|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 17, 2022 11:25:44 GMT
I say them on pension imcome of more the 50, 000 per year should be means tested How large should a drawdown pension be ( uncrystalised) before the state pension is means tested ? Also , you do accept that the government gains tax from these high earning pensioners …. |
|
|
|
Post by totheleft3 on Dec 17, 2022 11:31:27 GMT
So you don't think them pensions on over 50, 000 per year are in no way not wealthy .
Thats mire than the Average wage if a working person doing full time.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaydee on Dec 17, 2022 11:37:37 GMT
It's actually very generous compared to the contributions made. What we have is way too many people that didn't properly plan for their old age. It's hard not to see them as acting selfishly in their working years assuming someone would bail them out later. Thankfully the law has now changed so just about everyone has to make proper pension contributions. Countries like Germany do pay higher state pensions, that's because they take roughly double the level of compulsory contributions into their state schemes. Effectively they nationalised and compulsorised what were private pensions. A dangerous idea IMHO Which part of the phrase from the OECD on it's conclusion. Pay out as percentage of average wage. .Translates to you it is the amount you contribute. The average pay in the UK is around £38.000. Your pension is 29% of that monthly. The average pay in Germany is around £46,000 (E47,700) There pension is 50.6% of that. The average pay in Spain is around £27,000. There pension is 81.8% of that. In short the UK pension is pathetic |
|
|
|
Post by totheleft3 on Dec 17, 2022 11:39:59 GMT
I say them on pension imcome of more the 50, 000 per year should be means tested How large should a drawdown pension be ( uncrystalised) before the state pension is means tested ? Also , you do accept that the government gains tax from these high earning pensioners …. Yea I acceot that high earning oap are taxed but the first 25% is tax free |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 17, 2022 11:41:21 GMT
So you don't think them pensions on over 50, 000 per year are in no way wealthy . Thats mire than the Average wage if a working person doing full time. Yes but you are posting an arbitrary figure. What if the pensioner has savings and is only drawing the state pension but has other pensions schemes dormant and/ or has a drawdown pension ? How large should the drawdown pension be ( uncrystalised) before they are means tested? Should the tax free amount be included or just take the taxable part? Is the £50k individual or for a couple ? |
|
|
|
Post by totheleft3 on Dec 17, 2022 11:52:42 GMT
I don't understand what you mean by drawdown pension and the 50, 000 is for single
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 17, 2022 11:57:33 GMT
I don't understand what you mean by drawdown pension and the 50, 000 is for single Ok . Tbh my point was that it’s not so easy to apply . Each pensioner would need an audit on all of the pensions and it would need to analysed before a judgment is made . It would probably cost more than the savings . |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 17, 2022 12:16:14 GMT
I don't understand what you mean by drawdown pension and the 50, 000 is for single Ok . Tbh my point was that it’s not so easy to apply . Each pensioner would need an audit on all of the pensions and it would need to analysed before a judgment is made . It would probably cost more than the savings . Yep Drawdown pensions are almost worth a thread of their own. I can find all sorts of reasons to ban them except that it's effectively impossible and indeed one of my pensions has a drawdownesque element to it. For many of those that live beyond 90 they become a problem to the state. |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 17, 2022 12:18:47 GMT
Ok . Tbh my point was that it’s not so easy to apply . Each pensioner would need an audit on all of the pensions and it would need to analysed before a judgment is made . It would probably cost more than the savings . Yep Drawdown pensions are almost worth a thread of their own. I can find all sorts of reasons to ban them except that it's effectively impossible and indeed one of my pensions has a drawdownesque element to it. For many of those that live beyond 90 they become a problem to the state. Not sure why. If you leave them to your relatives they are taxable . |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 17, 2022 12:21:55 GMT
I do agree in principle that pensions over £ 50000 should be means tested but at that income there would be no chance of any benefits afaik .
The only difference would be what the government wants to scavenge out of the basic state pension and or prescription charges , free bus passes maybe.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 17, 2022 12:22:05 GMT
Double post
|
|
|
|
Post by Toreador on Dec 17, 2022 12:22:29 GMT
Pensions are liable for tax the same as any other income. I suspect the same lefties that claim a wage rise for nurses would not be as expensive as it seems because of the extra tax that they would pay are asking for pensioners to be denied a rise in the meagre pensions . I suspect some economists would say the same. Of course the change doesn't have to be all or nothing. We could split the state pension into a fixed amount and a means tested amount. Based on what, that some people took out a pension plan and you think that should be means tested. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 17, 2022 12:23:50 GMT
A pure annuity passes the risk of living long to a large organisation able to manage that risk
A pure drawdown keeps the risk on the individual.
Historically most drawdowns have been OK as the underlying fund has grown faster (or at least sufficient) to maintain the drawdown in real terms. But that is by no means guaranteed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 17, 2022 12:28:20 GMT
Pensions are liable for tax the same as any other income. I suspect the same lefties that claim a wage rise for nurses would not be as expensive as it seems because of the extra tax that they would pay are asking for pensioners to be denied a rise in the meagre pensions . I suspect some economists would say the same. Of course the change doesn't have to be all or nothing. We could split the state pension into a fixed amount and a means tested amount. It’s not far off that now. There is a maximum you can get for a state pension. Benefits are means tested , care is means tested even free insulation is means tested, any pension income except for 25% of the original pot is taxable . There is some kind of tax penalty for pension pots over £1000000 ( or around ) which is not as big as it seems but what they are as don’t know because I don’t have much of a pension pot . |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Dec 17, 2022 12:33:36 GMT
A pure annuity passes the risk of living long to a large organisation able to manage that risk A pure drawdown keeps the risk on the individual. Historically most drawdowns have been OK as the underlying fund has grown faster (or at least sufficient) to maintain the drawdown in real terms. But that is by no means guaranteed. I’m working a job to keep my small drawdown in the pot. The later I leave it to put into an annuity , the larger the annuity. You can index link the annuity but afaik it makes it far smaller in the first place . When you look at the crystallised drawdown pot the you need to take 20% off most of it and consider how inflation is going to eat into it. A big pot becomes much smaller. |
|
