Author Topic: Pension perks to the highest paid likely to be the next political flashpoint  (Read 421 times)

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65809
I have to admit to being a bit bemused by all the tweaks to pensions in the Budget given that Hunt has been talking about the issue of over 50s dropping out of the workforce, and these tweaks will make it easier for someone to generate a pension pot on which they could retire. My only conclusion is the people who.Hunt knows who have decided to remove themselves from the workforce have all hit maximum pension pots. I'm not sure that that applies across the numbers in the general that will make a difference to those leaving the workforce.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64972934

Udayana

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5478
  • βε ηερε νοω
    • The Byrds - My Back Pages
Yes, it doesn't look like it will work to help keep in real jobs. After-all if you are fed up with a job and would have more than enough money to live how you want to in retirement, there is little to keep you working.

The changes just allow the well off to accumulate even more. However, a system where your benefits immediately stop increasing after hitting some limits or increase your tax obligations to the point where it is no longer worth working, is also unworkable.

Disappointed in Rachel Reeves response to this - to reverse and consider a targeted scheme for doctors, rather than have proposals ready for workable general and simplifying changes.   
Ah, but I was so much older then ... I'm younger than that now

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65809
Yes, it doesn't look like it will work to help keep in real jobs. After-all if you are fed up with a job and would have more than enough money to live how you want to in retirement, there is little to keep you working.

The changes just allow the well off to accumulate even more. However, a system where your benefits immediately stop increasing after hitting some limits or increase your tax obligations to the point where it is no longer worth working, is also unworkable.

Disappointed in Rachel Reeves response to this - to reverse and consider a targeted scheme for doctors, rather than have proposals ready for workable general and simplifying changes.
Yes, the Labour policy is not even fagpacketery.

Udayana

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5478
  • βε ηερε νοω
    • The Byrds - My Back Pages
I'm also wondering why there was nothing related to the care system ... have they just given up on this?

Tax, pension, health and care systems should be integrated or at least considered together?
 
Ah, but I was so much older then ... I'm younger than that now

Nearly Sane

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 65809
I'm also wondering why there was nothing related to the care system ... have they just given up on this?

Tax, pension, health and care systems should be integrated or at least considered together?
Let's allow that they may not have completed their policy as we are 18 months or so from an election but agree that that could be highlighted as a gap in Hunt's position. I can't remember how long ago Johnson was going to announce an integrated care policy.

ProfessorDavey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17993
I have to admit to being a bit bemused by all the tweaks to pensions in the Budget given that Hunt has been talking about the issue of over 50s dropping out of the workforce, and these tweaks will make it easier for someone to generate a pension pot on which they could retire. My only conclusion is the people who.Hunt knows who have decided to remove themselves from the workforce have all hit maximum pension pots. I'm not sure that that applies across the numbers in the general that will make a difference to those leaving the workforce.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-64972934
This is definitely an issue and I'm aware of a number of senior people in the NHS who have retired for this reason.

As I understand it, once someone has reach 55 and if they have or are likely to hit their lifetime allowance, which is almost certainly the case for senior NHS staff then it becomes more financially beneficial to retire and start taking some pension rather than continue to work full time. Sometimes this will involve retiring but then coming back, but in order for this to happen the new role needs to be substantially different in terms of work required or hours worked from the original role. This means that a consultant can only come back on reduced hours. And why wouldn't you as often their overall income (new reduced hours salary, plus pension) is greater than they were earning when working full time.

It is a mess.