So Rachel from complaints wants growth to fund her spending plans yet her policies are pretty much anti-growth so far. She's looking at defined benefits pensions now, sitting down with business bosses today aparently. Yes there's sums locked up that could be better invested in UK companies, but she absolutely should not let the managers of these schemes take the decision whether they are going to risk it or not. They will all say yes, chase their bonuses with increasing risk, the market will go pop and the government will probably have to bail out the failed schemes. If she wants to get growth from the funds currently locked away in defined benefit pensions then she needs to relax the rules around the members being able to transfer out and make their own decisions, take their won risks. The current regulations regarding advice and insistent customers are unworkable expensive and just pay advisers a large wedge. If a pension holder invests in the market og their own will and it loses, the governemnt won't have to bail them out.
They are penalised if they saved all their lives to pass the family home on to their children. Their memory and their estate is penalised.
It's a fair point. I wouldn't want people to be forced to sell their family home if they still live there. It was the only argument that I thought was valid about the whole IHT on farms discussion. But wouldn't the easy solution be to apply the tax when the property is next sold by whoever inherits it? Yes they may have a "right" to live there but I still don't see why they should benefit from the unearned income, without it being taxed, when the property is sold.
Tricky one. Isn't that why they have all the safeguards in place though? Too many unscrupulous financial 'advisors' have scammed people over the years and the taxpayer often ends up expected to bail out the victims. On the flipside I was speaking last week to a colleague who's about to retire. They want to withdraw the value of their public sector pension pot and bung it in a SIPP. Intelligent enough person, so I presume they know what they're doing, yet they were saying the amount of advisors, advisors to advisors, 'are you sure?' type hoops they've had to jump through is exhausting. I think the broader point about unlocking pension funds is interesting. It works for Canada and a few other countries, so why couldn't we make it work here? As I understand it the Tories were very much heading along the same lines so this isn't even a particularly polarised political topic.
Well, arguably it's an unwise choice. But I accept the motives behind it are usually coming from a good place and are sometimes forced by circumstances out of their control. I do wonder though how many beneficiaries this really affects though as a percentage of the total.
TBF, the whole SIPP thing is great in theory, but it allows people to really bet their most precious nest egg on some extremely suspect asset classes. I remember a big property scam where they were selling luxury Caribbean hotel properties to people to buy via SIPP. Of course the scheme collapsed and loads of people's pensions were wiped. This is why the regulators make it hard for people to gamble with their pensions. Because most people are gullible idiots.
I have changed 2 words. See if you agree with the sentiment. Unless there is only one child, the "family home" is a red herring. And if that child has already bought somewhere else themselves, then even that is a red herring.
Yes and no. Personally I think IHT as a concept is wrong. You have an arbitrary valuation on a non-liquid item and the government takes a slice. As an investment that is inherited, pay CGT on the profit fair enough the same with 2nd homes. Homes are homes not investments.
Yep quotes of £30K for advice on transferring your DB pension are not unheard of due to imdemnity insurance costs and if the advice is don't do it, good luck finding a provider that will accept the transfer of an "insistent customer" ywt you;ve still shelled out the advice costs. Like many short sighted government policies the idea is OK but they need to regulate the costs of jumping through their hoops.
I know it's not just you saying this (/normally accounts), but interested in why people are so keen on this or think it's funny? She did PPE at Oxford like most politicians, and then worked at the bank of England. She is far more qualified than some of the dross that got rotated into the position under the last Tory government. Why didn't people say rishi from accounts? Hancock from accounts? Kwasi from accounts? I doubt get the joke
They would only pay CGT on the amount it increases from when they inherit it. Paying IHT on the whole amount (after the generous allowance) is much fairer imho.
I'm not sure any of them embelished the truth on their resumes and then tried to cover it up. Rishi was an investment bank analyst, hedge fund manager and hedge fund company owner. Hancock is a politics and ecconomic graduate & ex-bank of england ecconomist. Kwasi did get a PHD in economic history and was a financial analyst before becoming an MP. - not that it really helped him however.
Ausicaa Delfas, chief executive of The Pensions Regulator, said: “Our first priority must be to ensure pension scheme members have the best chance of receiving their promised benefits. Where schemes are fully funded and there are protections in place for members, we support efforts to help trustees and employers consider how to safely release surplus if it can improve member benefits or unlock investment in the wider economy.” So I don't think it's going to go mental, each trustee will or won't have excess surplus of funds to free up.
I makde a mistake - it was Jeremy Hunt not Matt Hancock. but basically the same background Does "Rachel from accounts" make reference to the CV row or does it diminish her previous experience? So while Sunak's previous jobs may be the most "impressive" private sector wise - they all had similar backgrounds - Reeves like Hancock was at the Bank of England. Yet none of them were ever ridiculed as "xxxxx from accounts" The other chancellows were: Nadhim Zahawi: Chemical engienering degree - succesful in varoius businesses but that's not a background in economics Sajid Javid: did have a finacial backround Philip Hammond: again a PPE grad - succefsul businessman but notthing in economics. So unless you are of the viewpoint that being succesful in starting a business (even if it's after many failed start ups and very likely lots of connections and daddy's money) is a better backround to be chancellor and that workign for the Bank of England is a job for idiots - the "Rachel from accounts" is a but of weird joke that doesn't have any humour to it other than an in joke between those who beleive Rachel Reeves is inherently incapable of being Chancellor for some reason or another.
She's not the first senior politician to pick up an unflattering nickname though! Possibly you're overthinking this one...
Referring to the Chancellor as Rachel from accounts is a good way of suggesting that she has been promoted to a role far beyond her natural level of chitty clerk. I think it works very well and in light of the complete dogs dinner she's making of things I don't think you'll find too many who disagree with the sentiment
The lack of qualifications isn't the issue for me. A rational intelligent person capable of grasping concepts and advice from those qulalified is fine. Someone that is intentionally deceptive about their qualifications or experience to obtain a role or boost the respect they get whilst performing that role shouldn't be in a position of trust. At a critical time, we look like we have someone holding the purse strings who is out of their depth, even if they are "Fundementally honest"
