egg

Not really. Inheritance tax planning involves exactly that, planning. Box clever, and the system can work for you, not against you. I take advantage of the higher rate tax relief to keep my tax down, so I essentially get free money every time I pay into my pension, and a reduction when I submit my return. I hold my fund within a SIPP. Two advantages. Firstly, how much cash I take, and when (after age 57), is up to me. I will make sure that I draw down within the standard rate tax limit, meaning that I'm gaining from the pension tax system, not losing. Secondly, a SIPP will survive me and can be left to beneficiaries without paying inheritance tax. Here's James Hay's brief summary on the tax position - "What is the tax treatment of my SIPP when I die? One of the advantages of a Self-invested personal pension (SIPP) is the tax advantages on your death. Death benefits are normally paid without incurring inheritance tax and if you die before age 75, there is generally no income tax liability, subject to the 2 year time limit. If you die after the age of 75, the death benefits will be subject to income tax at the recipient’s marginal rate". In summary, use the system to your advantage, and take some proper advice. Your existing pension funds may well be transferrable into a SIPP and whether that's possible, or wise is something to consider. I know excellent people who'll guide you - PM me if you wish.

For context, Israel have seemingly breached the agreement to allow aid in and injured people out. Hopefully they can sort it out sharpish and get the Israeli hostages and Palestinian captives home.

It's 55 at the moment but goes up to 57 in 2030. I'm caught by the changeover.

That's my understanding as well.

Kitchen

Pathetic.

I'm no expert, but paying more than your annual limit (£48k net) into your pension does have tax consequences. If you've not used your full allowance over the last few years though, you should have unused allowances available to absorb any over contribution in this financial year.

"Two wrongs implies an equivalence" you've said. It doesn't.

Agreed. A back 5 on Saturday was daft, and that he didn't is either down to a lack of tactical flexibility or trust in his players. I'm not sure which, but I fear it's the former. I'd loved to have seen us go into that playing a 4231. We had the players to play that, and win comfortably.

Daft again. Britain smashed up Dresden unnecessarily. We all know there was no equivalence between Britain and Nazi Germany, but by your unique definition, by that act there must have been.

.

It doesn't. Mutual condemnation is just that. Saying they're as bad as each other is equivalence. Only seeing fault on one side, as per you and a few others on here, is bewildering.

I was waiting for someone to pipe up suggesting that I'm implying equation/equivalence. Two wrongs, but some people only see one. Shameful.

On the subject of balanced views. I've never heard one shred of sympathy from you re the Palestinian plight.

I'm not sure you've actually read my posts from earlier today. Recognising both sides behaviour is not seeing only one position. What I don't like about the 'discussion' in this issue is the perpetual attempts to shut down any commentary that criticises the Israeli behaviour. Hamas are a disgrace. The IDF are disgrace. The Israeli suffering at the hands of Hamas is terrible. Ditto the the Palestinian suffering at the hands of the Israeli's. I'm unsure where the imbalance is there.

It's a shame that you don't like a balanced discussion on this issue. Equivalence, no, but mutual disgraceful behaviour, yes. It should be possible to recognise that.

What happened to that bloke and his family was horrendous. Alas, there's unimaginable cruelty on both sides of this. Pretty much every one of the 183 Palestinian's released yesterday needed hospital treatment because of how they were treated. Overnight the Israeli's shot an 8 month pregnant woman, and critically injured her husband, just because.

Yep. Reform's manifesto was the height of nonsensical. Completely unrealistic in their approach, but they'll repeat it and I suspect people will lap it up as it'll be "change" and they believe they'll be better off. Although I take Duck's point above, anyone buying Reform's BS have to be either a bit daft and/or not give a monkeys about the impact of their policies on public services and those needing state support/education/healthcare.

True. Young people can be stupid too. The reality though is we live in a world where people are increasingly selfish, and expect something for nothing, so the reform policies will appeal to those who are swayed by that.

Well it has, and council tax will cease to exist in the near ish future. There'll be a much costlier replacement.

Yep, selfishness and high expectations do not go hand in hand.

Agreed, although I think they'd have got home if they'd said that the NI giveaway was unaffordable and needed to be reviewed. I also think they failed to appreciate the impact and the jib losses as a consequence.

Absolutely. The dinlo's boxed themselves into a corner over NI. The scary thing is that the changes have yet to come in. Unemployment will creep up, tax revenue will reduce, and we'll be back to the next crisis management. There'll be sweeping changes to the council tax system I'm guessing, possibly VAT, fuel duty, and inevitably massive spending cuts.

You're unbelievable. Only you would think that it's possible to believe what you believe, but not the reverse. If you can support capital punishment but not assisted suicide, for whatever reason, then someone else can support the opposite!

Ha. He's a dangerous idiot, but I'm not joining others in pretending I'm a psychologist or psychiatrist.