There isn't a de facto two tier taxation system as nothing has been proposed or legislated for. Reeves has suggested something but that has turned into anything 'de facto'.
Got ya - with retirement savings / pots this has always been the case, the fact that the state pension gives more money now which puts them over the PA hasn't changed anything apart from them having more money due to the triple lock. Having more money isn't a punishment, pensioners always have had the same PA as everyone, nothing has change there.
And yes the IHT raid could hit anyone but you need to have a balanced approach - generally a house would belong to two people who would also have the extra IHT allowance from being married, you don't need to highlight the limited worst case scenario to get a point across. The average house price (£270k) and the average pension pot at retirement (£300k) would take you just over the £500k if you are passing it onto your kids. If you happen to spend any of that pension pot on, lets say, your retirement then it will soon get under that threshold. The main thing with a pension pot is that you are incentivised to put into it to provide yourself with an income, not to put into it as a vehicle to pass money tax free onto your kids.
Agreed on the last paragraph.
Agreed and we may have but I would put it slightly differently - I would allow the individual to choose their level of risk and not have the government decide for them. I guarantee that in todays world if something goes wrong those same people will be blaming the government for losing their money.
Got ya - with retirement savings / pots this has always been the case, the fact that the state pension gives more money now which puts them over the PA hasn't changed anything apart from them having more money due to the triple lock. Having more money isn't a punishment, pensioners always have had the same PA as everyone, nothing has change there.
And yes the IHT raid could hit anyone but you need to have a balanced approach - generally a house would belong to two people who would also have the extra IHT allowance from being married, you don't need to highlight the limited worst case scenario to get a point across. The average house price (£270k) and the average pension pot at retirement (£300k) would take you just over the £500k if you are passing it onto your kids. If you happen to spend any of that pension pot on, lets say, your retirement then it will soon get under that threshold. The main thing with a pension pot is that you are incentivised to put into it to provide yourself with an income, not to put into it as a vehicle to pass money tax free onto your kids.
Agreed on the last paragraph.
(12-17-2025, 04:14 PM)CarlosCorbewrong Wrote:(12-17-2025, 03:45 PM)baggy1 Wrote: I understand the process CC (I'm at the end of it) but my point is that the government are unlikely to make it a default position due to the risk, no matter how small. It makes sense to allow the individual to choose the level of risk and pot to go into but if the government gamble, and lose, then there will be litigation and class action AOTS. One thing that isn't being considered is the impact on the markets of a global war situation , which hopefully won't occur but the 80 odd years of consistent growth is comparable to the 100 odd years without a global pandemic (that would never happen either).
We have more to worry about than our pension funds if global war breaks out. That’s literally my thinking on it all.
I think a government should be more ambitious with their ability to affect the future. Other governments think the same and skandi countries have consciously and sustainably taken those risks, for great gain too. Some would say it’s neglectful not to. You and I have vastly different opinions on government ambition/risk taking.
Agreed and we may have but I would put it slightly differently - I would allow the individual to choose their level of risk and not have the government decide for them. I guarantee that in todays world if something goes wrong those same people will be blaming the government for losing their money.