What I don’t get is why people want to save up all that money rather than gifting it to their family when they need it? It seems a perverse way to show stature.
Personally, as I’ve already got a decent pension, most of my extra money goes to the kids to give them a better life. Affording housing isn’t cheap and with grandchildren, they need help now, not when I’ve kicked the bucket.
As for my house, that’ll be sold off and we’ll downgrade. Again, any spare cash will go to support the family.
Sorry, I didn't mean pass on to our employees, I meant pass on the costs to our customers. We are actually hoping to increase our employees terms and wages to attract the best candidates. But our Finance team have said hold off for the time being until they can assess the impact of the budget.It's always seem odd to me that businesses do function like this.
Can't afford to pay the NI increase so we'll make employees pay for it by reducing their pay. However, yes we expect employees to continue to work to ensure our business continues to function and makes profit.
Is the economy really this fragile? It's sad really that most medium to large companies are reduced to nothing more nowdays than an excel spreadsheet.
So you don't believe the NFU? Why? is it just more right wing press in your opinion?
Of course, I agree entirely. I just raised it as some clearly think it's all positive regardless simply because its a Labour budget. In fact, they can even see no wrong even when an MP attacks a member of public as long as he's a Labour MP ;-)I think we should listen to everyone, but is it not the same around every budget? For the last week we've had all sides telling Reeves that she needs to increase taxes more than she's planned for x cause, or not increase them as it affects x cause.
Now we'll get a few weeks of people telling us it's not enough/too much.
If there are changes that add costs to employers, then any employers' union is going to be saying it's too much. If the NFU weren't complaining that would be more surprising - it's their job to advocate for their members.
As with anything, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I guess we'll see what happens. Employers can say they won't take people on, or won't be able to increase wages, but if they need staff, then those decisions won't be as straightforward as many are suggesting.
But what about pension pot’s accumulated between spouses so for example both drawing pensions, one dies the other still gets that (although reduced) and they still have their own, then that one dies are both taken into consideration fir the kids?
IHT is £325,000 which can rise to £500k with property (ie the Residents Nil Rate Band is £175k) and then double as you say to £1m (but only if leaving estate to immediate family - children/step/foster/adopted children or grand children)IHT threshold is £500k on property and you can pool yours with your spouse, so effectively £1 million.
It wasn't a tax dodge, it was encouraged to enable you to save for your future and your families. What's so wrong in that? These rules don't just affect the super rich or rich whatever definition is. The IHT thresholds are now relatively low compared to how property prices have risen. It will affect many middle income earners more than the rich or super rich who will just avoid iHT altogether via other means.I think the NFU are looking after the interests of their members. If they want to present an argument about ‘food security’ and make it stick then fine, but there is a lot of doomsday hyperbole over the changes in the budget which will not come to pass - see arguments over minimum wage as an example.
Pensions are to provide for yourself in your latter years. Treating them as a tax dodge at a time when public finances are in a black hole is not finding much sympathy with me.
So are you saying we should ignore Reeves statement that this was a budget for growth and if we don't have economic growth it doesn't matter as long as we are happy? Surely it's the economic growth that enables the spending in the areas you mention and the resultant happiness ?
No argument from me on that front, but it goes hand in hand with economic growth. You certainly can't have the first without the second.A well educated and healthy population/labour pool is an economic benefit. A happier person is more productive. My point is that there are intangibles that do not show on the balance sheet but are necessary for a modern economy to function and grow.
But you ARE taxed whilst alive as well.No. The proportion of people paying IHT is very small.
I'm not sure why there's so much fuss about it, personally I'd much rather be taxed after my death than while I'm alive!