
Why getting married could have more financial benefits than you think
Whether you're already married, engaged, or dreaming of your perfect 'big day', there's more to getting hitched than just love.
Granted, the latter is typically the main reason people tie the knot: to show their commitment to one another. But aside from the lovey-dovey stuff, there are also some financial benefits to the act.
'Romance can cost a fortune, but marriage can pay,' says Sarah Coles, head of personal finance at Hargreaves Lansdown. 'If you end up tying the knot or entering into a civil partnership, there are lots of financial rules you can take advantage of, and save a fortune.'
Here are some of the reasons why getting down on one knee might be good for your wallet (once you've paid off the wedding costs).
'All that I have I share with you' means different things to different couples, but sharing your tax allowance has a lot more benefits than sharing a toothbrush.
The Marriage Allowance (which can also be used by those in civil partnerships) allows a spouse who isn't using all of their Personal Allowance to allocate 10% of it to their husband or wife.
This is the amount that everyone is entitled to earn without paying any tax. The standard Personal Allowance is £12,570.
Are you a high earner? The allowance decreases by £1 for every £2 you earn above £100,000.
This means if you earn above £125,140, you won't have a Personal Allowance.
Only couples where the higher earner takes home under £50,270, and so pays basic rate tax, are eligible.
Love reading juicy stories like this? Need some tips for how to spice things up in the bedroom?
Sign up to The Hook-Up and we'll slide into your inbox every week with all the latest sex and dating stories from Metro. We can't wait for you to join us!
If you are in this position, the Marriage Allowance can save you £252 a year. You can backdate this too, all the way back to 2021 if you have been in this position since then. If you think you might be entitled to Marriage Allowance, use the government's calculator to check and contact the taxman yourself to apply.
Married couples and those in civil partnerships are able to pass assets between them without HMRC deciding that there is a tax bill to pay. This can ensure that you use both of your personal allowances for income and capital gains tax to pay as little as possible.
Coles explains that, as well as the Personal Allowance that means you don't pay tax on the first slice of income, you also have a Personal Savings Allowance, Dividend Allowance and Capital Gains Tax allowance, which means you don't pay tax on the first slice of savings interest, dividend payments or profit from selling investments.
'You can share your investments and savings between you, so you both take full advantage of all these allowances. Any extra can be held by the lowest taxpayer, so you pay the absolute minimum in tax,' she says.
'If an unmarried couple tried to do this, passing ownership to their partner could actually trigger a tax bill.'
Unromantic as this might seem during the early stage of a relationship, the marriage vows we make are 'until death us do part', and some of the biggest financial perks of married life aren't felt by us, but by our descendants, who may benefit from a lower inheritance tax bill if their parents are married.
This is because married couples, and those in civil partnerships, can leave unlimited wealth to their spouse or civil partner without triggering an inheritance tax bill. Your spouse can also inherit your unused £325,000 tax-free allowance and £175,000 'residence nil rate band' (also known as the 'main residence' band) to allow them to pass on more wealth tax-free when they die.
Inheritance tax is levied at a hefty 40% on anything above the £325,000, so it can cut into your legacy for your children considerably. Sean McCann, chartered financial planner at NFU Mutual, also points out that, because the tax has to be paid within six months of the death and before the assets can be passed to the beneficiaries, it can leave an unmarried but bereaved member of a couple in a difficult situation.
'For cohabiting couples, if your partner leaves you chargeable assets valued at more than £325,000, you will pay 40% in tax on the excess,' he says. 'This often leaves the surviving partner having to deal with a large, unexpected tax bill, when they are at their most vulnerable.'
Jason Hollands, managing director at investment group Tilney Bestinvest, adds that if you make gifts to your spouse or civil partner during your lifetime, they don't count within the seven-year rule for inheritance tax purposes.
'Where an individual makes a gift of capital or assets to another individual during their lifetime – perhaps a car or high value piece of jewellry – it may be classed as a Potentially Exempt Transfer and, should death occur within seven years from the date of the gift, the beneficiary may be liable to inheritance tax, a nasty surprise if they don't have the resources to pay. However, gifts between spouses or civil partners are not Potentially Exempt Transfers. They're ignored for inheritance tax purposes altogether.'
There are other differences between the death of a spouse or civil partner and the death of an unmarried partner, even when there are children involved in the relationship.
If you die without a will, your estate is shared out according the the 'rules of intestacy'. Typically, married partners, civil partners, children and some relatives can inherit under these rules. You can check your eligibility on the government website.
If you are unmarried and die without a will making provision for the surviving partner, then the survivor has no automatic right to an inheritance from the estate.
Couples that are married or in civil partnerships are also automatically entitled to benefits from their late spouse's pension if they die. Cohabiting couples are not automatically entitled to this, unless an 'Expression of Wishes' form is kept up to date.
Bereavement Support payments, which are payable to those whose partner dies under state pension age, are available to married couples, civil partners, or to those living together as if they were married.
A higher rate of Bereavement Support is a one-off payment of up to £3,500, followed by £350 a month for 18 months if you are a parent of a child under the age of 20 or pregnant. If not, you will receive the standard rate, which is an initial lump-sum payment of £2,500 followed by up to 18 monthly instalments of £100.
For those who don't want to get married, there are steps to ensure you suffer less financially. These include keeping your will and your partner's up to date so that any unexpected tragedy does not lead to a partner being disinherited.
Filling in an 'Expression of Wishes' form so that your pension goes to your partner will also ensure that your partner doesn't lose out.
So, if you're thinking about having a 'turbocharged wedding', understanding the benefits available to married couples can help you ensure your finances are stronger and work for your relationship.
'The one potential spanner in the works is that not all marriages last forever. Not only is divorce expensive, but if you've shared the assets out, it can be complicated, too, especially if one of you starts spending everything before the divorce is finalised. Unfortunately, it's impossible to know whether you'll fall foul of this until it's too late,' says Coles.
If romance doesn't last, there are steps you can take to ensure your divorce isn't a financial disaster.
Financial planning experts from Rathbones have shared their top tips on how to prepare: Understand your budget: To keep a similar lifestyle post-settlement, it's important to understand how much you require day to day. Monitoring your daily outgoings, major bills and any expected future expenditures (such as private school fees) will give a goal to aim for when negotiating.
To keep a similar lifestyle post-settlement, it's important to understand how much you require day to day. Monitoring your daily outgoings, major bills and any expected future expenditures (such as private school fees) will give a goal to aim for when negotiating. Create a financial plan: Your financial settlement can be received in two ways, a lump sum or ongoing maintenance payments. While you may have budgeted and have a rough estimate of your future spending, it's hard to know how much you'll need in 15 years' time. A financial planner will also look at the lump sum option. Using a budgeting forecast, they will project spending alongside future interest rates and inflation to calculate how much cash will be needed in the long term.
Your financial settlement can be received in two ways, a lump sum or ongoing maintenance payments. While you may have budgeted and have a rough estimate of your future spending, it's hard to know how much you'll need in 15 years' time. A financial planner will also look at the lump sum option. Using a budgeting forecast, they will project spending alongside future interest rates and inflation to calculate how much cash will be needed in the long term. Think about the pension: For many married couples, one partner may have a more substantial pension than the other. The assumption would be that this would be shared at the point of retirement. Therefore, a pension also needs to be considered as part of the financial settlement.
For many married couples, one partner may have a more substantial pension than the other. The assumption would be that this would be shared at the point of retirement. Therefore, a pension also needs to be considered as part of the financial settlement. Consider protection: Consider what could happen to your family should your income fall to zero, or if you became ill or passed away. Putting the right insurance in place would help protect you and your family, and mitigate any risk should the unexpected happen.
While there are many financial benefits to being married, if your partner already owns a property, you could fall foul of rules designed to target second-home owners.
This is because HMRC classifies a married couple, or civil partners, as one unit for tax purposes. More Trending
If one of you owns a buy-to-let property, or decides to rent out their main home so that the two of you are buying a property together, you'll have to pay the extra stamp duty liable to those who are buying a second property, even if one of you has only one.
Together with the average £20,822 cost of a wedding, a stamp duty on a £250,000 house could be an expensive disincentive to tying the knot, even given all of the financial benefits mentioned above.
Do you have a story to share?
View More »
Get in touch by emailing MetroLifestyleTeam@Metro.co.uk.
MORE: Gymshark has launched new Vital Sculpt leggings – and it may just be the best style yet
MORE: Fears tsunami could hit Greece after powerful earthquake rocks Crete
MORE: These setting sprays keep your makeup flawless – even when it's hot!
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Metro
43 minutes ago
- Metro
I'm trapped on a pricey heat network and can't switch to a cheaper supplier
If you're paying over the odds for energy, the typical advice is to switch provider – but that's not an option for some. Around 500,000 people in the UK are connected to a heat network, a system that supplies multiple properties from a single central source rather than each individual home. London-based Alfonso, 39, is one of them. And like more than half of his fellow heat network customers, he feels his bills are too high. In this week's Metro's Money Problem, personal finance journalist and consumer champion Sarah Davidson gives him the no-nonsense advice he needs. Have you been ripped off by a romance scammer? Fighting with family or friends over who should pay for what? Struggling to get by despite a decent income? Or simply want to vent about how you've been treated by a major company? If you've got a money problem you'd like Sarah to look into, fill in this form or email providing as much detail about your situation as possible. No issue is too big or small, and all submissions will be treated with the strictest confidence. I moved into a new build rental flat last year and am really struggling with cost of heating and hot water. When we viewed the place, the letting agent mentioned it was part of an energy-efficient communal heat network, which sounded like a good thing. However, the reality has been very different. Not only are my bills much higher than in my previous place of around the same size, no-one seems to be able to give me any answers as to why. From what I can tell, the amount I pay is down to how much the operator bulk-buys the gas for, but my bills don't explain how this is decided, why my unit rate is more than Ofgem's price cap, or whether I'm paying for heating in hallways and other communal areas. It's so confusing. Normally I'd switch to a different provider but this isn't an option for heat network customers, so I'm effectively locked in. Aside from reducing my consumption even further (I'm already wearing jumpers and timing my showers) or moving somewhere new, it feels like I'm out of options. Is there anything else I can do? An interesting and important question Alfonso, thank you for raising it. The problem you're facing is a serious one and it's going to start mattering to more of us over the next few years, as in order to slash meet net zero, the government wants one in five British homes to ditch gas boilers and join a heat network by 2050. That's 6 million households across the country. For those who haven't yet come across them, a heat network is a single centralised source of heating, cooling systems and hot water that supplies multiple households – from a block of flats to an entire town. The theory is that the heat network can buy energy in bulk, thereby keeping costs down for each household. In practice, as you are clearly only too aware, that's far from the reality. There are several reasons for this. First, heat networks have been unregulated for years, making (some of) them effectively a wild west. Currently, there are no rules dictating how heat networks set their prices, why or when they can increase prices, or even what they charge for, so you may well be paying for heating communal areas without being aware. Second, as you correctly point out, they don't have to stick to the Ofgem energy price cap, and can charge whatever they like without explanation. This also means that when wholesale energy prices are very high – as they have been in recent years – heat networks will likely pass that extra cost straight onto homeowners and tenants. And third, not all heat networks are particularly efficient – they can lose an awful lot of heat in the process of transferring it from the central source to your home, meaning you are probably being lumped with the bill for that wastage on top of what you're actually using. Now, your question is what you can do to bring the costs of your heating down. For the moment, the answer is possibly not a huge amount more than you're doing already. However, if you haven't yet, try these options: Contact your landlord explaining the situation . Ask if they will agree to subsidise your heating bills for a period of time – they might even be prepared to take on some of the cost permanently if it means you stay a tenant. . Ask if they will agree to subsidise your heating bills for a period of time – they might even be prepared to take on some of the cost permanently if it means you stay a tenant. Tell your heat network you're struggling – they might be able to lower your bills temporarily or have some other form of support available. Don't hold your breath but do ask the question. – they might be able to lower your bills temporarily or have some other form of support available. Don't hold your breath but ask the question. Check whether your electricity is supplied centrally. Heat networks only provide heating, hot water and air cooling systems, and some buildings may allow individuals to switch electricity provider. Electricity is more expensive than gas, so switching to a cheaper tariff is likely to see you save. Additionally, being with a mainstream electricity supplier will also mean you're protected by the Energy Price Cap for this part of your bill. Take a look at the Energy Saving Trust or use any of the comparison sites to find the best deals on offer. The usual advice also applies: turn off appliances when not in use instead of leaving on standby; only use the washing machine and dishwasher when you've got a full load and run a lower temperature wash; shower rather than bath; use an air fryer or microwave to cook smaller portions instead of the oven. Consider asking your landlord to have a smart meter installed too, as that will give you an accurate real time view of the energy you're using and what it's costing you. This will help you understand where you can make tweaks to keep costs down. The other thing you can now do is complain – and with rather more teeth than you would have had just a couple of months ago. The law changed at the start of April, meaning you now have the option to challenge your heat network bills with the Energy Ombudsman. If you feel you've been unfairly charged and want to complain, you'll need to follow these steps. If you haven't had a response from your heat network after eight weeks or they send you a 'deadlock letter', you can take your complaint to the Energy Ombudsman which will investigate independently and may be able to force your network to give you some money back depending on what they find. Get some free help and advice from Citizens Advice if you live in England or Wales and from Consumer Scotland if you're north of the border. Write to your landlord (or managing agent) lodging a formal complaint. This should include evidence, perhaps using data from your smart meter to compare your usage and unit costs to some of the better deals on offer from other suppliers. They may be able to take this up with the heat network for you. If not, lodge your complaint with the heat network directly – they should have a formal complaints procedure on their website and on your bills. You could also contact your neighbours to see if they would also be prepared to join a complaint. Some buildings or communities have official residents' associations or Facebook groups. There can be power in numbers. More rules will start to come in from January next year, when the industry regulator Ofgem takes on responsibility for heat networks. This should mean customers get better service, more reliable energy supplies, fair pricing and bills that are easier to understand. More Trending Right now, that may be cold comfort for you, but it does at least hint at a fairer future for heat network customers. In the meantime, talk to your landlord. If it's a choice between them covering £20 a month of your heating bills or losing you as a tenant, I reckon they'll go with the former. Sarah Davidson is an award-winning financial editor and head of research at WPB View More » Got a money worry or dilemma? Email Do you have a story to share? Get in touch by emailing MetroLifestyleTeam@ MORE: Map reveals the cheapest London station to live near — where rents are £835 less than average MORE: What I Spent: The therapy you actually get for £100, £50, or free on the NHS MORE: Free school meals to be extended to 500,000 chilldren across the country Your free newsletter guide to the best London has on offer, from drinks deals to restaurant reviews.


Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Why am I being unfairly penalised over 25% pension tax-free cash after lifetime allowance abolition? STEVE WEBB replies
I retired in 2020 at the age of 60 and took what I understood at the time to be the maximum 25 per cent tax-free cash from two different pension schemes. At the time, everything was handled correctly. However, upon receiving my 2024/25 P60s, I noticed an inconsistency. Both providers listed amounts under the Lump Sum Allowance/Lump Sum and Death Benefit Allowance (LSDBA). One provider accurately reflected the tax-free lump sum I received five years ago. The other reported a significantly higher figure — £47,806 instead of the actual £25,554 I received. This discrepancy amounts to an additional £22,252 being attributed to my Lump Sum Allowance usage. When I queried this with the firm involved, they advised that they used an HMRC-provided formula to convert my previously used Lifetime Allowance percentage into a monetary figure under the new rules. They also stated they cannot amend the reported figure without a transitional certificate or evidence of LTA protection. This raises a concern: why have I apparently lost the ability to utilise the full £268,275 Lump Sum Allowance now available under the new rules? As I understand it, the LTA has been abolished, but limits on tax-free lump sums still exist. However, it seems that my withdrawals are now being recalculated in a way that disadvantages me — even though the amount I actually received hasn't changed. No doubt, many other of your readers will be in a similar position. Steve Webb replies: As you know, in 2023/24 there was a lifetime limit of £1,073,100 on the amount of pension savings you could build up whilst benefiting from pension tax relief. When this Lifetime Allowance was abolished on 6 April 2024, the Treasury was concerned that the cost of pension tax relief could rise sharply if people started to save more into pensions and took more out in the form of tax-free cash (known in the jargon as 'pension commencement lump sums'). To prevent this from happening, the Government introduced some new limits, one of which is the Lifetime Savings Allowance. This is set at 25 per cent of the old LTA, or £268,275, and caps the total amount of tax-free lump sums which someone can enjoy over the course of their lifetime. (Note that different rules apply to those who had registered for different forms of 'protection' under the old LTA regime.) Unsurprisingly, the Government did not want to reset the 'meter' to zero and allow people who might already have taken out tax-free cash to take out *another* £268, 275 tax-free. So, it was necessary to work out how much had already been taken out before the new allowance was created and deduct that figure to give a remaining LSA to be used going forward. You might imagine that HMRC keeps records of all the tax-free lump sums which people have ever taken and so could simply come up with a total for tax-free cash used by 6 April 2024 and tell everyone their unused balance. Unfortunately, the system does not work like that. In the days before the Lifetime Allowance was abolished, the onus was on the individual to keep a running total of the amount of Lifetime Allowance they used up every time they drew on their pension savings. This could be, for example, when they started to receive a salary related pension or when they used a 'pot of money' pension to buy an annuity to go into drawdown. Having recorded the percentage of the LTA which they had used up when they first took a pension, the saver then had to notify the next pension scheme of this percentage when accessing another pension and keep a running total. There was no requirement on individuals or pension providers to keep track of the tax-free lump sums that were taken. The focus was just on the LTA. As the need to keep records was around the LTA, HMRC decided that the amount of your Lifetime Savings Allowance used up prior to April 6 2024 will not be the actual cash amounts of lump sums you took but instead will be 25 per cent of the running total of LTA you had used up on all of your pension withdrawals before that date. In simple cases these two numbers will often be the same thing (as with one of your pensions). But this may not always be the case. There are several reasons for this and you have since told me that these could apply in your case. - You may have chosen not to take the maximum amount of tax-free cash available to you. In this case 25 per cent of the amount of LTA used up would be higher than the actual amount of tax-free cash you have taken. - The way defined benefit pensions used to be scored against the LTA did not always align with the way in which the 25 per cent tax-free entitlement was worked out in such schemes. There could thus be a mismatch between your actual tax-free cash and the figure generated by HMRC's rules. HMRC recognised that it could be unfair to 'score' more tax-free cash against your LSA than was actually taken and so it created the concept of a 'Transitional Tax-Free Amount Certificate' to put this right. In simple terms, provided you have full documentation to show what actually happened, you would be able to get a certificate which shows the actual figure you took out, and it is this figure which would be deducted from the LSA to show what was left. Depending on someone's circumstances, using the actual lump sums taken could increase or reduce their remaining LSA, so care is needed. More detailed rules can be found at this link: Lump sum allowance and lump sum and death benefit allowance: Transitional rules for the tax year 2024-25: Transitional tax-free amount certificates. Given that you accessed both of your pensions before 6 April 2024, I would assume that you could now simply apply for a transitional certificate and provide documentary evidence of the amounts that were actually taken in tax-free cash across your two pensions. This should mean that in the event you take further tax-free cash in future you will have the correct amount of residual Lifetime Savings Allowance. Your experiences do however show the importance both of keeping good records and of being aware of this rule change and taking action (if needed) *before* accessing pensions from April 2024 on. If someone in your position does not get the baseline LSA figure corrected before accessing their next pension after this date, it cannot be corrected afterwards. The rules around the abolition of the LTA are complicated and it can be challenging to grapple with them on your own. Given the large sums of money that can be involved, it is worth readers who are affected considering getting a financial adviser to help them with these matters. Ask Steve Webb a pension question Former pensions minister Steve Webb is This Is Money's agony uncle. He is ready to answer your questions, whether you are still saving, in the process of stopping work, or juggling your finances in retirement. Steve left the Department for Work and Pensions after the May 2015 election. He is now a partner at actuary and consulting firm Lane Clark & Peacock. If you would like to ask Steve a question about pensions, please email him at pensionquestions@ Steve will do his best to reply to your message in a forthcoming column, but he won't be able to answer everyone or correspond privately with readers. Nothing in his replies constitutes regulated financial advice. Published questions are sometimes edited for brevity or other reasons. Please include a daytime contact number with your message - this will be kept confidential and not used for marketing purposes. If Steve is unable to answer your question, you can also contact MoneyHelper, a Government-backed organisation which gives free assistance on pensions to the public. It can be found here and its number is 0800 011 3797.


Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
Rachel Reeves is about to do more damage to pensions than Gordon Brown
When in 1997, Gordon Brown raided pension funds by removing their tax credit on dividends, it was arguably the most egregious blunder of economic self-harm by any chancellor in history. At that time, pension funds and institutional investors owned almost half of the UK's quoted shares. Now it is only 4pc. To most people, it seemed innocuous and may only have raised around £5bn at the time, but it did more than reduce income for pensioners – more importantly it meant the compounded earnings from reinvested dividends never happened. The cumulative cost has been estimated at £250bn to pension funds over the next 20 years. Now in 2025, we have a Chancellor who is doing her best to be more damaging to pensions than Brown – and with Labour's huge majority she has every chance of doing so. Reeves's first move of her four-step barn dance was to make private pensions subject to inheritance tax. That means in some estates the total tax deducted from a pension could be 72pc for basic-rate taxpayers, 84pc for higher-rate and 87pc for additional-rate payers. The next step Reeves is believed to be considering is to remove any tax incentives that encourage salary sacrifice into pensions. An HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) report has already laid the ground for this move which could cost an extra £500 a year on the average earner's tax bill and reduce the size of their pension pot. That's still not enough to satisfy Reeves's appetite for meddling, next comes asserting state control over where pensions are invested, believing, as she and her comrades do, that the state can pick winners. Although please understand, the intention is not to reward pensions with successful returns but to use pension funds to provide investment in Labour's favoured industries without having to raise taxes further or borrow at high rates in the markets. It is essentially a way of subsidising risky government interventions in the economy. We can see pension funds already seeking to please the Government with Torsten Bell, the pensions minister, congratulating one company for committing 15pc of its investments towards government targets, including 5pc on renewables. This is not Viagra to boost the economy, it's Valium to stupefy it. Finally, Reeves is looking at companies with defined benefit schemes being allowed to spend the surplus. Why? So she can then tax any drawdown by 25pc, of course. The collective impact of these changes, even if they do not happen all at once, will be to make all pensioners poorer through lower returns. People will be discouraged from saving through pension funds for their retirement and find other means of investing – all causing British pension funds and the highly complex superstructure of expertise, services jobs and physical support behind the pension industry to waste away like it is being eaten by a cancer. Instead of making UK equities more attractive, it will hasten their decline because they will no longer be bidding for support in a competitive market. Performance will become less important than geographical location or state favouritism. It is a recipe for disaster that will work its way through our private sector like a monstrous tapeworm. It doesn't have to be this way. The alternative that should have been grasped when the Conservatives won (with Liberal Democrat support) in 2010 will still be available to the next government. Whoever has that task should aim to encourage (never force) greater saving into pensions by providing a more stable and secure pension system for future retirees. Yes, it would be brilliant if a greater percentage of pension funds invested in the UK – but it should be because our private sector becomes world-beating and offers attractive returns, not because of a ministerial Wizard of Oz pulling the wrong lever behind a green velvet curtain. A new chancellor should first reverse Reeves's death tax assault on pensions, making pension investment attractive again. By encouraging private provision for our futures, the state gains from a more dynamic economy (raising tax revenues) but also benefits from lower welfare costs in the future. Next – and this is crucial – the UK should restore the dividend tax credits for pension funds that were abolished by Gordon Brown. For a cost of just a few hundred million pounds, this step will encourage retirement schemes to increase substantially the amounts they allocate to UK equities. It is relatively inexpensive to do because Brown's policy so damaged the pension industry's UK investments it will not cost the £5bn it raised in 1997. Then scrap stamp duty on shares. This 0.5pc charge on every transaction on British capital markets depresses both share values and investment into UK equities. It is a long-overdue reform only held back by outdated class war prejudices. Finally, the country has to face up to the dire need to leave behind our unfunded state pension Ponzi scheme (where current taxes pay today's pensions in the fingers-crossed hope that future taxes will pay future pensions – thus requiring constant mass immigration to outpace the nation's demographic challenges). We need a funded pension system that actually invests in real assets so future generations have pension pots they can rely upon. The British people get a very poor implied rate of return on what they pay into National Insurance. Evidence shows they would be three times better off putting the same money as their National Insurance contributions (NICs) in a private pension fund. Money put into Britain's pay-as-you-go state system is paid out straight away in current benefits. Over the years, those benefits can grow only as fast as the NICs that finance them – roughly the annual growth of real earnings – but this has been negligible in recent years. ONS data for 2024 indicated median weekly pay for full-time employees in the UK was 2pc lower in real terms compared to 2010. By contrast, the real rate of return on invested funds is more than 5pc. Indeed, from 1900 to 2021, UK equities delivered an average annual real return of approximately 5.4pc, while over the same period, global equities achieved around 5.3pc in real annual returns. This difference between state and private systems, compounded over a 40-year working life, means the average worker's NICs would have to be six times higher than the sum required to buy the same benefits privately. A phased change would be required and one-way of helping finance the transition is to tackle the absurdly generous and costly system of public sector pensions – but that story is for another day. Reeves is on a mission; she needs desperately to fund the pepper-pot of black holes she has created in the public finances. By raiding our pensions and decimating the sector with taxes, she will only generate fast-diminishing returns as her scorched-earth policies kill our private sector that generates wealth.