State pension age NOT rising yet

[alscar]

Electro1980 said:

That too, although I suspect they will find that doesn’t work that well. The further away they more it the more professionals and middle and senior management types will stop planning towards a date and start planning towards “what is the minimum I need to stop doing this crap”.

I foresee a lot of xlennials in 20 years paying off their mortgage, downsizing to a 2 bed and taking up part time, low stress jobs to pay for the basics, whilst “living their best life YOLO” on their savings and seeing theirs pension as a second retirement.

I quite fancy giving up the crap I have to deal with at work, once I no longer have to pay mortgage and kids, and working 2-3 days a week doing Waitrose deliveries or driving for BCA etc, spending the rest of the time messing about with old motorbikes and cycling.

I worked for 42 years paying into a Private pension and also NI so won’t feel too guilty about taking my State Pension in 6 years time. I “ retired “ from the crap in December 2021 and can thoroughly recommend it.
But I agree with you about what will happen in 20 years time - I assume that my children are already calculating inheritance wins as a strategy.

[BoRED S2upid]

Probably influenced by France. They are not taking this well.

[turbobloke]

BoRED S2upid said:

Probably influenced by France. They are not taking this well.

Agreed. The UK gov't won't meddle with the TFLS or indeed age thresholds atm.

Nothing can be ruled out for the duration, but the time isn't right.

[BoRED S2upid]

turbobloke said:

BoRED S2upid said:

Probably influenced by France. They are not taking this well.

Agreed. The UK gov't won't meddle with the TFLS or indeed age thresholds atm.

Nothing can be ruled out for the duration, but the time isn't right.

If they can wait 15 years that will do me fine lol

[Electro1980]

The Ferret said:

SunsetZed said:

Another large benefit is reducing your income to a lower tax band, particularly in the case of 100k to avoid the 62% tax bracket from 100k-125k with the removal of the personal allowance. If they want people to spend more money they should sort this . I know that it's a first world problem but currently 4% of the working population are impacted by this and I bet that many of them are pumping higher contributions into their pension than they otherwise would to avoid the tax hit thus meaning that when they reach early 50's their pension pot is a lot bigger than it would have been and enabling more early retirements which they're trying to avoid.

Edited by SunsetZed on Friday 31st March 12:48

I've been saying this for years. It's a complete farce, they say 4% of the working population are impacted by this, but they have no clue as these are just the 4% that are taking it on the chin and paying 62%. The amount of earners doing what they can avoid it is unknown, but my guess is its substantial. It reaches way further than the £100k-£125k bracket too, as you have to earn substantially past £125k to make it worth taking under PAYE. I'd say anyone earning £100k-£140k is foolish for allowing their earnings to go above £100k.

All that tax being avoided, and again all the tax that would be earned when the money is spent, its a complete joke. Not to mention its a royal pi55take theiving nearly two thirds of someones pay.

They should sort out the stupidity of the 57% rate at 50k for many people first. Both of them make no sense. I have no problem with considering higher tax rates, but the stupid implementation of these, all to fudge tax cuts years ago, is ridiculous and very much undermining the idea of a progressive tax system.

[SunsetZed]

Electro1980 said:

The Ferret said:

SunsetZed said:

Another large benefit is reducing your income to a lower tax band, particularly in the case of 100k to avoid the 62% tax bracket from 100k-125k with the removal of the personal allowance. If they want people to spend more money they should sort this . I know that it's a first world problem but currently 4% of the working population are impacted by this and I bet that many of them are pumping higher contributions into their pension than they otherwise would to avoid the tax hit thus meaning that when they reach early 50's their pension pot is a lot bigger than it would have been and enabling more early retirements which they're trying to avoid.

Edited by SunsetZed on Friday 31st March 12:48

I've been saying this for years. It's a complete farce, they say 4% of the working population are impacted by this, but they have no clue as these are just the 4% that are taking it on the chin and paying 62%. The amount of earners doing what they can avoid it is unknown, but my guess is its substantial. It reaches way further than the £100k-£125k bracket too, as you have to earn substantially past £125k to make it worth taking under PAYE. I'd say anyone earning £100k-£140k is foolish for allowing their earnings to go above £100k.

All that tax being avoided, and again all the tax that would be earned when the money is spent, its a complete joke. Not to mention its a royal pi55take theiving nearly two thirds of someones pay.

They should sort out the stupidity of the 57% rate at 50k for many people first. Both of them make no sense. I have no problem with considering higher tax rates, but the stupid implementation of these, all to fudge tax cuts years ago, is ridiculous and very much undermining the idea of a progressive tax system.

I'm not familiar with that, are you talking about the removal of child benefit? If so then if you factor in removal of free childcare hours at 100k then the tax rate is far higher than 62%, potentially you could lose another 20k per child per annum aged 3-4, more in a couple of years when childcare support starts from 1.

[Electro1980]

That is very different, as it was never universal, is a very limited period, and it more like £3k/child/year, not £20k. Child benefit was universal and for 18 years. People planned based on one, not the other.

Edited by Electro1980 on Friday 31st March 21:50

[SunsetZed]

Electro1980 said:

That is very different, as it was never universal, is a very limited period, and it more like £3k/child/year, not £20k. Child benefit was universal and for 18 years. People planned based on one, not the other.

Edited by Electro1980 on Friday 31st March 21:50

Apologies if I was not clear, I'm talking about the fact that you lose 30 hours per week of funded childcare if you hit 100k, in a lot of the country that's far nearer 20k than 3k.

I agree that the child factors are different, I was just trying to understand the 57% mentioned by the other poster as I'm not aware of it but as you say to my mind it's very different to the 62% which is not time limited by children which I think is what the other poster was referring to.

[Electro1980]

SunsetZed said:

Apologies if I was not clear, I'm talking about the fact that you lose 30 hours per week of funded childcare if you hit 100k, in a lot of the country that's far nearer 20k than 3k.

You were clear, and no it’s not. It’s about £3k. The government themselves value it at “up to” £5k per family, using dodgy government cherry picking maths. It does not fund full time nursery care, not even close, which is what costs that sort of money. I can give you a detailed breakdown of how it works if you like, but it’s incredibly dull and long winded, but suffice to say I have one child using it at the moment, one that did use it, and I am trustee for a preschool so know huge ins and outs of how it’s. calculated.

The point is, that’s never been lost, any more than people not getting universal credit have “lost” anything. HMRC don’t make you complete a self assessment tax return to calculate your free childcare allowance.

[Pan Pan Pan]

alscar said:

croyde said:

I keep reading about 66 being increased to 68, but now not.

How come mine is 67 then?

All depends on your dob - mine is 67 as is my wife's.

Meanwhile in France, people are rioting over having the pension age raised to 64 from 62. Its a funny old world!

[turbobloke]

Pan Pan Pan said:

alscar said:

croyde said:

I keep reading about 66 being increased to 68, but now not.

How come mine is 67 then?

All depends on your dob - mine is 67 as is my wife's.

Meanwhile in France, people are rioting over having the pension age raised to 64 from 62. Its a funny old world!

Oui, bien sur.

[crankedup5]

alscar said:

Electro1980 said:

That too, although I suspect they will find that doesn’t work that well. The further away they more it the more professionals and middle and senior management types will stop planning towards a date and start planning towards “what is the minimum I need to stop doing this crap”.

I foresee a lot of xlennials in 20 years paying off their mortgage, downsizing to a 2 bed and taking up part time, low stress jobs to pay for the basics, whilst “living their best life YOLO” on their savings and seeing theirs pension as a second retirement.

I quite fancy giving up the crap I have to deal with at work, once I no longer have to pay mortgage and kids, and working 2-3 days a week doing Waitrose deliveries or driving for BCA etc, spending the rest of the time messing about with old motorbikes and cycling.

I worked for 42 years paying into a Private pension and also NI so won’t feel too guilty about taking my State Pension in 6 years time. I “ retired “ from the crap in December 2021 and can thoroughly recommend it.
But I agree with you about what will happen in 20 years time - I assume that my children are already calculating inheritance wins as a strategy.

Unless we see a Labour Government intent on wealth distribution.

[Biggy Stardust]

crankedup5 said:

Unless we see a Labour Government intent on wealth distribution.

Redistribution is so much easier & more fun than actually creating wealth in the first place.