The 3 Most Likely Pension Changes Coming In The Upcoming Budget

Lots of people are worried about the potential tax rises that could be announced in the upcoming Budget on 30th October 2024.
The government is coming for your wealth and therefore we are all searching for hints of what might be put out.
One of the most insightful reports on this, especially when it comes to what might happen to pensions, has recently been released by LCP.
LCP are a consultancy firm, providing research in various sectors including pensions.
The report is worth taking note of because it was part authored by former Pensions Minister Sir Steve Webb.
Sir Steve Webb was a former Liberal Democrat MP and Minister for Pensions under the coalition government.
His body of work during that time includes the State Pension ‘Triple Lock’, the introduction of workplace auto-enrolment pensions and ‘Pension Freedoms’.
The man knows his stuff, has been at the heart of government in terms of pensions and can provide great insights into their long-term thinking.
This is why we should take note when he suggests what the government could be planning to do.
In the introduction of LCP’s Pensions, Tax and the Budget report there is a really interesting table that outlines how much the current pension tax relief system costs the government.
The combined cost of Income Tax relief on employee, employer, self-employed pension contributions and investment returns of pension funds comes to £46.8bn.
On top of this employers currently get National Insurance relief on employer pension contributions and this costs an additional £23.8bn. We will come back to this shortly.
The report has deducted the amount of Income Tax and other tax charges that come from pensions in payment bringing the total net cost of pension tax relief to £48.7bn.
Looking at the size of these numbers you can see why the government might be so keen to tweak the pension system to find extra tax revenue.
Having ruled out increases to Income Tax, National Insurance and VAT which make around two thirds of all tax revenues, the report believes there is not much else the government can do apart from attack pensions.
One of the big rumours that has been swirling around is the idea of a flat rate of tax relief. So rather than higher rate taxpayers getting full tax relief on pension contributions they could potentially lose out by only getting basic rate tax relief for example.
LCP do not believe a flat rate of tax relief is likely as they believe it would be complex to implement, create millions of ‘losers’ including many people working in the public sector and is effectively increasing taxes on working people. Something the government have previously said they will not do.
We have also seen in the last few days reports of Chancellor Rachel Reeves planning to drop this idea due to the impact on the public sector.
The LCP report identifies three changes to the pension system that they believe are most likely based on the following criteria:
• The change would generate significant revenue for the government.
• It would primarily impact the wealthier.
• It could be implemented quickly.
• Does not disincentivise investing for retirement.
#1 - Reducing the pension tax free lump sum
#2 - Employer National Insurance contributions on employer pension contributions
#3 - Taxing pension death benefits
If the government really is serious about raising funds, then it does look likely that something has to change on pensions due to the size of the numbers involved.
The three changes outlined above seem to offer the government the best of way of doing this with some form of employer National Insurance of employer pension contributions the most obvious.
Of course, we still don’t know what’s going to happen for sure. At the moment the government seem to be rowing back on a lot of proposed changes once they hear about the political fallout.
Nowadays most politicians are weak and only interested in maintaining votes and their seat at the next election so part of me thinks they will dial everything down and make tweaks here and there.
The other part of me says that if they were going to do something drastic, now is the time to do it with it being their first Budget over a five-year term. So, plenty of time to deal with the fall out and generate more positive news.
In terms of what you should do, I would not be making any rash decisions. Only carry out the plans you were originally going to do anyway, regardless of the Budget.
Remember, any retirement plan should have the long term in mind so think about how your actions will impact the long term, not the short term.
If you want a Budget summary delivered to your inbox once I have had a chance to review what gets announced then please sign up to my monthly newsletter.
#budget2024 #pensionchanges #budgettaxincreases

[@carlrobertsifa]

Sign up here to get my Budget summary after the event as soon as I have had a chance to look through all the details mailchi.mp/53c58adbf45c/mmm-email-landing-page

[@andypandy9931]

I think it is immoral to change pension rules. We have been trying to provide for our retirement and going without luxuries under the rules in place so they should not change them.

[@judithmorganjudyteen]

Well said

[@Annie-yv7rc]

Fully agree couldn’t agree more. People who don’t save for later life get everything given them there should be incentive to stand on you’re own two feet

[@Man-in-da-shed]

Here here

[@stuartregan1627]

​@@Annie-yv7rc 100 % agree . If they keep hammering savers nobody will save .

[@mwscuba]

tho its not immoral if it only effects people with large pension pots like me

[@RobCLynch]

If i was setting up a lottery syndicate, I'd expect everyone to pay their £2 per week. The problem with the UK pension system is that there are a lot of people who want to take their share of the 'winnings', but they don't (or never have) contributed to the pot.

[@gam9063]

And a lot will be taking the pension (as happens with benefits) out of the country .

[@user-nu5rw8ol3v]

Who are you on about cos no way do indigenous brits not work for 40 years lol. The indigenous unemployment rate is very low.

[@JAMESLOONEY-kd1nu]

Good comparison sir,

[@MattBooth]

So whats the alternative? Not giving a state pension to some people? Are we living in the Victorian times?!

[@RobCLynch]

@@MattBooth Actually, not giving benefits to someone who's been here for five minutes. Leave state pensions alone.

[@witsend236]

I love the fact that you use the term - this costs the Government - It costs the tax payer not the Government. The Government doesn't have any money it takes it from the tax payer and never gives it back even when reducing outgoings. Its time we all start to call out these statements. Pensions are not benefits, they are paid for (forcibly) by the employee and company/employer. We have no choice if we earn we pay. Therefore to change the pension rules is dishonesty in the extreme.

[@twig3288]

If a thief doesn't steal your pension is that a cost to the thief? 🤔

[@sideshowbob5237]

Unfortunately that's not true. The government can print money. They call it quantitative easing - printing money to buy back OUR OWN debt. The effect is to devalue all our money - including pensions.

[@elprofeta110]

My main concern is how to survive all of these financial and political crisis, especially in light of the US political power scuffle. The government has really called things more difficult for its citizens, and we can't sit back and bear all the consequences of the bad governance!!!.

[@elprofeta110]

I had a lot of financial crisis then, I can recall when I was homeless and faced with many things in life until $47,000 biweekly began rolling in and my Life went from A homeless nobody to a different person with good things to offer.

[@babytruca02]

Wow, that is huge, how do you earn that much weekly? I am 37 years old and have been looking for ways to be successful, please how??

[@elprofeta110]

@@babytruca02Maria Angelina Alexander I really appreciate her efforts and transparency.

[@elprofeta110]

Giving her my initial savings of $8,500 to invest in a brokerage account was a turning point in my life less 7days. It's been an incredibly rewarding experience.

[@elprofeta110]

After I raised up to 360k trading with her l own a House and a car here in the state. Myself and my family we are extremely happy..

[@stevemacdonald2510]

Our problem is really government pensions which are ridiculously high. Attacking private pensions and employers is disgraceful given the meagre sums most of these pensions amount to.

[@Misiu223]

That's exactly right. They are stealing from the private sector to line their own already bulging pockets

[@leobrown6875]

Well said

[@kinggeoffrey3801]

Yep the measley 3% from the employer and 2% from the government doesn't even touch the sides.

[@gam9063]

Not to mention that they don't put anything into their pension and Starmer has ring fenced his pension allegedly so he doesn't get taxed it,a case of I'm all right Jack.

[@Benzknees]

And the employers' portion of most of these isn't even funded, leaving taxpayers with a massive ongoing liability. If it was more like the Canadian scheme, it could be a national asset, investing in infrastructure & industry, creating a better economy.

[@MrTpain1945]

So instead of raising taxes and ruining people’s retirement plans. Maybe the Government could cut down on spending and wasting taxpayers money

[@alanshepherd4304]

What a clever idea!! Bet they have never thought of that!!🙄🙄🇬🇧

[@MattBooth]

Where are they going to cut? The Tories cut everything to the bone. There's nothing left mate.

[@JoeSmith-fo7ro]

We have 4 million signed off sick, never need to look for work, 4 million inactive, so not looking for work and 1.5 million unemployed, it does not pay to be hard working and honest in this country

[@lesleylamy]

Why do they not look at cutting the unemployed doing nothing cut their benefits

[@gumdrop808]

This is the problem with pensions. Governments constantly tinkering with the rules. To make it even worse, most people can't yet access it. So you are totally at their mercy. You have to weigh up whether the tax relief you get on contributions is worth it.

[@72TR6Tim]

It seems totally wrong to change the rules on withdrawals. People have planned and saved over many years for their retirement and making changes on withdrawal rules will destroy trust in the pension system. In terms of the tax take over the next few years, it could well mean that people's behaviour changes which in term could significantly reduce the tax receipts over that period from that envisaged.

[@JanetWesto]

Why are the labour MP’s not paying this tax on their pensions, just shows what a crooked lot are in charge,one rule for them and a separate one for us, Same as fuel allowance they get it with their big salaries, and poor pensioners loose it, crooks the lot of the

[@TrudyMoore-i4e]

They should have paid taxes on all the money gifted to them

[@davidhamm7909]

The lesson to be learned by today’s youngsters is spend it all and enjoy it when you’re young and we’ll look after you when you’re old. Be sensible and save for your old age and we’ll screw you over when you’re retire.

[@gabrielletanner5339]

Hopefully labour won't be around in 5 years....pleeeeese.....😅

[@frankieRandle8779]

Problem is they can do a lot of damage in 5 years. Anyway, what’s the alternative?

[@shellyperera2010]

​@@frankieRandle8779liquidating all your assets and getting on the first flight out of here.

[@frankieRandle8779]

@@shellyperera2010 yes if you’re free to do it and have no ties, go ahead but it doesn’t solve the pension problem.

[@TrudyMoore-i4e]

They already have done damage over there 100 days, can not wait for them to go

[@frankieRandle8779]

@@TrudyMoore-i4e it’s going to be 4 or 5 years, better get used to it. I didn’t vote for them but look , this country is in a financial crisis and at least they are addressing it and trying to develop a strategy to reduce debt. It will be painful for some, there’s no way around that.

[@Wikikiman]

Change the benefits system to food allowance on cards you cannot buy alcohol, tobacco, or lotto with. This to replace cash in people’s accounts. Also put credit on benefit collectors gas and electric meters rather than cash. Minimise cash benefit payments. This would ensure the needy are helped while the layabouts would be more inclined to work. Also, STOP THE BOATS!

[@leobrown6875]

If liebour do the tax lump sum, i will just leave it in my pension until they are out .i am one of them than can take 268k but i have worked for 38 years for this and i refsue to give it to these clowns .

[@Desmond.TuTu.]

A new government won’t return it, they all wanted to do it but didn’t dare. I cannot see this ever being returned to old level if new level is put in place. I think they will put in some transitional protection though.

[@Benzknees]

With Reform dividing the opposition, unfortunately it looks like the clowns will be in charge for a very long time.

[@annablue7457]

Don't blame you !

[@maskedavenger2578]

You might have snuffed it by then.

[@shellyperera2010]

Same here. We've worked all our lives to build up a pension and wouldn't have put in so much into it if we couldn't take the max lump sum. Labour are a bunch of crooks with their free clothes and spectacles.

[@jcb208]

So a single person with a house worth £325k plus lets say £100k savings is now classed as wealthy

[@Annie-yv7rc]

Worse if you don’t have children you can’t gift your house

[@twig3288]

Try finding a house in London for £325k.

[@andrewnock7622]

I said this all along, the definition of wealth is something labour are keen to incorporate all those not on benefits. You are now wealthy if you own your own home and have a pension in retirement. However the labour party were keen not to let this slip out before the election in favour of pretending to stand for the common citizen. They just wanted to tax everyone again and again, tax when you earn , tax when you spend tax when you die, never mind the triple lock it’s more about compounding your tax liabilities 🤬

[@HelenCampbell-d5b]

@@andrewnock7622. The labour today is not the labour which was formed in 1920’s who were for the people and working class. When Blair became PM he was a former Tory under Thatcher and only piggybacked in Labour to boost his political career he even brought some of Thatcher’s policies with him and then called Labour New Labour when in fact Labour then was second Tory party and still is even with this Starmer bloke. All the politicians are corrupt and crooks who only ever look after number one. How can Starmer still be PM. Rayner Deputy PM and Reece’s Councellor of Executer when they have before and after the election have lied, deceived, mislead the people voters and pensioners also won the election under false pretences. They all looked after themselves busy get personal donations and freebies All if them should be sacked immediately no pay and no pension.

[@terryhayward7905]

Maybe the government could start collecting the tax that the major companies have managed to NOT pay for years.

[@TimmyBreeden]

I didn't become financially independent until I was in my late 40's and I'm still in my 40's. In addition to having purchased my second home and earning money on a monthly basis through passive income,I've also achieved three out of five goals .l just hope this inspires someone to realize that it doesn't matter if you don't have any of these things yet,you can start today no matter your age.Change your future by investing! I made a rather big decision by investing in financial market..,..,

[@Joerico-g3c]

Investing in many source of income that are independent of government paychecks is the prudent thing that everyone should be thinking about right now, especially given the global economic crisis. Good assets and digital currencies are still good investment at this time.

[@SylwiaJewiak-j8g]

This is superb! Information, as a noob it gets quite difficult to handle all of this, and staying informed is a major cause, how do you go about this are you a pro investor?

[@TimmyBreeden]

All thanks to Jihan Wu with his investment advice, at least I can afford a good home and also have to retire early.

[@RachelMims-l8n]

As a beginner in this, it’s essential for you to have a mentor to keep you accountable. Jihan Wu is also my trade analyst, he has guided me to identify key market trends, pinpointed strategic entry points, and provided risk assessments, ensuring my trades decisions align with market dynamics for optimal returns.

[@JerryMattson-l2o]

I started my investment with $15,000, a week later, we had grown to $55,000. This man!! absolute genius

[@FreaksSpeaks]

All about protecting public sector pensions, nice.

[@RuthDavies-q6m]

Won't affect starmer got his pension sealed not taxable

[@johnkenna3366]

many in Labour also support that any pension taken that is not trade union supported be taxed at 40%, private companies pay extra NI but not public services.

[@jblue2435]

I would consider any changes like reducing the cap on the tax free portion as theft, pure and simple. I am months away from retiring and have saved diligently into my DC scheme since my DB pension was closed - also linked to decisions made in 1997 by a previous Labour government. The anxiety and stress that this is creating is beyond belief.

[@DVDKEV]

Any reduction in TFC should protect 25% of what’s already accrued, with future accrual of TFC limited to £100k, subject to a combined limit of £268,275. Thereby protecting existing savings. In answer to the point made below, accrual is by units in a DC pension arrangement. So assuming you’ve accrued 10,000 units at the date any new regulation is enforced, you’ve accrued 25% or 2,500 units worth of TFC. The value of these will depend on the unit price when those units are disinvested. Hugely complex to administer however so I sincerely hope the government leave well alone.

[@fanfeck2844]

But you don’t accrue tfc. Tfc is calculated when you take your pension

[@DVDKEV]

@@fanfeck2844 you have x number of units. Eg 10,000 units accrued gives you 2,500 units worth of TFC at retirement. The value of those accrued units would then be calculated at retirement. There are ways to calculate it.

[@chrisduffill5248]

Interesting, I still think the comment do not do anything not already planned , but as with all things the income I have planned for would be serially hurt if they reduce the tax free amount … it just means leaving the Uk will look like a highly possible answer if the pension are hit this budget it will be a catalyst to leave I am not classified as rich either just worked bloody hard for my retirement… why should government hit this sector just because they can it would be cruel to do so…

[@williamwelch1950]

The fundamental problem with pensions and particularly pension funds is that they hold and involve so much money that they are an irresistible honey pot for governments who are scratching around for revenue. But extracting money from pension funds is often for short term financial gain for the Government whilst investing for a pension is a long term project. Government really needs people to invest in their pensions to take burden from the state in later life. To do that it needs to create confidence that the benefits which are available when the pension is started are still there with the pension is drawn. Sadly this is not the case and if the upcoming budget further erodes the benefits of Investing in a pension when people walk away.

[@HelenCampbell-d5b]

The private company and state pension a few years ago were very healthy so the various PM’s and Councillors have dip their dirty hands into these pension pits particularly the State Pension and used the stolen money elsewhere well it became too easy to raid the pension pot until the pot was empty and so now they are panicking because there is no money in the pop to cover the workers just retiring. Cameron and Osborne did a right scam on the state pension and SERPs. May thought she could change the State Pension to a benefit which they cannot because the workers contribute to their State Pension and the same applies to Starmer and Reeves wanting to means test the State Pension as well as take into account how many private pensions a worker has. Which means some workers will not get a state pension to which whether working class or wealthy all contributed to their State Pension and worked 35 years to be eligible for full pension with regards to the price or company pensions if the worker was sensible enough to outwards a pension with their hard earned money it is none if the Government’s business. The Governments are the idiots because majority of the politicians do nit have a clue how the state pension and what SERPS was the sane with majority of people that is why Cameron Osborne and May have got away with what they have done to the state pension and SERPs stealing money left right and centre and the same applies to Starmer and co. They gave all committed the worse criminal crime in the history of politics and should be in jail. The State Pension can never be a benefit and all age groups need to stop Starmer and cannot means test the state pension because if they do then we the workers who have contributed should demand all their contributions back. In 2010 aged 52 at that time to get a full pension needed to have contributed 31 years I actually contributed 35 years to the pension six years before Cameron and Osbourne scammed the pension. Obviously at aged 52 I could not claim my State Pension until I was 60. The two scammers came along . The reason why there was difference in age for women and men was to guarantee to the men when the retired they could claim married couples allowance So the two scammers changed the retirement age for women from 60 to 66/67 and men 65 to 66/67. Now the two scammers did not change the retirement age to new workers just started to contribute no of course not because there was no money they changed the age so they could have 6/7 years pension money off the women and 1/2. Years off men. Of course with stealing this amount of pension money off women that left some women destitute because there was not enough time for the women to make up the difference and why should they. The two scammers changed the years contribution to 35 years and added a ruling they had to to work within the 35 years 12 years consecutively This I had done in 2010 so stole 6 years pension off me. Then SERPS which was an additional top up pension to State Pension Thatcher wanted the workers to have their own private pension so 5% was transfer from SERPS to Private Pension of the worker!s choice. Just to remind you The contributions the wiener makes is to the National Insurance to which a percentage is transferred to National Insurance Stamp and 5% to SERPS. Cameron and Osbourne instead of increasing the year full pension allowance instead to save money they stole SERPS and integrated SERPS into the Full Pension allowance then deducted the lied out money off the full pension to which it meant irrespective whether the worker met the 35 years etc would instead of getting full pension they were expecting only receive a basic pension. DWP will write to the worker asking if they would like to make further contributions to make up the difference which is an insult as the worker had already completed 35 years like I did in 2010 14 years ago. Why would the worker risk paying anymore contributions for fear those contributions could easily be stolen from them however as long as there is enough money in the opted out private pension than this the worker can claim which might make up the difference. Overall the two scammers Cameron and Osbourne had stolen off all workers who had contributed SERPS money which was an additional top up pension to the State Pension Society like I said in 2010 aged 52 had contributed 35 years. Had six years pension stolen off me. Then instead of full pension which was 14 years later only get basic pension but do have the opt out private pension which I took out with the Company I worked for. I had retired after 25 years due to ill health so had to live in the Company Pension to which did not cover my rent and other bills. So is it fair how I have been treated as well as the WASPI women I dont think so. The WASPI women who have done a marvellous job of campaigning for compensation but really need the support and help from not just women but men of this Country. I doubt very much if they would get compensation from the Government as it would mean the Government would have to admit they were in the wrong which they would have to pay all women affected the full amount which was stolen

[@johnsavage4126]

Carl, regarding the potential attack on TFC, how would this apply if an individual has Fixed Protection? Thanks for clarifying.

[@carlrobertsifa]

Good question and one of the complications the government would have to deal with. I would imagine they would have to bring in some form of protection to protect those with already higher amounts.

[@johnsavage4126]

@@carlrobertsifa thanks. It's all a bit ugly isn't it....... but more deeply, people have worked all of their lives and planned meticulously for retirement where their life plans will have depended to quite a degree on their Tax Free Cash element.......

[@skwoogy6457]

Would a reduction in the tax free lump sum affect those who have already crystallised their pensions?

[@Frank-ig8sc]

Great videos us usual hmrc set to shaft honest workers and not devuios businesses trying to avoud theirliabilities

[@gwynethgrove772]

HMRC don’t set the rules/tax laws… they are just civil servants carrying them out. Your comment is like blaming the bus conductor for the fare rises.

[@txyz6693]

Things-----fings Three-------free Wealthy----wealfy Thank you--fank you .

[@Mikey_NoCap]

Was finking the same fing.

[@MarkLoveridge-w2x]

Cut the pension benefit to public workers it is miles to much

[@davideyres955]

They already have cut it. Several times. The local government pension scheme was well run and maintained by the people paying in to it. Ie it didn’t cost the government anything and actually saved them money because they pay people less. Then they took away the lump sum but tinkered with the rate. Then they made it career average rather than final salary, which is a bit fairer to the employers. Then they retrospectively change the retirement date to be the same as the state date. So I’ve lost £24 thousand of income in one fell swoop in today’s money. In addition when we didn’t get pay rises for 4 years under austerity our pension value sat where it was and got eroded by inflation. It’s not index linked. I paid in 8% in to mine far more contributions than private sector workers have and it was agreed when I went in to the scheme, some things that have changed retrospectively. How would you like it if 30 years after you paid in to your pension the provider said if we are taking 24k out of your pension pot. You’d be a bit hacked off. Well that’s how I feel when people hack on about public sector pensions. Yes they are good, but I started in 1988 on 4 grand and got paid rubbish money, a hell of a lot less that I could have earned in private sector (information technology) by having a good pensions made up for it. I do think they are good, but you have to view that in context as retrospectively changing them is something we can’t do anything about and we have paid in to them.

[@maskedavenger2578]

All public employees & bosses should have to work until state pension age like the rest of us . Not retire early at 50 - 55 & live the good life , dossing about at the publics expense . If people want to retire before state pension age they should fund it themselves .

[@davidcousins3508]

@@maskedavenger2578most public sector pension schemes don’t have a normal retirement age of 50 or 55 ..it’s usually over 60 or near to the state pension age . They can retire early at 55 ,with a reduction in pension,but then so can anyone ..it’s part of pension law applicable across the board . It’s also worth noting that contrary to popular opinion,tax payers don’t directly pay for anything. All government spending is funded by the government creating the money ,with parliamentary consent,via the Bank of England, as needed. Tax on part of this sum is levied to destroy the created currency as an inflationary control measure. The difference,or deficit,remains to keep money in circulation,it’s how a chunk of our money is created..the majority of the remainder is created via commercial banks issuing credit.

[@maskedavenger2578]

@@davidcousins3508 I don’t care which way you cut it , I don’t see why public employees & civil servants , should be comfortably able to retire earlier , than the great unwashed . Everyone would be able to retire earlier even with a reduction , if they had the perks that public employees , civil servants & politicians enjoy . What’s good for them should be for everyone .

[@davidcousins3508]

@@maskedavenger2578 you missed my point ..most schemes don’t have a normal retirement age so much earlier ..anyone can take their pension at 55.,private or public sector. Also food for thought..I recall in the late 80s ,when saving interest rates were quite high,along with annuity rates,private pension companies were actively hunting for public sector employees to leave their schemes and transfer to one of the private companies. The promised returns looked impressive,predicting returns far in excess of what the public sector schemes could pay. Of course the market turned and those returns never materialised. If they had though ,and the private schemes were paying handsome pensions,would we be hearing the same griping about the ‘gold plated’ public sector schemes? ..my guess not ..in fact I would think those with the superior private pension would have been laughing all the way to the bank .

[@paulbrightwell3621]

Aside from pensions I would not be surprised if the Gov introduce a higher council tax band for properties valued over £3m

[@raymondwebb4179]

1 million,

[@aficio698]

And so it should! An £18million house in London pays proportional less than a property valued @ £1million.

[@raymondwebb4179]

@@aficio698 ?

[@sandradavies7804]

That won't affect many people around where we live. In fact, I'd say it won't affect anybody.

[@raymondwebb4179]

@@sandradavies7804 I am in Cambridge,

[@oldmukker]

My pension has lost so much already thanks.

[@stevedennington3760]

Excellent video, well done!!……..

[@martingibbs1869]

Why would anyone pay anymore than £400k into their pension if their 25% tax free cash was capped at £100k.

[@iaing9028]

I’ve got £300k in mine, but I’ve probably only put about £50k in, the rest is employer contributions & growth. We have maintenance workers in my factory who have £800k in their pensions, so these high amounts aren’t that rare. The key to a decent pension pot is generous employer contributions (combined at least 15% salary), good growth & low charges, my company pension has charges of only 0.3%.

[@shellyperera2010]

That's a bit of a weird question. If you're earning £100k you can put £50k into your pension and avoid 42% tax. Do that for 8 years and you've got £400k.

[@andrewnock7622]

Anyone saving for a decent retirement, more so if you are a couple with only one person working. In this scenario they should double the amount you can have .

[@kw8757]

If you have the spare cash why wouldn't you? The maths doesn't lie, well invested pensions are by far the easiest and best way to grow wealth over the long term.

[@Wikikiman]

Taxing businesses will only increase inflation

[@neilwilkinson5924]

So basically every pension change is a bad idea

[@tancreddehauteville764]

NI relief on employer pension contributions should definitely be stopped. There are costs for the government but the gains would definitely outweigh the costs. This one is a near certainty in my opinion, but employers should not be able to fiddle their way out of this and be made to contribute at least 8% to employee contributions, ideally 10%. Reducing the tax free lump sum is NOT a good idea, and would anger a lot of people across 'middle England'. Freezing the tax free lump sum at £268k would be more reasonable. Also, it would only raise £2Bn while costing a lot of political 'points' at a time when Labour's popularity has already fallen sharply. The other reason not to do it is that it would anger NHS doctors who would again be up in arms. The tax on pension benefits seems a near certainty, but it won't raise much money. What was not mentioned is a possible rise in inheritance tax, from 40% to perhaps 50%. This is low hanging fruit and might be a temptation for Reeves, but again won't raise megabucks. Finally, the government has committed not to increase income tax and NI but there are ways around this, for example by increase the employer rate of NI from 13.8% to perhaps 16%. This would claw back the Tory NI giveaway without affecting employees, but would piss off employers, especially if combined with the earlier change on employer pension contribution relief. The other thing is changing the income tax thresholds. The previous government had already committed to freezing them, but Reeves may be tempted to reduce the 45% tax relief from £150k to £100k - relatively few people would be affected and would therefore be easy to implement, despite moans from Telegraph readers.

[@twig3288]

The government should focus on their wasteful spending habits rather than continually demanding more tax.

[@shellyperera2010]

They should tackle the problem of all the people who are off sick from work, 20% of the workforce, nearly 10m people costing £100 billion in benefits every year. Some graduates go straight from uni onto sickness benefits due to "depression".

[@rnsc8342]

Any of these mean lower pensions in a country where pension provision is inadequate. It's irrelevant to the real problems - government failures are a drag on the economy, a declining domestic population is another, and higher taxes for government spending means less money for the rest of the economy.

[@MrKlawUK]

is income tax relief from employers specifically lost income tax through salary sacrifice? I didn't think employer contributions into pensions were topped up?

[@DigitalJunior2003]

Our public sector pension is capped at £250k and there are a lot of us with a pension that size. You might find lots of people taking nhs pension asap

[@oididdidi]

Another example of the revolving door. Can we really trust these people?

[@xl250mon5]

Did my proper job wanted to give something back, I was taught during my apprenticeship and I'm clever enough.

[@jamesjamesdavis5050]

Labour has given the budget away. Is there anything else in the budget left to be told.

[@witofthestaircase1]

There’s no case for tax breaks on any inheritances.

[@davideyres955]

You should have said “since leaving government he has worked in a vastly overpaid job in a pensions company because of his contacts not because he’s been working in the company delivering profits for that company”.

[@dougc1991]

It's a shame he is a LD as they are widely known for their bull_hit. Its time all parties started talking together. Its not going to happen but such is life. 😢

[@grumblewoof4721]

Non-working people includes Pensioners, the disabled, students, children under 5 and MP's. Kids pocket money should be taxed. The disabled would build up tax for every year they don't work and the tax is paid from their estate when they die based on what they would have earned had they been able to work. Students should similarly accrue tax on what they would have earned had they not been at college. Pensioners earnings should be capped at 12,570 and 100% tax applied on all other income. All Pensioners would then be the same and have to rely on their family and charities to support them. Pensioners would have all NHS and other services like prescriptions and eye tests removed... this will ensure that they die as soon as possible after reaching pension age.

[@HelenCampbell-d5b]

I cannot believe your comment. The reason disabled do not work is because they cannot through their disabilities and the medications they take. The sane with the pensioners they worked paid in to Company pensions as well as contributing to their State Pension whether working class or wealthy are entitled to receive their state pension. I notice you don’t mention the fit and healthy who can work but won’t work no if course not. The pensioners disabled and sick need help. The extra cost to them ie mobility issues have to buy equipment to get around, then when they become ill they gave to pay for carers which can cost dependent on care £2,000 to £4,000 per week I don’t know why certain people are now against the pensioners disabled and sick it’s disgusting yet these same people are happy it is costing us billions of pounds to look after illegal inmigrants I am fed up of politicians stealing off the pensioners. What Cameron and Os borne did to the State Pension and SERPs were disgusting and they should be in prison. The State Pension and SERPS before Cameron and Osborne got their thieving hands on it. hands in it. The State Pension and SERPS. The retirement age was 60 for women and 65 for men. The reason the difference in age was to guarantee men when they retire to be able to have married couples allowance. Every worker contributed to National Insurance to which a percentage was transferred to National Insurance Stamp, did not pay stamp do not get a pension, self employed had to make sure they made arrangements to pay Ni and NI stamp. Then a further 5% was transferred to SERPS from NI. SERPS being a top up additional pension to the State Pension. To qualify for full pension allowance the worker had to have contributed for 31 years. Thatcher Thatcher wanted all workers to have their own private pension so she made it possible for the worker to opt out of SERPS and transfer the money to there private pension of their own choice. Cameron and Osborne came on the scene and straightaway changed the retirement age for women from 60 to 66/67 and Men 66. Scammers Cameron and Osbourne instead if changing the age from those workers just starting to contribute to their own state pension no of course not because Cameron had eyes on the women’s pension money of 6/7 years so Cameron stolen 6/7!pension off the women who had contributed to their Stare Pension. Cameron also changed the years to contribute from 31 years to 35 years and introduced a ruling that within those 35 years the worker had ti work consecutively for 12 years. With regard to the full pension allowance instead of giving that an annual increase Cameron stole SERPS and incorporated into the full pension allowance. Then those workers which opted out of SERPS and transferred the money to a private pension of their choice Cameron deducted this amount off the full pension allowance so it meant to the worker that instead of getting full pension allowance because they had completed 35 years and 12 consecutive years no they only get a basic state pension. DWP will tell the worker to make up the difference which is a damn cheek especially as they could make the difference up and then have that money stolen from them again However the worker can claim the private pension and hopefully there is enough in the private pension to make up the difference from basic to full pension. But what all workers have had stolen is the overall SERPS which was a top up additional pension to the state pension May thinks she has changed the State Pensuin to a benefit which she cannot change the state pension as every worker contributes to their state pension Now Starmer wants to tax the pension from the beginning instead of a certain threshold. Wants to charge National Insurance to the pensioners when they have already paid 31/35 years. Starmer want to means test the state pension and take in to how many private pensions the worker has. This will mean some people will not get a state pension Here again I cannot see how Starmer can means test the pension and refuse some workers if their state pension also if workers had the common sense to out the hard earned money to a private pension then the Government has no right to get their grubby hands on it Cameron Osbourne May and now Starmer and Reeves have committed the worse criminal crime in the history of politics. All politicians are corrupt and crooks and Cromwell if he saw how corrupt etc they are today he would turn in his grave in total disgust. Myself in 2010 aged 52 at that time the requirement to receive full payment was 31 years contributions well in fact I had contributed 35 years to NI, NI Stamp and SERPS. I was due to retire at 60 until Cameron and Osbourne came into the scene to which straightaway had 6 years pension contributed to stolen off me then because I opted out of SERPS they deducted that amount off my full pension even though I had completed 35 years which was six years before the changes which meant this month I received a basic pension not a full pension. Is that fair no l only course

[@grumblewoof4721]

@HelenCampbell-d5b Wow. My comment was satire. But I am glad you got that off your chest. I find it feels a lot better after I vent, and I can honestly say that I have not seen a single politician in the last 60 years that I haven't vented in volume at.

[@Annie-yv7rc]

I think it’s immoral people get a lump sum of 285k lump sum. Especially in public sector. I worked in it for 40 years and paid into pension for 38 of those years and got 10% of that what chance to workers have

[@tancreddehauteville764]

Bollocks.

[@KevinP-y7k]

Government just messing about round the edges.. just raise the retirement age to 80.. the problem will be solved

[@justinclayton3022]

IMO pensions should be subject to Inheritance Tax. Taxpayers should not be subsidising the pensions of the wealthy so they can avoid Inheritance tax.

[@HelenCampbell-d5b]

Are you talking about State Pension or private pension If state pension whether working class or wealthy all contributed to their own State Pension so entitled to their State Pension. The Company Pensions the Company and workers contribute to their own Company Pension

[@justinclayton3022]

@@HelenCampbell-d5b You are wrong on private pensions. The taxpayer subsidised private pensions by at least 20% (more likely 40% for the wealthy) through tax break on contributions. No way these should be escape inheritance tax.

[@paulcroker8459]

As clear as treacle

[@Baglady111]

When saying the number three, please don’t pronounce it as ‘free’.

[@judithmorganjudyteen]

Bit rude

[@Baglady111]

@@judithmorganjudyteen Possibly, but someone needs to tell him.