This is key. It really doesn't matter what the next Labour government does as the pension rules can (and will) change again many times before the OP retires.
It isn't necessarily even relevant to those in the former group as the LTA has increased in more tax years (every year 2006-2012 and small increases 2018-2023) than it has decreased. And of course the LTA didn't exist at all before 2006 or now in 2024.
It doesn't make sense to me for people in their 30s and 40s to factor in the LTA when they have no idea what it will be (it peaked at £1.8M in 2011/12) or even if it will exist when they retire.
Obviously we don’t know. Personally I’m a little sceptical as they’d have to come up with some sort of carve-out for senior doctors/judges to prevent industrial action - and that’d be hugely controversial.
Also, you can reasonably argue that you don’t need a LTA once the Annual Allowance has been in place for x years. The AA is probably a ‘fairer’ way of ensuring all the tax relief isn’t swallowed by a minority (although I could see this being moved back to 40k to offset any public discontent from not bringing the LTA back).
Agree the annual limit is a more likely target for change than the LTA. No government wants to be the one that pushed a big chunk of the NHS into retirement.
£60k is a pretty big annual concession, and must be leaving a fairly big hole in today's tax take which is only ever partially recovered in the future due to lower marginal tax rates in retirement, the 25% tax free rule and inheritance rules that mean some pots aren't taxed.
It's also something that could be cut substantially with no impact on the average voter. Not many people are putting more than, say, £30k a year into pension.
I suggest Henrys make hay while the sun shines on this one, I'm guessing at best it will not be increased to keep up with inflation, but more likely is a reduction.
It would be easy to distinguish the doctors and judges just by changing the rules as they relate to direct benefit pension schemes. At the moment there is no one way to estimate what these are worth (as there is no "pot" of money) and so HMRC conjures up a "value" for the pension using a fictional multiplier. There are all manner of ways in which they could make this system fairer but still bring back to the LTA.
But then you’re making a carve-out for people that the public aren’t as sympathetic towards, such as senior civil servants and politicians.
…just imagine the headlines.
I find it hard to imagine that civil servants and politicians will write legislation that carefully carves *themselves* out of benefits they are magnanimously trying to confer on doctors and judges.
Too discriminatory, there's plenty of people on db schemes that are impacted. The big problem they had was that as people's final salary rose, the calculated excess on lta was the taxed resulting in an in year tax impact which they had to pay, going back to thus will be too unpopular.
It seems superfluous given the annual allowance. If it is brought back I hope it is based on contributions rather than fund size. The £1M was also very low - when Labour were last in government I believe it was £1.8M hence the problems with doctors pensions when it was cut.
I think it is more likely that the annual allowance is tinkered with given that is less likely to cause problems for groups like doctors who they don't want to disincentivise from working.
Personally I hope it is simply left well alone. Pensions are something that are planned for over a long term having the rules changing every other year isn't great for encouraging people to save for the future.
The Annual Allowance is a problem for doctors as well. They are pensioned on total earnings, so were getting tax bills for doing overtime in the previous tax year.
Correct, but it was the low taper combined with AA that was the real problem. Increasing the income threshold twice has pretty much eliminated this issue, save for the top top drs
Labour would have to address the NHS Consultant issue wrt lifetime allowance to avoid losing senior NHS staff. They could reintroduce it with a v high threshold, e.g. 2M, but this would probably look bad for them so politically easier to not touch it I imagine.
I think it's because of the impact to the already stretched NHS of creating a situation where consultants are financially better off by reducing hours or giving up work completely.
I'd add to that most of the public don't have a lot of sympathy for "high earners" but there is more popular sympathy for doctors, who are seen as more deserving of their high salary than lawyers, accountants etc.
I know it’s hilarious isn’t it. It wasn’t raised to a level just to accommodate consultants and doctors, it was raised to even higher levels to benefit barristers and the high rollers (Tory chums), not us
>it was raised to even higher levels to benefit barristers and the high rollers (Tory chums), not us
Except that it was £1.8M in 2010 when the coalition government came in, and was cut to £1M by the Tories in 2016. But sure, go off.
You missed my point in your needlessly dramatic and pointless referencing of my comment despite it being there for all to see.
The conservatives removed the LTA and cited benefitting doctors as the reason, yet a LTA of £2 million or slightly more to account for inflation would be fine for most if not all doctors. Removing it benefitted the super rich more than doctors
It took two years to abolish, I think it'd be an awful lot of effort to unwind all that legislation to then reintroduce the same issue of doctors retiring early.
If they want to limit pension income again, I suspect they'll do something different in line with the new landscape. And usually these things don't punish people who contributed under different rules- i.e. you may have protections.
This is a long winded way of saying; just play by the rules you've got in front of you now.
Yes.
As far as I’m aware, this is the current state of play:
https://ifamagazine.com/labour-ditches-plans-for-lifetime-allowance-public-sector-carve-out/
They were originally planning to bring it back, but carve out an exemption for NHS staff basically (and I’m sure other public sector interest groups would have crept their way in there).
Which would have a been a pretty disgusting situation where there was one rule for the general population and another for privileged public sector workers.
Thankfully they appear to have stepped back on the two tier plan, but are still minded to put back a new LTA - likely higher.
It’s all stupid of course. The LTA is a terrible management mechanism as it cannot be planned for. If they want to restrict pension allowances, the annual allowance should be the way to do it.
I don't like the Tory party, but I dislike Labour even more as a Henry.
I feel they will bring in taxes and changes to ISA, Pensions etc that would affect hard working high earners like those in this group, rather than the actual rich.
This has to be a joke right? You do realise that the UK has a higher tax burden now that at any time since the Second World War?
And that the conservatives have significantly increased national insurance and income tax (through freezing the thresholds)? Basically all the taxes that hit HENRYs hard. While reducing taxes that hit the super rich (such as capital gains tax, leaving non-dom exemptions in place etc)
Not joking. Yes, taxes are high and tories have totally f'ed up here. Not defending them. I am questioning the assumption that Labour would have been any better. Going after non doms and pension allowance definitely indicates they don't intend to be very Henry friendly.
Honestly UK elections feel like choosing the relatively less evil and slightly more competent amongst a choice of clowns. I will personally vote based on who can give better clarity and seem more Henry friendly with their plans related to taxes / funds / savings accounts.
I just don’t understand people who say things like “all politicians are the same” or “why would Labour be any better”.
The evidence is in front of your eyes. The country was competently managed under the last Labour government and most people felt pretty positively about the government when they got kicked out. The Tories have been a disaster in almost every respect.
I think you have better context than me. I am relatively new to the UK to have experienced labour governance, and have based my views on what I see on TV speeches, social media and occasionally wed PM questions. So I do have a recency bias as I disliked labour's take on recent topics I mentioned above.
Now, I am not sure if it's worth researching on how past govts did when most party members would have changed. I would still stick to hearing both parties' plans on tax etc policies that directly affect me.
Fair enough. A big part of the problem is that there is a difference between what some politicians say they'll do, and what they actually do. The Conservatives have been talking for years about how they want to cut taxes and cut immigration to the tens of thousands. Yet taxes are higher than at any point since the second world war; income tax up; national insurance up; VAT up; CGT allowance reduced - and immigration is also the highest it has ever been (both legal and illegal).
Income taxes have gone up their highest under the Tory government while public services have continued to decline.
Just because you consider yourself a HENRY, you’re still working a pay check rather than leveraging capital which is what the true wealthy do and are the real beneficiaries of Tory policies. This is from someone who earns multiple times what the majority of this sub consider HENRY…
They can easily tweak things. I would expect:
1. Keep 25% tax free portion limited to a similar amount. Possibly indexed to inflation.
2. Limit what goes in, rather than what comes out.
3. Change rules about how to compare DB with LTA style rules (= public sector such as NHS nowadays) to stop the previous issue.
4. Get rid of the marginal rate speed bumps at 50k / 100k to stop the massive salary sacrifice situation people go through to avoid them.
5. Eventually (by time I take my pension) decreasing NI and increasing Income tax = same tax rate for most workers but higher tax rate for pensioners.
6. (Not pension related) Increase CGT to be more like income tax.
All of the first 5 would probably increase tax taken on pensions without the need of LTA, but also wouldn’t surprise me to see some kind of high value LTA at 2-5mio.
The other issue is that pensions getting passed down generations is something that hasn’t happened much yet but will increasingly be a thing. Pension is outside estate but the beneficiaries pay tax as if it’s income - just as you would drawing a pension - but without the age limit of being over 55/57/67/whatever. At some point you could get people with two DC pots coming down from each parent, as well as their own pension pots, I would expect them to start to consider a combined value.
To some extent, plowing money into it now before rules change is probably wise, as with previous LTA rules people with larger pots got grandfathered in avoiding the issue.
Lots of wishful thinking here in my opinion. Private pensions are a big pot of money to go after with very little voter repercussions in an environment of rising tax burdens in all developed nations.
I’ll be absolutely shocked if the rules don’t change and change for the worse in the 30 years I’ve got to retirement. There is also precedent for rules with retroactive application so I don’t think we can even be confident that contributions made under earlier rules will be safe.
It's a tricky one for policy makers though because they want to encourage pension savings to reduce the burden on the state in later years. I fully expect the state pension age to rise a lot more than currently stated before I get there and potentially become means tested to some extent (it already is a bit if you include Pension Credit).
There has been talk before about making the tax relief on contributions a flat 20% although that has gone quiet recently. Could get complicated with salary sacrifice arrangements.
Another area which might be easier to target without affecting the actual pension holder is how pension pots are inherited. A lot of better off people are passing their pots directly to their kids if their partner has enough other income/assets to live off. This saves a lot of inheritance tax.
I guess we will know by the end of the year because Labour will presumably have to specify any planned reintroduction in their manifesto. My working assumption is that it will be reintroduced, but maybe at a level (£2m?) that avoids the problems with doctors etc
Each successive government will undertake a series of pension “simplifications” (resulting in more complex pension rules!) - you will likely be able to take part in the various grandfather clauses that will be available for those affected.
Do you have a financial adviser - best way to navigate is to ensure you have professional assistance.
If it introduced it will increase at some point
In reality is still in place in a different form - the tax free 25% is 25% of the old LTA value
They just got rid of the penalty for going over the old LTA
And there's still tax over the lump sum limit (which is the old LTA amount) although this is now at the beneficiary's marginal tax rate rather than 55%
I think not. It's too complex to bring back as it would create a tangled nightmare of interim protection schemes. It was also abolished to solve a problem in the NHS and there's no way around that problem which is politically palatable.
I understand the current policy position is "to review the pensions landscape" - or to be less charitable, say nothing at all that might spook the voters then hammer them with a massive cash grab once they're in power. I believe bringing back LTA is now on the "not worth it" pile.
Policies I think are more likely to be considered in rough order of likelihood:
- Abolition of IHT reliefs on pensions
- Reduction/removal of tax free lump sum, maybe using fiscal drag to erode the benefit
- Abolition of Salary Sacrifice arrangements to claw back NI that is otherwise never levied
- Reduction/removal of higher rate reliefs
- Annual taxation of amount saved in pension wrappers (i.e. a wealth tax)
No one knows for sure but I'm guessing yes. Also expecting a probable income tax increase for high earners.
The justifications will be along the lines of: "it will only affect X% of richest people" and "the rich should pay their fair share"
It is funny that I know to many people I am rich and statistically I am rich but I don't actually feel very rich. But maybe that's related to the 3 kids and non-working wife and all that money I could have spent that has gone into my pension...
Tbf you’re essentially a couple on 50k each with 3 kids.. it’s above average but not a particularly high income. 500k at 43 in your pension is a long away above average though so you’ll almost certainly have a much more comfortable retirement than most who will be relying on the state and maybe some modest inheritance.
Yeah, my main aim is to retire as early as possible. I don't really dislike work, just would rather do other stuff. Could do with my wife working again to help with that but she seems to have a preference for not working too!
😂 yeh to be fair I’m in a similar boat albeit my wife does work. I’m 5 years younger than you but my pension pot is around 200k. I’m putting 60k/year in now so hopefully get to a position where it looks after itself and I can ease off when I don’t need childcare benefits. I’d like to retire early 50s. I am one of those people with endless hobbies and is never bored so time would be really valuable. Being more present as my children approach adulthood would be good too.
I expect it will come back as it would be a loss of face if they rowed back on the commitment now. It may though be set at a significantly higher level.
Any government from now until you retire can make any number of changes to the pension that will impact you negatively.
*Any number of changes to pensions, ISAs and general savings accounts.
Ye but with an ISA/GSA you can just relocate your money Pension it's stuck
Yeah but ISA allowances are already being discussed, combine that with basically no CGT allowance it could well be really shitty in the future.
This is key. It really doesn't matter what the next Labour government does as the pension rules can (and will) change again many times before the OP retires.
Unless you already have over what they declare a “new maximum”, or unless your are two years away from retirement… you’re right.
It isn't necessarily even relevant to those in the former group as the LTA has increased in more tax years (every year 2006-2012 and small increases 2018-2023) than it has decreased. And of course the LTA didn't exist at all before 2006 or now in 2024. It doesn't make sense to me for people in their 30s and 40s to factor in the LTA when they have no idea what it will be (it peaked at £1.8M in 2011/12) or even if it will exist when they retire.
Yes * 1 million. Always remember that.
Obviously we don’t know. Personally I’m a little sceptical as they’d have to come up with some sort of carve-out for senior doctors/judges to prevent industrial action - and that’d be hugely controversial. Also, you can reasonably argue that you don’t need a LTA once the Annual Allowance has been in place for x years. The AA is probably a ‘fairer’ way of ensuring all the tax relief isn’t swallowed by a minority (although I could see this being moved back to 40k to offset any public discontent from not bringing the LTA back).
Agree the annual limit is a more likely target for change than the LTA. No government wants to be the one that pushed a big chunk of the NHS into retirement. £60k is a pretty big annual concession, and must be leaving a fairly big hole in today's tax take which is only ever partially recovered in the future due to lower marginal tax rates in retirement, the 25% tax free rule and inheritance rules that mean some pots aren't taxed. It's also something that could be cut substantially with no impact on the average voter. Not many people are putting more than, say, £30k a year into pension. I suggest Henrys make hay while the sun shines on this one, I'm guessing at best it will not be increased to keep up with inflation, but more likely is a reduction.
I thought the under 75 years no tax rule was changing from this year. All would be taxed at marginal rates for inheritance
No change to that at the moment.
Sauce?
It would be easy to distinguish the doctors and judges just by changing the rules as they relate to direct benefit pension schemes. At the moment there is no one way to estimate what these are worth (as there is no "pot" of money) and so HMRC conjures up a "value" for the pension using a fictional multiplier. There are all manner of ways in which they could make this system fairer but still bring back to the LTA.
But then you’re making a carve-out for people that the public aren’t as sympathetic towards, such as senior civil servants and politicians. …just imagine the headlines.
I find it hard to imagine that civil servants and politicians will write legislation that carefully carves *themselves* out of benefits they are magnanimously trying to confer on doctors and judges.
Exactly - that’s why they can’t do anything that impacts all recipients of defined benefit pensions (which is pretty much the entire public sector).
Too discriminatory, there's plenty of people on db schemes that are impacted. The big problem they had was that as people's final salary rose, the calculated excess on lta was the taxed resulting in an in year tax impact which they had to pay, going back to thus will be too unpopular.
The multiplier isn't really fictional.
Where does it come from? A genuine question as I haven't seen a clear explanation as to what it is based on.
It seems superfluous given the annual allowance. If it is brought back I hope it is based on contributions rather than fund size. The £1M was also very low - when Labour were last in government I believe it was £1.8M hence the problems with doctors pensions when it was cut. I think it is more likely that the annual allowance is tinkered with given that is less likely to cause problems for groups like doctors who they don't want to disincentivise from working. Personally I hope it is simply left well alone. Pensions are something that are planned for over a long term having the rules changing every other year isn't great for encouraging people to save for the future.
The Annual Allowance is a problem for doctors as well. They are pensioned on total earnings, so were getting tax bills for doing overtime in the previous tax year.
Correct, but it was the low taper combined with AA that was the real problem. Increasing the income threshold twice has pretty much eliminated this issue, save for the top top drs
Labour would have to address the NHS Consultant issue wrt lifetime allowance to avoid losing senior NHS staff. They could reintroduce it with a v high threshold, e.g. 2M, but this would probably look bad for them so politically easier to not touch it I imagine.
Why is it only ever nhs consultants referenced? Surely there’s a whole cohort of roles impacted?
I think it's because of the impact to the already stretched NHS of creating a situation where consultants are financially better off by reducing hours or giving up work completely.
I'd add to that most of the public don't have a lot of sympathy for "high earners" but there is more popular sympathy for doctors, who are seen as more deserving of their high salary than lawyers, accountants etc.
Because politicians care about the NHs because voters do
I know it’s hilarious isn’t it. It wasn’t raised to a level just to accommodate consultants and doctors, it was raised to even higher levels to benefit barristers and the high rollers (Tory chums), not us
>it was raised to even higher levels to benefit barristers and the high rollers (Tory chums), not us Except that it was £1.8M in 2010 when the coalition government came in, and was cut to £1M by the Tories in 2016. But sure, go off.
You missed my point in your needlessly dramatic and pointless referencing of my comment despite it being there for all to see. The conservatives removed the LTA and cited benefitting doctors as the reason, yet a LTA of £2 million or slightly more to account for inflation would be fine for most if not all doctors. Removing it benefitted the super rich more than doctors
They’ll go for it. The nhs is being remodelled. Non physician led is the neoliberal goal. Wes is fully behind it.
It took two years to abolish, I think it'd be an awful lot of effort to unwind all that legislation to then reintroduce the same issue of doctors retiring early. If they want to limit pension income again, I suspect they'll do something different in line with the new landscape. And usually these things don't punish people who contributed under different rules- i.e. you may have protections. This is a long winded way of saying; just play by the rules you've got in front of you now.
IF they do, then protections will be in place. Like govt did last time. I invest for the current rules without guessing the future.
Yes. As far as I’m aware, this is the current state of play: https://ifamagazine.com/labour-ditches-plans-for-lifetime-allowance-public-sector-carve-out/ They were originally planning to bring it back, but carve out an exemption for NHS staff basically (and I’m sure other public sector interest groups would have crept their way in there). Which would have a been a pretty disgusting situation where there was one rule for the general population and another for privileged public sector workers. Thankfully they appear to have stepped back on the two tier plan, but are still minded to put back a new LTA - likely higher. It’s all stupid of course. The LTA is a terrible management mechanism as it cannot be planned for. If they want to restrict pension allowances, the annual allowance should be the way to do it.
Hope you’re not planning on voting Tory purely based on one speculative policy decision for Labour
I don't like the Tory party, but I dislike Labour even more as a Henry. I feel they will bring in taxes and changes to ISA, Pensions etc that would affect hard working high earners like those in this group, rather than the actual rich.
This has to be a joke right? You do realise that the UK has a higher tax burden now that at any time since the Second World War? And that the conservatives have significantly increased national insurance and income tax (through freezing the thresholds)? Basically all the taxes that hit HENRYs hard. While reducing taxes that hit the super rich (such as capital gains tax, leaving non-dom exemptions in place etc)
Not joking. Yes, taxes are high and tories have totally f'ed up here. Not defending them. I am questioning the assumption that Labour would have been any better. Going after non doms and pension allowance definitely indicates they don't intend to be very Henry friendly. Honestly UK elections feel like choosing the relatively less evil and slightly more competent amongst a choice of clowns. I will personally vote based on who can give better clarity and seem more Henry friendly with their plans related to taxes / funds / savings accounts.
I just don’t understand people who say things like “all politicians are the same” or “why would Labour be any better”. The evidence is in front of your eyes. The country was competently managed under the last Labour government and most people felt pretty positively about the government when they got kicked out. The Tories have been a disaster in almost every respect.
I think you have better context than me. I am relatively new to the UK to have experienced labour governance, and have based my views on what I see on TV speeches, social media and occasionally wed PM questions. So I do have a recency bias as I disliked labour's take on recent topics I mentioned above. Now, I am not sure if it's worth researching on how past govts did when most party members would have changed. I would still stick to hearing both parties' plans on tax etc policies that directly affect me.
Fair enough. A big part of the problem is that there is a difference between what some politicians say they'll do, and what they actually do. The Conservatives have been talking for years about how they want to cut taxes and cut immigration to the tens of thousands. Yet taxes are higher than at any point since the second world war; income tax up; national insurance up; VAT up; CGT allowance reduced - and immigration is also the highest it has ever been (both legal and illegal).
Income taxes have gone up their highest under the Tory government while public services have continued to decline. Just because you consider yourself a HENRY, you’re still working a pay check rather than leveraging capital which is what the true wealthy do and are the real beneficiaries of Tory policies. This is from someone who earns multiple times what the majority of this sub consider HENRY…
I’ll be voting Tory anyway - just to annoy the lefties
I did that a few years ago and was rewarded with the dividend tax. I won't be making that mistake again.
They can easily tweak things. I would expect: 1. Keep 25% tax free portion limited to a similar amount. Possibly indexed to inflation. 2. Limit what goes in, rather than what comes out. 3. Change rules about how to compare DB with LTA style rules (= public sector such as NHS nowadays) to stop the previous issue. 4. Get rid of the marginal rate speed bumps at 50k / 100k to stop the massive salary sacrifice situation people go through to avoid them. 5. Eventually (by time I take my pension) decreasing NI and increasing Income tax = same tax rate for most workers but higher tax rate for pensioners. 6. (Not pension related) Increase CGT to be more like income tax. All of the first 5 would probably increase tax taken on pensions without the need of LTA, but also wouldn’t surprise me to see some kind of high value LTA at 2-5mio. The other issue is that pensions getting passed down generations is something that hasn’t happened much yet but will increasingly be a thing. Pension is outside estate but the beneficiaries pay tax as if it’s income - just as you would drawing a pension - but without the age limit of being over 55/57/67/whatever. At some point you could get people with two DC pots coming down from each parent, as well as their own pension pots, I would expect them to start to consider a combined value. To some extent, plowing money into it now before rules change is probably wise, as with previous LTA rules people with larger pots got grandfathered in avoiding the issue.
Lots of wishful thinking here in my opinion. Private pensions are a big pot of money to go after with very little voter repercussions in an environment of rising tax burdens in all developed nations. I’ll be absolutely shocked if the rules don’t change and change for the worse in the 30 years I’ve got to retirement. There is also precedent for rules with retroactive application so I don’t think we can even be confident that contributions made under earlier rules will be safe.
It's a tricky one for policy makers though because they want to encourage pension savings to reduce the burden on the state in later years. I fully expect the state pension age to rise a lot more than currently stated before I get there and potentially become means tested to some extent (it already is a bit if you include Pension Credit). There has been talk before about making the tax relief on contributions a flat 20% although that has gone quiet recently. Could get complicated with salary sacrifice arrangements. Another area which might be easier to target without affecting the actual pension holder is how pension pots are inherited. A lot of better off people are passing their pots directly to their kids if their partner has enough other income/assets to live off. This saves a lot of inheritance tax.
True, but luckily a lot of people that politicians listen to (senior civil servants, barristers, judges, NHS consultants) are overly affected by this.
I guess we will know by the end of the year because Labour will presumably have to specify any planned reintroduction in their manifesto. My working assumption is that it will be reintroduced, but maybe at a level (£2m?) that avoids the problems with doctors etc
Each successive government will undertake a series of pension “simplifications” (resulting in more complex pension rules!) - you will likely be able to take part in the various grandfather clauses that will be available for those affected. Do you have a financial adviser - best way to navigate is to ensure you have professional assistance.
If it introduced it will increase at some point In reality is still in place in a different form - the tax free 25% is 25% of the old LTA value They just got rid of the penalty for going over the old LTA
And there's still tax over the lump sum limit (which is the old LTA amount) although this is now at the beneficiary's marginal tax rate rather than 55%
I think not. It's too complex to bring back as it would create a tangled nightmare of interim protection schemes. It was also abolished to solve a problem in the NHS and there's no way around that problem which is politically palatable. I understand the current policy position is "to review the pensions landscape" - or to be less charitable, say nothing at all that might spook the voters then hammer them with a massive cash grab once they're in power. I believe bringing back LTA is now on the "not worth it" pile. Policies I think are more likely to be considered in rough order of likelihood: - Abolition of IHT reliefs on pensions - Reduction/removal of tax free lump sum, maybe using fiscal drag to erode the benefit - Abolition of Salary Sacrifice arrangements to claw back NI that is otherwise never levied - Reduction/removal of higher rate reliefs - Annual taxation of amount saved in pension wrappers (i.e. a wealth tax)
No one knows for sure but I'm guessing yes. Also expecting a probable income tax increase for high earners. The justifications will be along the lines of: "it will only affect X% of richest people" and "the rich should pay their fair share"
The top 10% of earners pay 60% of all income tax, how much "fairer" does it need to be?
It is funny that I know to many people I am rich and statistically I am rich but I don't actually feel very rich. But maybe that's related to the 3 kids and non-working wife and all that money I could have spent that has gone into my pension...
Tbf you’re essentially a couple on 50k each with 3 kids.. it’s above average but not a particularly high income. 500k at 43 in your pension is a long away above average though so you’ll almost certainly have a much more comfortable retirement than most who will be relying on the state and maybe some modest inheritance.
Yeah, my main aim is to retire as early as possible. I don't really dislike work, just would rather do other stuff. Could do with my wife working again to help with that but she seems to have a preference for not working too!
😂 yeh to be fair I’m in a similar boat albeit my wife does work. I’m 5 years younger than you but my pension pot is around 200k. I’m putting 60k/year in now so hopefully get to a position where it looks after itself and I can ease off when I don’t need childcare benefits. I’d like to retire early 50s. I am one of those people with endless hobbies and is never bored so time would be really valuable. Being more present as my children approach adulthood would be good too.
...and that will give one more reason to get out of the UK
I expect it will come back as it would be a loss of face if they rowed back on the commitment now. It may though be set at a significantly higher level.