashed in his pension, lost a chunk to tax and spent the rest.

it will be one more level of clogs to clogs business because only the very rich will be able to financially survive ill health without losing everything whilst the worked really hard to get some security and hoped to leave some money to their kids types will lose everything the minute they get ill.

StatisticallyChallenged · 20/03/2014 23:00

With regards to it being an asset and now accessible - what about bankruptcy and care home fees? Supposition at this point but if someone of an age where they could access their pension was facing bankruptcy, could it be counted as an asset in the future?

TheHoneyBadger · 21/03/2014 06:18

i'm not sure how i feel about that. on the one hand why should someone who has gone bankrupt and owes money be able to sit on a nest egg (likewise if they're going into a care home IF it is a decent amount of care and by giving up their money they're guaranteed decent care for as long as they need it)?

the idea say that someone could have paid a fortune into a pension meaning they'd have a massive income when they turned age x but owed a huge sum after defaulting on payments to say lots of small business' for whom it meant the end if they didn't get paid seems immoral on face value.

however so does the idea of someone not earning much paying a chunk of it into their pension every month their whole life in order to provide a semblance of security in retirement being forced to cash it in and spend it at 55 when they have cancer leaving them with nothing for old age.

JaneinReading · 21/03/2014 06:50

People and the press seem to forget that flexible and capped drawn down are already there. It is just they are being changed a bit. At present you need to have £20k of other income before you can take your pension pot subject to 55% tax , soon it will be £12k income and from April 2015 you will not need any other annuity income and can take all the pot as cash. That for most people who have saved for 30 years in reasonable jobs will be taxed at 45% on much of it. So it is a tax reduction from 55% if you draw the lot to 45%. (Capped draw down already here is not very useful - you don't draw an annuity but you draw an income instead which tends to be 20% worse off than you'd have under an annuity so we can ignore it here).

Currently if you have tiny amounts of a few thousand in your pension you can already take it all as cash by the way. There are special rules for that which are slightly changing.

If you are on £20k a year and have say £200k in your pension pot then at age 55 whether you retire or not (rising to age 57 by 2028) or later you will be able to take it all as cash. On our example some of that is taxed at that perons' 20% rate, some at 40% and some at 45%. If you have £500k in the pot most of it will be taxed at 45% (a 10% reduction on what you pay now - 55%).

I am ignoring above the fact that 25% of that case has always been and hopefully will remain drawable at retirement tax free.

If you are on a low income you won't have much of a pension anyway and its amounts will be so small under current rules you can draw them tax free anyway. If it is a biggish pot then it is likely when you draw it all out 75% will be taxed at 45%. If instead you buy an annuity then that of course is taxed too - my father paid 40% tax on the pension income he drew. He saved all his life into pensions, worked full time until 77 and died at 79.

Remember just as important is that fact that from 6 April the maximum in your pot ni any type of pension comes down to £1.25m before punitive taxes are applied. |This will catch anyone on £60k or above with a pension even a final salary one, many head teachers, doctors etc. by 6 April you can apply to protect some of that at the current maximum pot level of £1.5m. Do that. Check it. Get your husband to check his.

The comment is correct above that if you take lump sum that affects your benefits BUT already you can take sums up to about £10k if that is all the pension pot it - www.hmrc.gov.uk/pensionschemes/small-pen.htm.

In my view rather than being the biggest change in 100 years on pensions they are an addition to the existing rules and all smoke and mirrors in their suggestion this is a big deal.

The bottom line sadly for this website though is that most women have virtually no pensions and often allow don't claim them on divorce from their hsuband when they can as they prefer cash in hand to spend now.
The biggest financial issue for women is not earning much, giving up work and having to rely on a husband's career, pension and earnings. That is what we somehow need to cure, to help women make good financial choices, save etc. Women are often better than men at being careful, saving, protecting their children etc however so there is much to hope for now that 60% of graduates are female and women often earn more than their husbands and more do than not up to age 40. The tide is turning. Whether you want to lock money up in a pension particularly if you are self employed so have no employer contribution is another matter. They change the rules so much - flexible draw down rules have been changed 4 times in the last 5 years alone even though there is tax relief in the way in but not on the way out it may not be the best or only way of saving and the money is locked up until at least age 55 (moving to age 57 under the changes this week from 2028).

TheHoneyBadger · 21/03/2014 07:56

really informative jane thank you.

i have no pension because it has never been wise for me to tie up money in a pension. at the beginning of my career i was more focussed on paying capital sums off of my interest only mortgage which made more financial sense, later i had more immediate financial issues and soon i will be self employed so no sense in a pension for me at all really.

paying into a pension or not isn't purely about recklessness but a weighing up of benefits and losses much like dealing with debt - re: the madness of people saving money in an account instead of paying off a debt they're paying interest on on something as daft as a credit card.

think you also need a good emergency pot before you start tying cash away long term and some people never manage to get that secure and keep losing it before they get to the stage of being able to think to the next level of financial planning.

with the state of interest rates though i presume it's been a good time for sticking money in a pension and those in aposition to do so will have been putting as much of their money into them as they can?

TheHoneyBadger · 21/03/2014 07:59

another thought it is actually IN the interests of the state to keep houses prices low enough for average people to be able to buy as it will save them a fortune when those people are elderly. someone who owns their own home can live frugally on a state pension, someone who is renting has no chance and HB will have to apply or some equivalent if we're not to have elderly people dying in the street.

tryingreallytrying · 21/03/2014 09:12

THB - you are too kind in assuming that having old people dying on the street isn't actually if not the plan at least an acceptable fallout from the plan in Tory eyes. The plan is to remove the welfare state and leave old people who spent their pot due to eg poor health or who didn't have one as women or self employed, reliant on the goodwill of family members or charity. Much like Victorian days.

tryingreallytrying · 21/03/2014 09:26

Statistically challenged:

" If you have reasonable wealth and can afford to have investments in several different places generating income - then having property as part of that is a good idea in general. "

But the problem is precisely that people buying property to let is NOT good "in general". It may indeed be good for the individual who owns several properties - but by definition, we can't all own several properties, because (a) there aren't enough properties for that to happen and (b) if we all owned more than the one we lived in, there'd be no profit to be made., as no-one to rent the others to.

There is only money to be made because property (a) is extremely expensive, so the sums involved are huge and usually leveraged (b) there is a finite supply of property and (c) it is essential - no-one can do without a roof over their head.

So BTL makes money by deliberately forcing up the cost of an already incredibly expensive essential item and forcing the poorest eg those who have no other choice to pay through the nose for it. That is neither ethical nor good for the country as a whole - it means most wealth chases unproductive assets instead of investing in, say, industry. It pushes up wage costs, reduces mobility and obviously has huge knock-ons on the quality of life for those forced to spend huge proportions of their earnings on rental costs.

It is wilfully naive to suggest that 'investing in' property is 'a good idea in general'. It is anything but.

ShadowOfTheDay · 21/03/2014 09:27

JaneinReading thank you for that post it explains it all neatly....