Income from your pension and a little less conversation

Dominic Thomas
July 2025 • 2 min read

Income from your pension and a little less conversation

For those of you who have been using the 2015 pension freedoms to access lumps of money from your pensions, there is some good news (I hope).

As of 6^th April 2025, if you are taking lump sum income (or indeed regular income) from your pension there ought to be less hassle from HMRC. If you have already done this with your pension, you will know that the pension company have to adhere to HMRC tax rules and invariably have to ‘over-tax’ your pension income, meaning that you have to reclaim it via a P55, P53Z or P50z form from HMRC. In fairness, this process has been improved a lot and cases tend to be resolved within 6-8 weeks. However, only if you reclaim it!

HMRC have confirmed that this system (which has resulted in pensioners being over-taxed to the tune of £1.3bn since 2015) is finally set to be overhauled following years of campaigning.

Since the system was put in place, over 470,000 claims totalling £1.37bn have been made for refunds. In Q4 of 2024 £49.5m was repaid to the 14,612 people who submitted forms.

From April, HMRC has announced that it will move much more quickly to replace these ‘emergency’ tax codes with regular tax codes, which will make sure that the correct amount of tax is deducted in real time. Hopefully this will reduce the need for form-filling to claim back over-paid tax, particularly where people make multiple withdrawals in a single tax year.

HMRC Announcement

HMRC made the announcement in its latest ‘Pension Schemes Newsletter’ (January 2025 Number 166) in an article entitled ‘helping customers get on the right pension pay faster’.

“From April 2025 we are improving how tax code information is used for those people who are new to receiving a private pension, so they pay the right amount of tax from the outset. We will automatically update the tax code for customers who are on a temporary tax code and would benefit from being on a cumulative code — this means they’ll avoid an overpayment or underpayment at the end of the year. There is no need to contact HMRC and once a tax code has been changed we’ll inform customers by letter or digitally if they’ve signed up for paperless in the HMRC app or online.

You do not need to make any changes to your tax coding process as we will automatically change these codes. However, as we’re systematically changing the tax codes for these customers you will receive notices for tax codes that have been automatically adjusted as they happen. As well as benefiting customers who will receive the right pension pay quicker, you may also see a reduction in queries you receive on tax code errors.

This small change is part of our wider commitment towards improving our customer service experience.”

So, hopefully a little less paperwork, but expect ever more access and accountability through the new HMRC app (which I have not yet tried myself). You may not be dancing in the aisles, but I’m reminded of Elvis…

A little less conversation, a little more action, please

All this aggravation ain’t satisfactioning me

A little more bite and a little less bark

A little less fight and a little more spark

Close your mouth and open up your heart and, baby, satisfy me …

So … why not … well done HMRC!

Here is the Official JXL Remix video of Elvis Presley – A Little Less Conversation

Come on – how many tax blog posts manage to link to Elvis?!

BACK TO ALL BLOGS

Income from your pension and a little less conversationJemima Thomas2025-07-03T15:57:21+01:00

The Last Showgirl

Dominic Thomas
May 2025 • 3 min read

The Last Showgirl

Rare is the day that the word ‘pension’ is mentioned half a dozen times within the first half of a film, yet as I sat in my local cinema recently, I couldn’t help but notice this unusual occurrence. A new film written by Kate Gersten and directed by Gia Coppola with Pamela Anderson in the lead role is probably much as you might have anticipated. Anderson plays Shelly, a senior (57-year-old) Vegas showgirl, both the show and her career are forced to face the cold reality of dwindling interest.

In the gambling capital of the US, Shelly’s story is of a woman who assumed that her career could continue uninterrupted. For her, the spotlight of the much-needed attention was almost reward enough except sadly she has not reaped any financial rewards beyond merely managing to stay a little ahead of the next set of bills.

We learn about her struggle to balance life and the personal sacrifices she makes for her career that result in an estranged relationship with her daughter. The experience that many (most) women have in the workplace juggling childcare (and care for parents), relationships and a career and the brutal savagery that the loss of a youthful appearance is rarely a career-ending problem for men. This is, albeit a fairly untypical example, one of the various structural problems that many women face and why so few have careers, pensions or investments that are on a par with men. Scottish Widows run an annual report on the gender divide, the latest is here: https://www.scottishwidows.co.uk/employer/insight/eh-insight-gender-pension-gap.html

Annette (Jamie Lee Curtis) has perhaps an all-too-common experience for women towards the bottom of the economic ladder. Already dropped from the showgirls, she is working as a waitress on a zero hours contract and minimum pay. When asked if she will save her gambling winnings for her retirement she answers:

Annette: Retire? like, bankers retire. Waddaya think I have a 501K? I’m gonna work and then I’m gonna work some more and then I’m gonna die. I’ll probably die in my uniform. That’s my long-term plan.

Jodie: You don’t want to retire?

Annette: It’s not an option, Jodie.

Our opinions about the American dream may have altered over the years as it evidently has not worked for the many; but certainly for a very few. Annette is for me, symbolic of the optimism that Americans have, having the courage to keep going, but numbing the pain of reality with another margarita. You won’t forget the performance by JLC.

Men by comparison have it easier (there, I said it). Men also have it cheaper – we simply don’t have anything like the pressure of appearances. However, life is clearly more complicated and nuanced than I suggest. On the one hand, this is a tale about the consequences of a lack of planning (and saving), making assumptions about the future, which all too swiftly arrives ready to consume hope. This happens to lots of people (most) irrespective of gender, but certainly women generally are at a significant disadvantage.

The film has received a warm response. There are rather obvious parallels with Anderson’s own life (though I imagine she was and is better resourced financially) known primarily for her ability to run across a beach in Baywatch (1989-2001) which at one point was the most watched TV series with a weekly audience of 1.1bn.

In some senses, this is a story of consequences, of not paying attention to the important and being caught up in the familiar. At 57 it isn’t impossible to start a new career or finally start saving for your future into a pension, but it is certainly a lot harder.

The financial services sector hasn’t been the most welcoming to women, there are relatively few female advisers or business owners in the sector, but things are improving. Here at Solomon’s more than half of our clients are women, I hope it’s partly due to the sense of trust and transparency in our advice and connecting money with being used to facilitate the really important things in life, something which many men simply neglect in the pursuit of more.

The sooner you speak with a financial planner who puts your interests first, the better. Whether you are 24, 34, 44 or 84, I can assure you that we can make money make sense.

Here is the trailer for the film The Last Showgirl

BACK TO ALL BLOGS

The Last ShowgirlJemima Thomas2025-05-06T10:24:53+01:00

Sanctions, sanity and sanctuary

Dominic Thomas
April 2025 • 5 min read

Sanctions, sanity and sanctuary

You are old enough to know that the world is fairly mad. Nations are often run by fairly despicable people, sometimes elected into power, sometimes they simply take it. At some point in life (for some this might be their entire lifetime) an opinion is formed about ‘others’ who are used as the excuse for many ills and failures. The truth is a victim of agenda and despite the cold epitaphs of November Remembrance services, nothing is really learned other than to repackage misery.

We take it as a sad reflection of “man’s inhumanity to man” that some people don’t and won’t get on, invariably due to holding a different opinion about religion or politics or both. In a capitalist world, withholding money and trade (or making it harder for both) is a way of attempting to coerce a required behaviour. This may have worked in the 1980s with sanctions imposed against South Africa; whether it has worked elsewhere is debatable. Yet it remains a rather obvious tool.

Idealists (which I am prone to myself at times) may well argue that the power of withholding custom or money from some companies may help nudge them towards better behaviour. Trying is arguably better than doing nothing.

In the investment world, screening out companies (or even countries) is not without its challenges. One man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist. Perspective and narrative are up for grabs and twisted to suit.

The war in Palestine, which is horrendous, poses challenges. For some to criticise Israeli politics is to be antisemitic, which is, in my opinion, utterly daft. Anyone who has paid attention to history, knows the misery and horrors inflicted upon Jews for centuries, particularly in the last World War with the holocaust. It is more than understandable that Jewish people would wish to defend themselves. However, any reasonable person, would not consider the atrocities in Gaza anything remotely reasonable but rather more ironically fascistic.

When Government fails to address a problem, individuals are left to find ways that they might express their concern, and investors reduce or completely withdraw from particular sectors or countries. We are all investors; most people simply don’t know how things really work. If you have a final salary pension (lucky you!) then you may not be aware that money doesn’t simply appear, it is the consequence of investment in property, debt and shares in companies. You do not get to select the investment and given the size of the scheme and pressure on it to provide a guaranteed income for your lifetime and your spouse’s, there isn’t really that much invested into shares due to the need for predictable income and an inflation linked one at that.

Some protest groups have taken to highlighting “investment into Israel” or ammunitions and defence companies that supply Israel (amongst many others). They call for a ban on such holdings as an attempt to influence the behaviour of the companies and Governments concerned. I have sympathy with the sentiment, but as a member of such a scheme you don’t get to choose how and what the pension is invested in and it is enormous. The Local Government Pension for England and Wales for example stood at £354,047,000,000 (£354billion) at the end of 2023. This is a scheme where more is paid out (in pensions) than paid in (contributions by employed members). Roughly 51% of the LGPS is invested in shares. Interesting (for me) the investment costs for 22/23 were £1,726,500,000 which is about 0.4876% of the portfolio (so your portfolio – if arranged by us – gets lower investment costs than the massive pension schemes).

In 2022/23 there were 6.49million members of the LGPS, up from the previous year by 0.1million. Active members (people employed and contributing) amounted to 2.09m (32%); deferred members (former employees not yet taking their pension) 2.39m (37%) and 2.0m people (31%) drawing a pension. To say getting this balance right is difficult would be an understatement.

So, to exclusion … well one article I saw claimed that “81 local government pension funds have known complicit investments” and that £12,214,286,216 was the sum involved. Don’t forget that the value will fluctuate wildly each day (they are shares). These include Amazon and Google, I’m going to guess that you use these services so would be deemed complicit too. If I may infer that roughly half of the LGPS is invested in shares (£180bn or so) then the focus (£12.2bn) is on about 6% of the shares held (by value) – or 3% of the total value of the LGPS.

I’m not going to pretend that this is an easy problem and telling the Board of LGPS to divest itself of £12bn into other shares is either a wise, good or bad thing. Will it make any difference? Is 3% of something an issue that normally causes you distress and guilt? How much of your tax is spent on things you don’t agree with or approve of? Do you write to your MP about it?

£12bn is a lot of money, it should be enough to make most of us stop and think, but when presented as 3% – does that alter your perspective?

Sadly, the world is a chaotic, messy and often nasty place. My privileges of living here in the UK (amongst many others) are not lost on me. I don’t have the answers for the crisis, which is both decades and centuries long. Flexing an economic muscle has its appeal, but quite how much this particular issue is of significance I am afraid that I’m unable to say.

Members of final salary (Defined Benefit) pensions are not able to select funds, but of course are able to lobby the Board about their concerns. For those of you with an investment-based pension, we can discuss screening policy at any time.

If you are seeking a personal opinion, then I would say that lobbying is a good approach to the problem, but it isn’t an easy or straightforward process. Arguably, UK Government (or broader) sanctions might have more of an impact. Demonstrated by the fact that Mr Musk’s remarks and gestures have not gone unnoticed and have resulted in a dramatic change in Tesla’s valuation.

References:

https://lgpsdivest.org/
https://lgpsboard.org/index.php/membership23

BACK TO ALL BLOGS

Sanctions, sanity and sanctuaryJemima Thomas2025-04-08T11:14:04+01:00

TTAFC Allowances

Daniel Liddicott
March 2025 • 3 min read

TTAFC Allowances

Following the well-publicised removal of the Lifetime Allowance (LTA) for pensions from the beginning of the 24/25 (6^th April 2024), two new allowances related to pensions were created in its place. Trust the Government to remove one allowance, only to introduce two more!

Before we get ahead of ourselves – a brief reminder. The LTA for pensions was the amount that an individual could save into pensions, and subsequently take from pensions, before being hit with an additional tax bill. Potentially up to 55%! The last LTA figure before it was abolished was £1,073,100. This remains an important figure, even with the removal of the LTA.

The maximum tax-free lump sum that could be taken from pensions (those without any protected tax-free cash entitlement) was £268,275. This is 25% of the old LTA figure.

Now, rather than allowing tax-free lump sums from pensions that are greater than this figure, the Government has brought in the Lump Sum Allowance (LSA). This allowance is also £268,275, effectively maintaining the same maximum tax-free lump sum amount as if the LTA was never abolished.

The second new allowance is called the Lump Sum & Death Benefit Allowance (LSDBA). This allowance essentially mirrors the last figure for the LTA (£1,073,100) and limits the amount that can be paid out to beneficiaries as a lump sum on death of the pension holder. Any amount greater than the remaining LSDBA is potentially liable to income tax. Any tax-free cash taken from pensions during life will gradually reduce this death benefit allowance over time.

Claiming what you are entitled to

As a result of the rule changes over the years, you may be entitled to greater LSA and LSDBA amounts than HMRC currently have on record for you. This will likely be the case if you took tax-free lump sums from your pensions at times when the LTA figure was different from £1,073,100. It has changed 10 times since its introduction in the 2006/2007 tax year.

HMRC calculate your remaining LSA and LSDBA allowances using £1,073,100 as the starting figure as this was the last LTA amount. However, their calculation will be incorrect if you took tax-free cash in any of the years shown above in which the LTA was not £1,073,100.

If you think that you might be one of those people, please let us know. We are working through our records to determine and get in touch with those of you who may need to apply for a certificate to reinstate the tax-free cash allowances that you are entitled to. These are called Transitional Tax-Free Amount Certificates (TTAFC). Apologies for all the acronyms throughout this piece!

Whilst the LTA has officially been abolished, it still casts a relatively large shadow over the pension planning landscape.

BACK TO ALL BLOGS

TTAFC AllowancesJemima Thomas2025-03-28T14:53:23+00:00

Inflammatory budget?

Dominic Thomas
March 2023 • 10 min read

Inflammatory budget?

These are the days of being offended. It seems that, unsurprisingly, opposition parties and in particular the Labour party are having kittens about announcements around pensions in the Budget. The criticism is that this helps the rich and not the poor. There is some truth in this of course, but this goes to the political heart of wealth redistribution. In case you are concerned about my political bias, I don’t like any of them.

A million pounds seems like a lot, (it is!) but it’s not as much as it was. The sense we have of £1m is due to ‘anchoring’ as most of us grew up believing that £1m was a lot of money; a millionaire was a very rich person. Search for a home online in the south east and quickly you appreciate that perhaps a million doesn’t buy very much. The TV show “Who Wants to be a Millionaire” with the prize of £1m was first aired in April 1998, almost 25 years ago. £1m then bought you rather more than the same prize fund does today. In fact in real terms, the prize should be adjusted to £1,776,802 … but that doesn’t really fit with the show’s title.

An adult approach is of course to recognise the impact of inflation. I’m going to speculate that politicians know this, but are always selective about the things that vex them. Your house is worth more perhaps because you have done some refurbishment, but also due to inflation. Anyone living in the South East (or indeed swathes of the country) knows that house prices are eye-watering and this is a problem for those trying to buy and for those paying inheritance tax. Inflation in house prices has been higher.

THE PENSION REFORMS WERE REALLY ABOUT NHS CONSULTANTS

The main thrust of the pension reforms are aimed at NHS Consultants, because they have been leaving in droves, because simply by working a normal week they end up owing tax on income that they have not had, in a pension they dont get until 67 at best. Ask any doctor. If we assume health and the NHS is important, it would seem that Labour politicians suggesting that they will reverse pension changes announced in the Spring Budget 2023 have not understood very much at all. If Labour are serious about looking after the health of the nation, we need to rethink pension rules that basically punish them from working. Sadly, few politicians understand the true impact of pension rules.

An alternative would perhaps be to have a simplistic approach, cut doctors and those in similar schemes out of the annual allowance tax calculations entirely. I suspect this would make them happy, it would certainly make my life easier. However the NHS pension is a Defined Benefit or Final Salary scheme, what you do for one, legally you have to do for others. The only other group of people with excellent “old school” final salary pensions are people with long service in big companies or institutions and almost certainly on high incomes – precisely the sort of people that Labour seem to loathe along with their multinational employers. So such a “cut out the problem” isnt actually a solution.

Reality is always an irritation for an MP or political party of any persuasion. A few non-partisan (I hope) facts for you to consider. The last time Labour won an election was in 2005. David Cameron formed a Coalition Government following the election in May 2010 (tax year 2010/11).

Under the new proposals, those earning £200,000 or more do not get an automatic allowance of £60,000 into pensions. This is the threshold at which a lot of calculations need to be done, some doctors will still have to do this. As a result, they may well suffer a reduced annual allowance (how much they can put into a pension).
Those earning £260,000 or more will certainly have a reduced (tapered) annual allowance from £60,000 and will need to do some sums.
Those earning £360,000 or more can only contribute £10,000 gross into pensions, which is less than they can pay into an ISA. So these three facts would suggest that Labour are not happy that people paying 45% tax and have no personal allowance are somehow able to load pensions like a kid in a sweet shop. Its not true.
The tax-free cash from a pension is capped at 25% of today’s lifetime allowance (£268,275). That means those retiring in the future have an allowance that does not keep pace with inflation, meaning in real-terms lower tax-free cash sums will be available. Tax-free cash of 25% of £1.8m or Primary/Enhanced protection, was higher under the last Labour Government than at any point since. Pension income is taxable, it is a future revenue for HMRC. It is also a possible solution to care costs rather than the State paying, I digress.
The last Labour Government had an annual allowance (how much can be paid into a pension) of £255,000, there was no Tapered or reduced Annual Allowance.
The main gripe of Labour about salary austerity wage inflation would appear not to apply to pension benefits being inflation/austerity-repaired since 2010. In short, the LTA would be £1.8m+ inflation, the Annual Allowance would be £255,000+inflation. Tax-free cash from pensions would be higher at a minimum of £450,000+ inflation. Additionally, the £100,000 income threshold for loss of the personal allowance has reduced in real terms. In short they are using the same facts to argue for higher wages, but not higher allowances that benefit… well, taxpayers.
A-Day was introduced by Labour and will turn adult (18) on 6/4/2023. Perhaps adults should be allowed to save for their own financial independence rather than penalised/restricted on both what you can pay in and what you can take out. The original intention of pension simplification and A-Day was to increase the Lifetime Allowance, it started at £1.5m and increased substantially each year until 2010.
The current Government will, from 6/4/2023 take more tax, starting the 45% rate of tax at £125,140 rather than £150,000. There are more people are paying additional rate tax.
The personal allowance is currently £12,570 (up substantially from 2010 but removed from those earning over £100,000. In tax year 2009/10 it was £6,475, the rule to gradually remove the personal allowance for those earning £100,000+ came into effect in 2010/11 set by Labour, in the likely event of a change of Government and in light of the credit crunch.
According to the Bank of England’s own inflation calculator, £100 in 2010 would be £141.10 now. If this were applied the following might be observed.

The £6,475 personal allowance would be lower at £9,155.82 (its actually £12,570, so brownie points for Conservatives?)
£100,000 income before loss of personal allowance would be £141,402 (it’s still £100,000)
The Lifetime allowance of £1,800,000 would be £2,545,248 (its currently £1,073,100 and about to be abolished, this is what they are complaining about)
25% tax free cash would be £636,312 but it is not even half that amount, capped at £268,275, reducing in real terms every year.
The annual allowance of £255,000 would have become £360,576, yet apparently it is act of serving the wealthy to increase it from 6/4/23 from £40,000 to £60,000. Note that those “rich people” earning over £360,000 will be able to put in £10,000 as opposed to £4,000 into their pension, which has been the case for several years now. Just for the record someone earning £360,000 pays a lot of income tax.
In Labour’s last tax year, the basic rate of income tax (20%) applied to £37,400 if this had been linked to inflation, it would now be £52,885, the higher rate extended up to £150,000, which would otherwise be £212,104. In short, Conservatives have evidently cut allowances and increased tax

Chancellors of all persuasions have a knack are implying positive changes are their own doing all whilst completely ignoring the impact of inflation. You think you have been paying more tax? Well, clearly you have. We all have paid for the mismanagement of the economy by our underqualified political masters. Despite what is said in the media, even by supposed pension experts, if you earn more than £360,000 you can only place £10,000 into a pension and get tax relief, for the record a minor (child) can place £9,000 into a tax free Junior ISA.

We will have to see if Labour really will win an election and then change the lifetime allowance again. It seems entirely unhelpful to keep messing around with people’s planning for retirement and financial independence, apparently this is democracy in action. It would seem that politicians from both parties do not really like you benefitting from earning more, particularly if you earn between £100,000 and £200,000 or have I missed something? As for the media, well they don’t like you either unless you own the newspaper you are reading.

BACK TO ALL BLOGS

Inflammatory budget?Jemima Thomas2023-12-01T12:12:35+00:00

Golden handcuffs

Dominic Thomas
Jan 2023 • 6 min read

Golden handcuffs…

For many employees, a key reason to remain with their employer is because of pension benefits, however the playing field of employer pension schemes is far from level and the cynic in me questions whether Government tax policy is deliberately attempting to reduce the cost of pensions to employers, particularly the State employers such as the NHS.

Firstly, it’s important to understand the two basic types of pension. The clue to what they are is in the unusually straight-forward name.

1 – Defined Benefit (DB) or Final Salary Scheme

Your pension (benefit) is based on your final salary when you leave the scheme, whenever that is at the scheme normal retirement date (NRD).

The amount you get is a fraction of your final salary, your membership of the scheme and work for the employer builds your entitlement. So a scheme with a 1/60th rate of “Accrual” 25 years of membership would provide 25/60ths (41.6%) of your final salary. This will be inflation-linked within parameters set by the scheme.

The amount you receive has nothing to do with how much you contribute, that can be any amount (sometimes nothing). It is your employers duty to honour the agreement not simply for the remainder of your life but likely the remainder of your spouse’s life as well.

According to ONS data to 2019 (the most recent at the time of writing) there are about 7.6m active members (people still building benefits) of DB schemes, of these 6.6m are in Public Sector schemes.

2 – Defined Contribution (DC) or Money Purchase Scheme

These schemes are more straightforward in that they are investment-based schemes and the only guaranteed definitions are how much the employer is going to contribute as a percentage of pensionable salary (and the employee). How much this is ultimately worth will depend on how well the money is invested and the charges applied. Many employers use fairly cautious investment strategies in the misguided belief that this is better, yet as most people will save for their retirement for three or four decades, this will be rather like driving with the handbrake on.

The Auto Enrolment pensions that were introduced to automatically add staff to a pension rather than ask them if they wanted to join are essentially defined contribution schemes. They have been a success in the sense that more people are now saving into a pension.

The majority of employers do not offer a DB scheme, in fact hundreds have been closed over the years. There are barely any open DB schemes in the private sector, because they cost an awful lot to run and provide. There are roughly 10.4m people drawing a pension from a DB scheme and it’s fairly evenly split between private and public sector pensions. Remember that these are pensions payable for many years with a degree of inflation-proofing. Back in 2006 there were about 3m members of private sector DB schemes, half of them were closed, but by 2019 only 0.6m members were actively building benefits due to the number of closed schemes, deemed too expensive. Contrast this to the 0.9m members of open private sector DC schemes in 2006 which has risen to a whopping 10.6m.

To put a little more ‘flesh on the bones’ of the open private sector DB schemes, employers contribute a weighted average of 19.1% with employees adding a further 6.5%. Compare this to the weighted average private sector DC scheme where employers contribute 3.5% and employees just 1.6%. It doesn’t take a maths genius to work out that its much cheaper (by a country mile) for employers to provide a DC scheme, for which they pay annual contributions when their member of staff works for them and not a penny more thereafter.

Stating the obvious, if you are running any business, profit is what sustains a future; reducing costs increases profits (or should). The Public Sector cannot generally make quick and substantial changes like this. Generally the approach has been to alter existing DB schemes, with pensions starting later (65, 67, 68 as opposed to 60). Member employee contribution rates have increased – doubling in many cases. Finally, the rate of accrual has also been changed, often dressed up as better, but invariably forfeiting other benefits such as a lump sum. This is where most Union and legal challenges have been directed.

So taking a typical doctor who began their career paying 6% into a 1/80th pension scheme that would provide a pension for life from age 60 and a one-off tax-free lump sum. If they started working without any career breaks they might build 36 years of service (36/80ths) providing a 45% pension of their final salary (say £130,000) of £58,500 a year and a one off lump sum of £175,500.

If we exclude inflation, a same salary doctor will need to work an extra 7 years to get their pension at 67. They pay closer to 13.5% of salary to the pension and build it as 43/54ths of 79% of their salary (no lump sum)… but the Government was smarter than that, the maths isn’t really 1/54th of final salary, it’s of each year … the term ‘career average earnings’ captures this. A doctor starting out is obviously paid substantially less than one at the peak of their expertise and career earnings – so it’s nothing like a final salary but an average salary over 43 years. Taking the midpoint as an example, 21 years into a career – or retiring on a salary that you had 21 years ago. In fairness it isn’t quite like that, there is some inflation-linking, but this is detail you don’t need to know right now. The principle is how pensions in the Public Sector have been sliced and diced to save money.

When you add in draconian Government/HMRC rules about the Lifetime Allowance (a tax charge of 25% or 55% for those with pensions valued at over £1,073,100 and the Annual Allowance formula used, (which for many triggers a substantial tax on a pension income they have not yet had), it is very hard to conclude anything other than a deliberate strategy to remove higher paid long-term employees … like doctors.

So quite apart from the awful treatment medics often get in the media and utterly fictional suggestions of Consultants barely breaking from a round of golf to turn up for work occasionally, there is little wonder that most of them feel betrayed by a nation that they chose to serve. I can certainly tell you that from three decades of working with NHS doctors, I’ve not met any that became multi-millionaires through their work within healthcare. Some are certainly more entrepreneurial than others, but most of them simply love medicine and get satisfaction making a real difference in people’s lives, more likely describing it as a ‘calling’.

The reasons for the NHS being in crisis are complex and many, but part of the reason is that many doctors are being forced to reduce the number of sessions that they work or retire early so as to avoid a scenario where they are essentially paying more tax than the income they earn … actually paying to work. It is down to the Government and policymakers to have an adult approach to pensions and scrapping many of the really very badly thought through self-defeating rules.

You can read more articles about Pensions, Wealth Management, Retirement, Investments, Financial Planning and Estate Planning on my blog which gets updated every week. If you would like to talk to me about your personal wealth planning and how we can make you stay wealthier for longer then please get in touch by calling 08000 736 273 or email info@solomonsifa.co.uk

BACK TO ALL BLOGS

Golden handcuffsJemima Thomas2023-12-01T12:12:39+00:00

THE AUTUMN BUDGET 2021

TODAY’S BLOG

THE AUTUMN BUDGET 2021

In terms of your personal finance, not a lot has changed. Indeed, most of the announcements merely confirmed previous announcements, such is the way of our politicians. As a reminder, the next tax year begins on 6th April 2022. The main changes for most are really for those that receive dividends or pay National Insurance

iNCOME TAX RATE ON DIVIDENDS	2022/23	2021/22 (NOW)
Basic rate taxpayer	8.75%	7.50%
Higher rate taxpayer	33.75%	32.50%
Additional rate taxpayer	39.45%	38.10%
Rate for Trusts	39.35%	38.10%

National Insurance for employers increases from 13.8% to 15.05% which basically makes it more expensive to employ people. Employees will also pay rather more at the main rate, rising from 12% to 13.25% and then at the upper or higher rate increased from 2% to 3.25%. Remember the thing about National Insurance is that there is a threshold for the main rate after which you simply pay a flat, reduced rate (currently 2% but increasing to 3.25%). The self-employed main rate increases from 9% to 10.25%. Self-employed people do not fully enjoy the same benefits for their NI payments.

MAIN ALLOWANCES

For those of you using your pensions, the annual allowance remains at £40,000 but if you have begun drawing income from investment-based pensions it is restricted to £4,000 the delightfully named “Money Purchase Annual Allowance” or MPAA. The Lifetime Allowance (the total value of your pensions permitted before excess charges) remains frozen as previously indicated at £1,073,100. This is equivalent to a pension income of £53,655.

ISA and JISA limits remain as they were (£20,000 and £9,000) which are fairly substantial allowances but indicate a “kick the can down the road” policy of Government worrying about tax in the future. Capital Gains Tax (CGT) allowances and rates remain as they are (which is daft).

If you own a second property or inherit one, the capital gains rate and requirement for payment are important to understand. However, one small improvement is that you now have 60 days to pay the liability rather than 30 (with immediate effect). I imagine one of Rishi’s friends was offloading and was worried about an extra charge (surely not!).

As for inheritance, the nil rate remains at £325,000 per person and those with children inheriting the family home the residential nil rate band adds a further £175,000. However, this is tapered when an estate is worth more than £2m.

In short, for all the bluff and thunder and 200 pages, not much is in it for you and I. Remember – death and taxes.

Dominic Thomas
Solomons IFA

GET IN TOUCH

Solomon’s Independent Financial Advisers
The Old Mill Cobham Park Road, COBHAM Surrey, KT11 3NE

Email – info@solomonsifa.co.uk
Call – 020 8542 8084

7 QUESTIONS, NO WAFFLE

Are we a good fit for you?

Take Survey

PRIVACY POLICY | DATA PROTECTION

GET IN TOUCH

Solomon’s Independent Financial Advisers
The Old Mill Cobham Park Road, COBHAM Surrey, KT11 3NE

Email – info@solomonsifa.co.uk Call – 020 8542 8084

7 QUESTIONS, NO WAFFLE

Are we a good fit for you?

Take Survey

PRIVACY POLICY | DATA PROTECTION

THE AUTUMN BUDGET 2021Dominic2025-01-21T16:33:57+00:00

HOW MUCH FOR A HAPPY RETIREMENT?

TODAY’S BLOG

HOW MUCH FOR A HAPPY RETIREMENT?

Doubtless your will have heard of Which? Magazine. They conducted a survey recently in an attempt to understand how much is really enough for people to have a comfortable retirement. They concluded that a two-person household needs an average annual income of £26,000 for a comfortable retirement.

However you have coped with the pandemic, many people have not been able to spend money in the way they normally would. Many have saved the sums that would have been spent on holidays, travel, commuting, work clothes, weekday lunches, meals out and so on. This has given many of us the opportunity to pause for thought and reflect on how much we spend and the lifestyles we lead.

Some people have elected to retire earlier than they had planned, some have had this forced upon them. In practice, the warning signs for higher unemployment have been around for some time. We shall all begin to see the reality of things once the lockdown ends properly and the furlough system comes to an end. I do not see this going well. I implied, no… I stated that the Budget in March worked on the assumption of unemployment rising by 500,000 over the next 2 years with the largest increase in the current 2021/22 tax year.

£26,000 OR £19,000

Anyway, many have been giving thought to how much income they are likely to need when they stop earning. In February, Which? asked around 7,000 retirees about their spending.

The findings can be used as a guide to how much people are likely to spend and how much they might need to save, factoring in the state pension and tax bills. Couples need a pot of around £155,000 alongside their state pension to produce the annual income for a comfortable retirement of £26,000 via pension drawdown – or just over £265,000 through a joint-life annuity. Two-person households would need around £442,000 in a drawdown plan to fund the luxury retirement target (£41,000 per year) – or £589,000 if they’ve taken the full 25% tax-free lump sum available at the outset. If you opt for the guaranteed income provided by a joint-life annuity, you’ll require an initial fund of around £757,000.

For single-person households, achieving a comfortable retirement would mean a pot of around £192,290 alongside the state pension to get to an annual income of £19,000 via pension drawdown, or £305,710 through an annuity. For a retirement at the ‘essential’ level, single-person households would need £77,350 in a pension drawdown or £123,365 to buy an annuity plan to meet an annual target income of £13,000. A couple receiving the current average amount of £155 each per week will get just over £16,000 a year to add to private pensions. Pension drawdown figures are based on the savers withdrawing all of their income over 20 years from the age of 65, with investment growth of 3%, inflation at 1% and charges levied at 0.75%.

TWADDLE – THAT THING ABOUT ASSUMPTIONS

So let me respond by clearly saying “twaddle!” but it’s a helpful guide.That is all it is, there are huge holes in the assumptions and thinking, for starters, assuming a 2 decade retirement. Life rarely happens so “neatly”.

Over the years our processes have evolved with the technology that is available. We stress test your financial plan each week. Considering the likelihood of your life expectancy to the tenth percentile… which means the 1 in 10 chance you live a really long time. We consider sustainable income levels that fluctuate with inflation and changing investment returns based upon historical facts rather than regulatory unicorn utopias.

In any event, why would you care about a survey where your lifestyle is dictated? Surely your financial plan should be about protecting and ensuring that your current lifestyle endures as long as you do…. Or do you want less?

That’s why it is important, no – why its vital to have your own plan, based on sensible assumptions that we review together. Unless you have some mind-blowing news for me, you get one life and the clock is ticking. So have your own plan, know what you want and check with us that you are on track.

Need help? Know someone that does? get in touch... share the truth. It won’t hurt.

Dominic Thomas
Solomons IFA

GET IN TOUCH

Solomon’s Independent Financial Advisers
The Old Mill Cobham Park Road, COBHAM Surrey, KT11 3NE

Email – info@solomonsifa.co.uk
Call – 020 8542 8084

7 QUESTIONS, NO WAFFLE

Are we a good fit for you?

Take Survey

PRIVACY POLICY | DATA PROTECTION

GET IN TOUCH

Solomon’s Independent Financial Advisers
The Old Mill Cobham Park Road, COBHAM Surrey, KT11 3NE

Email – info@solomonsifa.co.uk Call – 020 8542 8084

7 QUESTIONS, NO WAFFLE

Are we a good fit for you?

Take Survey

PRIVACY POLICY | DATA PROTECTION

HOW MUCH FOR A HAPPY RETIREMENT?Dominic2023-12-01T12:13:06+00:00

TAX YEAR END PLANNING PART 2

TODAY’S BLOG

TAX YEAR END PLANNING PART 2 – CAPITAL GAINS

2019 was a good year for nearly all investors in share or bond-based funds. Even the Brexit-buffeted UK stock market, something of laggard in global terms, grew by over 14%. If your portfolio does not show some decent capital gains for the year, it is probably in need of a serious review.

As a general rule, it makes sense to realise gains up to the Capital Gains Tax (CGT) annual exempt amount each tax year. The exemption, covering £12,000 of gains in 2019/20, cannot be carried forward: use it by 3 April (the tax year ends on Sunday 5 April), or you lose it. Systematically using the exemption can help avoid building up large gains over the years which attract tax. Currently, the maximum tax rate on gains is 20% for higher and additional rate taxpayers (28% for gains involving residential property and carried interest).

If you want to crystallise gains to use your exemption, but would prefer to retain the same investments, you cannot simply sell them one day and buy them back the next. Anti-avoidance rules prevent this from being effective, but there are alternatives that achieve a similar result, such as reinvesting in an ISA or self-invested personal pension.

CAPITAL GAINS TAX IN PRACTICE

CGT applies to nearly all forms of investment, the notable exceptions being ISAs, Pensions and Investment Bonds. In simple terms, you want to trigger gains by selling an asset that has increased in value. Ideally you want to trigger as close to the allowance (£12,000) as possible. Thats a gain. So by way of example, if you invested £10,000 in 2010 and the investment is now worth £22,000 you would need to sell the entire investment to trigger a gain of £12,000.

The important issue is to know when you invested and how much. This is often more complicated than it appears because funds or holdings may well generate income which might have been paid to you, but may well have been re-invested. Over time the sums get very complicated.

We do a lot of work for clients that have a portfolio that we gradually convert into ISAs. Each year we trigger gains to move over into your ISA, ideally until the taxable investment has nothing left as it has all been moved into a tax-free ISA pot. This is a good way to gradually convert a portfolio into a tax-free portfolio.

A married couple have their own allowance each, but this is only relevant if the investment is jointly owned. Trusts also have a CGT allowance, but only at half the rate of the personal allowance (£6,000 in 2019/20).

Dominic Thomas
Solomons IFA

GET IN TOUCH

Solomon’s Independent Financial Advisers
The Old Mill Cobham Park Road, COBHAM Surrey, KT11 3NE

Email – info@solomonsifa.co.uk
Call – 020 8542 8084

7 QUESTIONS, NO WAFFLE

Are we a good fit for you?

Take Survey

PRIVACY POLICY | DATA PROTECTION

GET IN TOUCH

Solomon’s Independent Financial Advisers
The Old Mill Cobham Park Road, COBHAM Surrey, KT11 3NE

Email – info@solomonsifa.co.uk Call – 020 8542 8084

7 QUESTIONS, NO WAFFLE

Are we a good fit for you?

Take Survey

PRIVACY POLICY | DATA PROTECTION

TAX YEAR END PLANNING PART 2Dominic2025-01-21T16:33:59+00:00

Assumption

Solomons-financial-advisor-wimbledon-blogger

Assumption

You will have probably heard the saying “assume – makes an ass of u and me”. Whilst this holds some truth, it naturally requires context. As financial planners, we make assumptions about the future all the time, but equally we review these on a regular basis.

Watergate Bay

Like most people, I have picked up the occasional parking fine in the course of my driving lifetime, most, on reflection, were fair. One more recent experience, where I paid and displayed, resulted in a fine as my ticket “wasn’t seen”. I didn’t keep the original ticket, (does anyone?) so I had no evidence to affirm my claim. Reluctantly I paid the fine, which left me with a fairly bitter feeling towards the car park at Watergate Bay in Cornwall and its fine dining (yes, I have an irrational streak).

Court Orders Woman to pay £24,500 in parking fines

The headline above grabbed my attention. You can read the full story here about how Carly Mackie managed to accumulate fines that she could have avoided fairly easily – if only she had paid a small monthly fee. This would have permitted her to park in exactly the same spot, but ensuring that she could do with peace of mind, legitimately.

Price and Value

This reminded me of the mess that people can get in because they don’t see the value of a maintenance agreement. OK, it doesn’t necessarily hold true all the time, (electric goods “service agreement”) but it made me think about our services to clients. We provide an ongoing service to look after your financial “stuff”. We keep you posted about changes to rules and your arrangements. The purpose in doing so is to help prevent a larger expense later, because something was missed or not known. The problem with any such service is that most people see the price not the value. They assume that this aspect of life is all very straight-forward and any such service is an unnecessary cost. In fairness, it doesn’t help that the point of the service agreement is to do precisely that – to avoid unnecessary cost and making things appear to be simple.

Are you still paying attention?

I don’t wish to overstate, but a phrase that comes to mind is “those that pay, pay attention”. In other words, if you don’t really pay (enough) for something you tend not to value it. If you don’t value it, you probably ignore it….which can lead to problems.

Whilst some aspects of financial planning are “blindingly obvious” – such as spending less than you earn. Some are not (think new tax on annual pension allowance excess). Also, if nobody is around to challenge you on some “obvious” stuff, who will keep you on track? There are some “basic” traps that most people fall into…. Ready for it? (this is basic, but uncomfortable)…. If you spend more on your car each month than you put towards your pension, you are set for a miserable retirement. Most cars are monthly payment plans. It’s true of your holiday spending and so on… your pension is your future income stream, not an optional extra.

How is that coffee smelling?

All of which reminds me of one of the short films (Bombita) within “Wild Tales” (one of my favourite) about a demolition manager who takes the law into his own hands after dealing with the city parking bureaucrats.

Dominic Thomas
Solomons IFA

Email me to get in touch

AssumptionDominic2025-01-27T16:08:02+00:00

12 Next

Income from your pension and a little less conversation

The Last Showgirl

Sanctions, sanity and sanctuary

TTAFC Allowances

Inflammatory budget?

Golden handcuffs…

TODAY’S BLOG

THE AUTUMN BUDGET 2021

MAIN ALLOWANCES

GET IN TOUCH

7 QUESTIONS, NO WAFFLE

Are we a good fit for you?

GET IN TOUCH

7 QUESTIONS, NO WAFFLE

Are we a good fit for you?

TODAY’S BLOG

HOW MUCH FOR A HAPPY RETIREMENT?

£26,000 OR £19,000

TWADDLE – THAT THING ABOUT ASSUMPTIONS

Its Your Lifestyle: how much is enough?

GET IN TOUCH

7 QUESTIONS, NO WAFFLE

Are we a good fit for you?

GET IN TOUCH

7 QUESTIONS, NO WAFFLE

Are we a good fit for you?

TODAY’S BLOG

TAX YEAR END PLANNING PART 2 – CAPITAL GAINS

CAPITAL GAINS TAX IN PRACTICE

GET IN TOUCH

7 QUESTIONS, NO WAFFLE

Are we a good fit for you?

GET IN TOUCH

7 QUESTIONS, NO WAFFLE

Are we a good fit for you?

Assumption

Watergate Bay

Court Orders Woman to pay £24,500 in parking fines

Price and Value

Are you still paying attention?