The potential of no longer paying National Insurance.

There isn’t an answer which everybody will agree on Monica. To me, wealthy is having enough assets so that you can maintain everything you have, replace when necessary, live a good life and still continue to accumulate wealth with no need to dip into your savings. What constitutes a good life is different for different people of course, and unless you are in that position you still have to think about your finances and prioritise what you are going to spend on.

Well, one thing you can be reasonably sure of, *MOnica', is that not one of us Gnet posters is likely to be in the 'seriously wealthy or above' category, unless we have som whose incomes exceed a £million or so per annum.

And if there is anyone in that category who thinks that they are really badly off and that we're all small mindedly green with envy of them, then they're living in cloud cuckoo land.

MaizieD

Well, one thing you can be reasonably sure of, *MOnica', is that not one of us Gnet posters is likely to be in the 'seriously wealthy or above' category, unless we have som whose incomes exceed a £million or so per annum.

And if there is anyone in that category who thinks that they are really badly off and that we're all small mindedly green with envy of them, then they're living in cloud cuckoo land.

I wouldn’t expect many to have an income of £100k plus in retirement. Because it will be invested in pensions, property or other, so add a house, quite likely £2m in total assets.

Anyone with £2million is likely to pay an accountant to ensure that only £199900 is visible to any auditors. What's the point of penalising them anyway? They will, presumably, be paying a lot of tax.

In any case, that's never the way governments think. the better off are rarely penalised. It will bring in more if anyone with over £100k in assets or £20k a year in income has their pension cut, as there are far more of them than there are people with millions.

I disagree Doodledog as to the employment of accountants. I have used an accountant since I became self employed as a lawyer and I don’t do it to make anything invisible. I continue to use an accountant simply because my income is derived from a variety of sources, fluctuates, and I pay income, dividends and capital gains tax. I could do it myself but like is too short. £2m of assets isn’t a huge amount nowadays, especially if you own a house in the south east and have had a good career which enabled you to pay into a private pension and perhaps other investments. Yes, people with a fair amount of money generally also pay a lot of tax, and have done for a long time.

No, Doodledog, accountants are employed to make sure the records are correct and accomplished perfectly. Those who hide funds, imo, do it without their accountant being involved. Why would an accountant do anything illegal?

We pay an accountant. I keep perfect records, but I'm not qualified on rules, better someone who understands than me muddling.

BTW, Pensions shouldn't be cut, pensions should go up to a reasonable living standard. Or that's my opinion.

I wasn't suggesting anything illegal, but how to be 'tax efficient', which does mean moving things around so that you pay as little tax as possible. I have no doubt that ensuring that (assuming your funds are on a borderline) you don't have more than you need to qualify for a pension would come under that banner. It could be donations of a few pounds here or there, or moving money from husband to wife - that sort of thing. Not illegal, just what an accountant is paid for - maximising financial efficiency.

And there is nothing wrong with that.

AARRGGHH! I didn't say there was

I was making the point that having a cutoff at that sort of level would be less profitable than making it much much lower, as there would be fewer people involved and they would ensure that if they didn't need to lose their pension they wouldn't.

Doodledog

Anyone with £2million is likely to pay an accountant to ensure that only £199900 is visible to any auditors. What's the point of penalising them anyway? They will, presumably, be paying a lot of tax.

In any case, that's never the way governments think. the better off are rarely penalised. It will bring in more if anyone with over £100k in assets or £20k a year in income has their pension cut, as there are far more of them than there are people with millions.

Don’t be daft anyone who is worth that much knows you don’t try to evade the tax man, only a fool does that, everything is transparent these days and has to be accounted for. They can check every Bank Account and transaction.

That’s how they caught Nadin Zahawi MP he “forgot” to declare property sold, he had to pay the tax, a fine and costs.

Ok, I have explained that I was not suggesting that anyone would evade tax, as that is, of course, illegal. I was simply saying that people with that sort of money will more than likely employ people to help them to avoid tax, which is perfectly legal, and no accountant worth her salt would allow a client to miss out on a means-tested pension if their finances could be more efficiently arranged so that they could claim it.

As nobody seems to be reading my posts, however, I will withdraw that comment.

You do not need an accountant to make sure you are being tax efficient. How many people on GN have an ISA, or whatever it is now called?

There is only one reason for having an ISA and that is because there is a tax advantage from having one. Most people put their savings in an ISA without the help of an accountant. Then there are the tax advantages of saving for a pension in a pension wrapper of some kind, again accountants are rarely involved.

I withdrew the comment, on the grounds that it wasn't worth the hassle of having to keep explaining what I meant