Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About martymcfly

  • Rank
    HPC Poster
  1. martymcfly

    Anyone Else Worried About Their Pension?

    Speaking as an actuary, there aren't any "standard" assumptions. Everyone will have a different idea what is appropriate, there's no right or wrong answer unfortunately.
  2. I think so yes, although that was the main point of making the change, bigger jackpots = higher sales.
  3. The jackpot is now one in 45,000,000 since they increased the number of numbers to choose from last year.
  4. martymcfly


    I think you give the house buying public far too much credit
  5. martymcfly


  6. Think you're getting your maths wrong here. Let's assume GDP is £1,000bn. 0.7% of that is £7bn. If the economy grows by 1% then GDP will be £1,000 x 1.01 = £1,010bn. The foreign aid budget will then be 0.7% of £1,010 which is £7.07bn. So of the £10bn in growth only 0.07bn of it will go to foreign aid.
  7. All DB pensions are multiplied by 20 to compare so that one is worth £500k vs lifetime allowance.
  8. Includes investment growth - cap is on the limit of benefits that can be taken from pot.
  9. The NHS scheme is unfunded which is as far from being in surplus as it's possible to get. I'm guessing you mean the scheme gets more in contributions than it makes in payments which is a different thing altogether.
  10. Given the point of this (from a PR perspective at least) is that it will reduce the tax relief given to higher earners, there is every chance they will close loopholes like this as well. But you're right, none of this is confirmed yet, and even if it is, there will be a lot of detail needed to see what the full implications are.
  11. Much as this change would be bad for me, a little part of me is hoping it comes in as I quite like the thought of having an excuse to go to a 3 or 4 day week.
  12. Public sector pensions will be equally affected - could lead to a large tax bill for higher earning public sector workers. Will be interesting to see how Defined Benefit schemes are treated where the contributions aren't directly linked to the benefits. Minefield.
  13. This part of the changes is key - haven't seen any detail yet but if the changes mess around with employer contributions, could be a minefield of complexity and unintended consequences.
  14. Also if the government no longer treats pension contributions (both employee and employer) at full relief then the employer will have a higher NI bill on any company contributions. Unlikely to go down well and likely to lead to either reductions in company contributions, or reduction in salary increases in the short term.
  15. For anyone on a salary sacrifice arrangement with their employer pension this is a bad move and basically a tax grab, regardless of being basic rate or higher rate, assuming the government stops salary sacrifice. If they don't then little point in bringing in the change as it is easily avoided. At the moment basic rate taxpayers pay the following in tax at a marginal rate of 20% income tax 12% employee NI 13.8% employer NI Under salary sacrifice the employee and the employer together get relief at: (20% + 12% + 13.8%) / (1 + 13.8%) = 40.2% relief. If the new relief is lower than this then both basic and higher rate taxpayers lose out. Under a SIPP type arrangement then it's a different matter and basic rate taxpayers gain at expense of higher rate.

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.