|
|
Post by Gods on Nov 3, 2024 7:59:52 GMT
The average private sector pension pot has £200,000 in it, the fundamental maths don't change, your beneficiaries from 2027 onwards if you die are liable for an IHT tax bill at %40 which is £80,000. Why are you doubling down on being stupid? There is no fucking IHT on a £200K Pension It doesn't matter how many times you repeat nonsense it doesn't make it real. It will be included in the IHT calculation. I would imagine many people with a £200,000 pot will also have a house and perhaps other savings too and they will run in to an IHT bill which they would not otherwise have done without this proposed change in the budget. People with larger pots will will be well and truly stuffed. Here is something from BNY Mellon who live and breathe this stuff, but clearly you know best. Is This Significant for Pension Savers? This 2027 change will have a huge impact on how retirement is managed, says Richard Parkin, head of retirement, BNY. “It seems likely that pensions will be used less for passing wealth to the next generation and we could see an increase of gifting during the client’s lifetime to limit taxation on death,” he says. He adds that this means advisers will need to rethink how they sequence asset drawdown in retirement. But the new rules mean that clients may gift too much, meaning they will run out of money in retirement. Andrew Marr, managing partner at Forbes Dawson, agrees. He cites the example of an individual with a £2 million pension scheme, who would leave his beneficiaries with an £800,000 additional IHT bill if he were to die after 6 April 2027. “For many people who feel like they have done the responsible thing by paying into pension schemes this will be a kick in the teeth ... This is perhaps the most killing blow of the Budget to the wealthy people of Britain.” |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 3, 2024 8:08:31 GMT
Why are you doubling down on being stupid? There is no fucking IHT on a £200K Pension It doesn't matter how many times you repeat nonsense it doesn't make it real. It will be included in te IHT calculation. I would imagine many people with a £200,000 pot will also have a house and perhaps other savings too and they will run in to an IHT bill which they would noy otherwise have done without this proposed change in the budget. People with larget pots will do well and truly stuffed. Here is something from BNY Mellon who live and breathe this stuff, but clearly you know best. Is This Significant for Pension Savers? This 2027 change will have a huge impact on how retirement is managed, says Richard Parkin, head of retirement, BNY. “It seems likely that pensions will be used less for passing wealth to the next generation and we could see an increase of gifting during the client’s lifetime to limit taxation on death,” he says. He adds that this means advisers will need to rethink how they sequence asset drawdown in retirement. But the new rules mean that clients may gift too much, meaning they will run out of money in retirement. Andrew Marr, managing partner at Forbes Dawson, agrees. He cites the example of an individual with a £2 million pension scheme, who would leave his beneficiaries with an £800,000 additional IHT bill if he were to die after 6 April 2027. “For many people who feel like they have done the responsible thing by paying into pension schemes this will be a kick in the teeth ... This is perhaps the most killing blow of the Budget to the wealthy people of Britain.” If the change to the law leads to more money being gifted to younger generations earlier, it is a fantastic policy. Dying with loads of savings is pointless. Pass them on and get them in the economy and everyone benefits. |
|
|
|
Post by Gods on Nov 3, 2024 9:28:48 GMT
It will be included in te IHT calculation. I would imagine many people with a £200,000 pot will also have a house and perhaps other savings too and they will run in to an IHT bill which they would noy otherwise have done without this proposed change in the budget. People with larget pots will do well and truly stuffed. Here is something from BNY Mellon who live and breathe this stuff, but clearly you know best. Is This Significant for Pension Savers? This 2027 change will have a huge impact on how retirement is managed, says Richard Parkin, head of retirement, BNY. “It seems likely that pensions will be used less for passing wealth to the next generation and we could see an increase of gifting during the client’s lifetime to limit taxation on death,” he says. He adds that this means advisers will need to rethink how they sequence asset drawdown in retirement. But the new rules mean that clients may gift too much, meaning they will run out of money in retirement. Andrew Marr, managing partner at Forbes Dawson, agrees. He cites the example of an individual with a £2 million pension scheme, who would leave his beneficiaries with an £800,000 additional IHT bill if he were to die after 6 April 2027. “For many people who feel like they have done the responsible thing by paying into pension schemes this will be a kick in the teeth ... This is perhaps the most killing blow of the Budget to the wealthy people of Britain.” If the change to the law leads to more money being gifted to younger generations earlier, it is a fantastic policy. Dying with loads of savings is pointless. Pass them on and get them in the economy and everyone benefits. Fair enough, at least we are now debating the merits of the proposed change rather than whether it is real. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 3, 2024 9:31:36 GMT
If the change to the law leads to more money being gifted to younger generations earlier, it is a fantastic policy. Dying with loads of savings is pointless. Pass them on and get them in the economy and everyone benefits. Fair enough, at least we are now debating the merits of the proposed change rather than whether it is real. It is real. It hardly ever applies though. That’s the point me and others have been making to you. IHT is easy to avoid with advice. |
|
|
|
Post by RedandWhite90 on Nov 3, 2024 10:07:38 GMT
Fair enough, at least we are now debating the merits of the proposed change rather than whether it is real. It is real. It hardly ever applies though. That’s the point me and others have been making to you. IHT is easy to avoid with advice. Correct, in a previous life you could simply buy a farm and pretend to be a farmer on TV. |
|
|
|
Post by Seymour Beaver on Nov 3, 2024 10:34:44 GMT
Fair enough, at least we are now debating the merits of the proposed change rather than whether it is real. It is real. It hardly ever applies though. That’s the point me and others have been making to you. IHT is easy to avoid with advice. Just as Draw Down pension pots were themselves cunning wheezes to minimise tax liability and maximise inheritance potential (and earn 'Wealth Managers' a tidy sum through opaque charges) vs more conventional annuity or workplace pensions. But now regs have caught up the good Citizens if Guildford are once again whining to their traditional refrain that they can't keep all of their money whilst simultanously being outraged by potholes and the state of the NHS. |
|
|
|
Post by bayernoatcake on Nov 3, 2024 10:41:25 GMT
She’s a fucking idiot
|
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Nov 3, 2024 11:06:50 GMT
Why are you doubling down on being stupid? There is no fucking IHT on a £200K Pension It doesn't matter how many times you repeat nonsense it doesn't make it real. It will be included in the IHT calculation. I would imagine many people with a £200,000 pot will also have a house and perhaps other savings too and they will run in to an IHT bill which they would not otherwise have done without this proposed change in the budget. People with larger pots will will be well and truly stuffed. Here is something from BNY Mellon who live and breathe this stuff, but clearly you know best. Is This Significant for Pension Savers? This 2027 change will have a huge impact on how retirement is managed, says Richard Parkin, head of retirement, BNY. “It seems likely that pensions will be used less for passing wealth to the next generation and we could see an increase of gifting during the client’s lifetime to limit taxation on death,” he says. He adds that this means advisers will need to rethink how they sequence asset drawdown in retirement. But the new rules mean that clients may gift too much, meaning they will run out of money in retirement. Andrew Marr, managing partner at Forbes Dawson, agrees. He cites the example of an individual with a £2 million pension scheme, who would leave his beneficiaries with an £800,000 additional IHT bill if he were to die after 6 April 2027. “For many people who feel like they have done the responsible thing by paying into pension schemes this will be a kick in the teeth ... This is perhaps the most killing blow of the Budget to the wealthy people of Britain.” Look mate currently about 30,000 people that die every year their estates are subject to IHT When the new rules become effective in 2027 then another 10,000 estates will become subject to IHT or between 5%/6% of people that die each Year If Andrew Marr said as you quoted, which I doubt, he is a moron it's simply incorrect |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Nov 3, 2024 11:11:36 GMT
Could not agree more. I've genuinely never met a single woman in the UK or in any other country I've travelled to who has opted against having a child because of cost. I think it's pretty disrespectful to the millions of childless women in the UK to suggest that cost is the key factor in their reasoning for not having children. Yet another attempt from people of a certain political persuasion who want the state to fund their life choices. Why is it disrespectful for my wife and I to decide not to have more children because we believe it would be too expensive? You obviously have no actual experience in the matter and so should not preach to others what is and is not respectful. Or you may be super rich and so money is never a financial consideration for any decision you make. What are you on about? Whatever you and your wife choose is nothing to do with my post. You claiming other women do not want children because of cost is rude as fuck. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 3, 2024 11:13:53 GMT
Does she understand that the rules which she views as the problem were created by the very people most guilty of breaching them?! |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Nov 3, 2024 11:15:41 GMT
I didn't ask you as wealthy bloke. I asked whether most women are not having children out of choice or because they don't feel they can afford them. I don't know the answer but I suspect I know what the answer is. No, you didn’t ask that. You said 90% of pay for 6 weeks, and then £184 a week for 33 weeks is excessive for maternity leave, and the fact that after that time you get nothing is not a major consideration for people deciding whether or not to have a child. You believe the financial implications, such as either having to return to work and pay child care of around £1k to £2k a month after 6 weeks off, or rely on one salary, is not a major consideration as to whether or not people want children. You argue that the costs of bringing up a child are not a major consideration. The fact the parents may need a bigger house to live in, outgoings will increase etc. You have argued that although career considerations are important, financial implications are not, which makes no logical sense as they come hand in hand. You have not responded to my points about unmarried couples and how vulnerable one party becomes if they stop their career to have children due to a lack of financial support they can claim from their ex if they split up. I don’t agree with you at all. I don’t agree that it is solely a woman’s choice whether or not to have children. Money is a very important factor. Along with career implications, which is part of the money point. Proper parental leave would massively reduce career impact, or at least make it more even with men, and would reduce the financial burden of having a child. For people who want children (or more children), I would say money would be the biggest reason they decide not to. It is the biggest reason my wife and I don’t want to have another. I don't deny that's your biggest reason. But I think you're miles out by suggest MOST women don't want children because of cost. The world's a different place now. Women can have amazing lives without children. They can have well paid jobs, awesome careers, travel the world multiple times over, get involved in hobbies they couldn't before, they can date many many different guys online etc. Which is a good thing and the same can be said for guys. Thankfully the days are gone where you have to have children or have to have children by a certain age to live a fulfilling life. Life's moved on. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 3, 2024 11:16:08 GMT
Why is it disrespectful for my wife and I to decide not to have more children because we believe it would be too expensive? You obviously have no actual experience in the matter and so should not preach to others what is and is not respectful. Or you may be super rich and so money is never a financial consideration for any decision you make. What are you on about? Whatever you and your wife choose is nothing to do with my post. You claiming other women do not want children because of cost is rude as fuck. Why? It’s certainly a major part of most people’s decision making. Not the super rich who never need to worry about the cost of anything. Everyone else who is deciding whether or not they would like children certainly consider financial implications. |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Nov 3, 2024 11:17:41 GMT
What are you on about? Whatever you and your wife choose is nothing to do with my post. You claiming other women do not want children because of cost is rude as fuck. Why? It’s certainly a major part of most people’s decision making. Not the super rich who never need to worry about the cost of anything. Everyone else who is deciding whether or not they would like children certainly consider financial implications. Because women have a brain and can have an incredibly fulfilling life now without having to have children? Blimey, are you JD Vance in disguise? |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Nov 3, 2024 11:22:40 GMT
Also this idea the world needs more humans. Fuck that shit. Why does the planet need more humans to destroy it? We need more animals and forests.🤗
P.s for the record, the green, net zero agenda is the scam of a lifetime and that in no way, shape or form is going to bring about the preservation of wildlife and forests.
Nor do we need anymore yappy little dogs with small man syndrome 🙄
|
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 3, 2024 11:22:46 GMT
No, you didn’t ask that. You said 90% of pay for 6 weeks, and then £184 a week for 33 weeks is excessive for maternity leave, and the fact that after that time you get nothing is not a major consideration for people deciding whether or not to have a child. You believe the financial implications, such as either having to return to work and pay child care of around £1k to £2k a month after 6 weeks off, or rely on one salary, is not a major consideration as to whether or not people want children. You argue that the costs of bringing up a child are not a major consideration. The fact the parents may need a bigger house to live in, outgoings will increase etc. You have argued that although career considerations are important, financial implications are not, which makes no logical sense as they come hand in hand. You have not responded to my points about unmarried couples and how vulnerable one party becomes if they stop their career to have children due to a lack of financial support they can claim from their ex if they split up. I don’t agree with you at all. I don’t agree that it is solely a woman’s choice whether or not to have children. Money is a very important factor. Along with career implications, which is part of the money point. Proper parental leave would massively reduce career impact, or at least make it more even with men, and would reduce the financial burden of having a child. For people who want children (or more children), I would say money would be the biggest reason they decide not to. It is the biggest reason my wife and I don’t want to have another. I don't deny that's your biggest reason. But I think you're miles out by suggest MOST women don't want children because of cost. The world's a different place now. Women can have amazing lives without children. They can have well paid jobs, awesome careers, travel the world multiple times over, get involved in hobbies they couldn't before, they can many date different guys online etc. Which is a good thing and the same can be said for guys. Thankfully the days are gone where you have to have children or have to have children by a certain age to live a fulfilling life. Life's moved on. And women with children can do all those things too. I am not sure why you have brought up any of that! I don’t agree most women don’t want children. What i am saying is most people (not just women as you seem to think men have no say in the process) think about the financial consequences of whether or not to try for a/another baby. Be that rehousing, career implications, parental leave pay, child care costs etc. most people don’t think “well with the comically excessive maternity pay and leave, we certainly don’t need to worry about the financial consequences of having a child.” |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 3, 2024 11:24:15 GMT
Why? It’s certainly a major part of most people’s decision making. Not the super rich who never need to worry about the cost of anything. Everyone else who is deciding whether or not they would like children certainly consider financial implications. Because women have a brain and can have an incredibly fulfilling life now without having to have children? Blimey, are you JD Vance in disguise? Who said otherwise? |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 3, 2024 11:25:50 GMT
Also this idea the world needs more humans. Fuck that shit. Why does the planet need more humans to destroy it? We need more animals and forests.🤗 P.s for the record, the green, net zero agenda is the scam of a lifetime and that in no way, shape or form is going to bring about the preservation of wildlife and forests. Nor do we need anymore yappy little dogs with small man syndrome 🙄 I guess we should all murder 1 person then. |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Nov 3, 2024 11:26:16 GMT
I don't deny that's your biggest reason. But I think you're miles out by suggest MOST women don't want children because of cost. The world's a different place now. Women can have amazing lives without children. They can have well paid jobs, awesome careers, travel the world multiple times over, get involved in hobbies they couldn't before, they can many date different guys online etc. Which is a good thing and the same can be said for guys. Thankfully the days are gone where you have to have children or have to have children by a certain age to live a fulfilling life. Life's moved on. And women with children can do all those things too. I am not sure why you have brought up any of that! I don’t agree most women don’t want children. What i am saying is most people (not just women as you seem to think men have no say in the process) think about the financial consequences of whether or not to try for a/another baby. Be that rehousing, career implications, parental leave pay, child care costs etc. most people don’t think “well with the comically excessive maternity pay and leave, we certainly don’t need to worry about the financial consequences of having a child.” We're not going anywhere here are we. I didn't say "most women don't want children". I said "I suspect most women who don't want children have made that choice NOT because of cost". And that to suggest most women who have opted against kids is because "they can't afford them" is nonsense and pretty offensive to a lot of women. |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Nov 3, 2024 11:27:40 GMT
Also this idea the world needs more humans. Fuck that shit. Why does the planet need more humans to destroy it? We need more animals and forests.🤗 P.s for the record, the green, net zero agenda is the scam of a lifetime and that in no way, shape or form is going to bring about the preservation of wildlife and forests. Nor do we need anymore yappy little dogs with small man syndrome 🙄 I guess we should all murder 1 person then. No, although I think having more than 3 children is pretty unnecessary and irresponsible but hey, that's my controversial view 😊 |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 3, 2024 11:28:21 GMT
And women with children can do all those things too. I am not sure why you have brought up any of that! I don’t agree most women don’t want children. What i am saying is most people (not just women as you seem to think men have no say in the process) think about the financial consequences of whether or not to try for a/another baby. Be that rehousing, career implications, parental leave pay, child care costs etc. most people don’t think “well with the comically excessive maternity pay and leave, we certainly don’t need to worry about the financial consequences of having a child.” We're not going anywhere here are we. I didn't say "most women don't want children". I said "I suspect most women who don't want children have made that choice NOT because of cost". And that to suggest most women who have opted against kids is because "they can't afford them" is nonsense and pretty offensive to a lot of women. And I’m saying cost is a part of the decision making. Why is it offensive to say that? Cost and affordability guides many thing everyone but the super rich do in life. Although I notice you have shifted your position significantly from the original point about the supposedly “comically excessive” maternity benefits you get! I notice you haven’t attempted to address that at all in your subsequent posts. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 3, 2024 11:29:04 GMT
I guess we should all murder 1 person then. No, although I think having more than 3 children is pretty unnecessary irresponsible but hey, that's my controversial view 😊 Why? |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Nov 3, 2024 11:32:45 GMT
No, although I think having more than 3 children is pretty unnecessary irresponsible but hey, that's my controversial view 😊 Why? Why what? Do I think it's unnecessary? I mean... Do you really need me to explain why having more than 3 kids feels a bit unnecessary? Jesus you've turned into a cross between JD Vance and Jacob Rees Mogg overnight. |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 3, 2024 11:33:46 GMT
Stars in their eyes style entertainment? Badge can do a Jim Davidson stand up performance Get Glenn Oliver out of retirement as JV, a snooker table and we can go full Big Break. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 3, 2024 11:34:23 GMT
Why what? Do I think it's unnecessary? I mean... Do you really need me to explain why having more than 3 kids feels a bit unnecessary? Jesus you've turned into a cross between JD Vance and Jacob Rees Mogg overnight. You are worse at answering questions than a politician. Try answering the question and not throwing insults. |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Nov 3, 2024 11:35:33 GMT
We're not going anywhere here are we. I didn't say "most women don't want children". I said "I suspect most women who don't want children have made that choice NOT because of cost". And that to suggest most women who have opted against kids is because "they can't afford them" is nonsense and pretty offensive to a lot of women. And I’m saying cost is a part of the decision making. Why is it offensive to say that? Cost and affordability guides many thing everyone but the super rich do in life. Although I notice you have shifted your position significantly from the original point about the supposedly “comically excessive” maternity benefits you get! I notice you haven’t attempted to address that at all in your subsequent posts. Mate honestly, what are you talking about? How can you change the subject, engage in debate around said different subject (asking a bunch of questions around said different subject) and then claim the other poster has changed the subject. I think I'm done with this one, you're boring me. |
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Nov 3, 2024 11:36:34 GMT
Why what? Do I think it's unnecessary? I mean... Do you really need me to explain why having more than 3 kids feels a bit unnecessary? Jesus you've turned into a cross between JD Vance and Jacob Rees Mogg overnight. You are worse at answering questions than a politician. Try answering the question and not throwing insults. You're nuts. I'm asking what your question is? 😂 |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 3, 2024 11:37:42 GMT
Badge can do a Jim Davidson stand up performance Get Glenn Oliver out of retirement as JV, a snooker table and we can go full Big Break. I bet wannabe has an enviable collection of waistcoats |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Nov 3, 2024 11:39:42 GMT
Get Glenn Oliver out of retirement as JV, a snooker table and we can go full Big Break. I bet wannabe has an enviable collection of waistcoats And elasticated bow ties. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Nov 3, 2024 11:44:15 GMT
And I’m saying cost is a part of the decision making. Why is it offensive to say that? Cost and affordability guides many thing everyone but the super rich do in life. Although I notice you have shifted your position significantly from the original point about the supposedly “comically excessive” maternity benefits you get! I notice you haven’t attempted to address that at all in your subsequent posts. Mate honestly, what are you talking about? How can you change the subject, engage in debate around said different subject (asking a bunch of questions around said different subject) and then claim the other poster has changed the subject. I think I'm done with this one, you're boring me. So you have failed to justify or explain your ridiculous comments of: 1. Maternity benefits being “comically excessive.” 2. Why it is apparently offensive for me to say financial considerations are really important to most people when deciding whether or not to have a/another child; and 3. Why having more than 3 children is unnecessary You then have switched position, thrown a few insults, and ended with”i’m bored, i don’t know what you are on about “. Obviously you don’t need to explain or justify anything you say on here, but it massively undermines the opinions you hold if you are incapable of arguing them at all, even from light scrutiny. |
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Nov 3, 2024 11:44:40 GMT
We're not going anywhere here are we. I didn't say "most women don't want children". I said "I suspect most women who don't want children have made that choice NOT because of cost". And that to suggest most women who have opted against kids is because "they can't afford them" is nonsense and pretty offensive to a lot of women. And I’m saying cost is a part of the decision making. Why is it offensive to say that? Cost and affordability guides many thing everyone but the super rich do in life. Although I notice you have shifted your position significantly from the original point about the supposedly “comically excessive” maternity benefits you get! I notice you haven’t attempted to address that at all in your subsequent posts. He keeps trotting out this thing about offending women- still waiting for him to say that Farage was therefore similarly offensive to women when he said we should be offering financial incentives to increase the birth rate. Not particularly following the US election thread so can only assume he is supporting Trump (after he got it wrong yet again on DeSantis)- not many more offensive to women than that cunt, so I don't think Rossi is in any position to go taking high ground about offending women. And why the fuck does he keep going on about Vance? I don't remember there being much about birth rates on the Friday Rock Show. |
|
