0:00

Hi folks, and welcome to another

0:02

meaningful money Q&A with me, Pete

0:04

Matthew. And me again, Roger Weeks.

0:06

It's him again, how you doing?

0:08

Yeah, fine, thank you. Good stuff.

0:10

And we're continuing with this experiment

0:12

of doing standalone Q&A shows, everybody.

0:14

Not least because we're getting loads

0:16

and loads of questions these days,

0:18

too many to fit into one

0:21

per episode. And we're just, you

0:23

know, seeing how we get on

0:25

with essentially this being the show

0:27

for a while it meets. writing

0:29

each week and we actually really enjoy

0:31

doing the Q&A shows. We are still

0:33

intending to put in some standalone shows

0:35

and we're also as we move forward

0:37

we'll be trying to kind of collect

0:39

the questions into broad themes each week

0:41

but that's not always easy and certainly

0:43

last week and this week that's not

0:45

likely to be the case but we

0:47

will get to that pretty soon so

0:49

let us know what you think and

0:51

if obviously if you've got any questions

0:53

keep them coming because we love doing

0:55

these hello at meaningful money dot TV

0:57

is the email address to send that

0:59

to use the subject line podcast question

1:01

so we can sort it easily Yeah,

1:03

and let's crack on, remember all the

1:05

notes and links from today's show are

1:07

at the Show Notes, meaningful money dot

1:09

TV slash QA7. I think often these

1:11

Q&A shows, the links and stuff are

1:13

even more important, aren't they? So, let's

1:15

get into it. Number one, Rush. Question

1:17

one from Stewart. I've been a long

1:19

time listener for my entire working career

1:22

and your podcast has been invaluable to

1:24

me getting me to the great position

1:26

I'm now in. Great stuff. I recently

1:28

been offered a very exciting job opportunity

1:30

abroad specifically Luxembourg and I'm thinking about

1:32

financial issues I might want to cover.

1:34

I am 29 and have a mid-five-figure

1:36

sum in each of my ISA, LISA

1:38

and DC pension in the UK. I

1:40

hope to save and invest heavily abroad

1:43

with the fire sort of philosophy. financial

1:45

independence retiree early philosophy. I wonder if there

1:47

are any big things to think about in

1:49

preparation for a move or things to do

1:51

while in the EU that will make a

1:54

move back easier. I realize this is probably

1:56

a complex question and maybe too niche for

1:58

a podcast episode. I've considered getting one-off consultation

2:00

with a financial advisor before my move.

2:02

Do you think this would be worthwhile?

2:05

And if so, what sort of advice

2:07

or green flags should I be looking

2:09

for? Assuming Jackson's is not a specialist

2:11

in this area. Thank you again. Stuart.

2:13

Thank you, Stuart. No, we're not. We're

2:16

definitely not the people we need to

2:18

speak to. My friends at. perceptive financial

2:20

planning will put a link to them

2:22

in the notes. They are the sort

2:24

of cross-border experts. I don't know if

2:27

they will do one-off though in this

2:29

case, Stuart, because they're generally, you know,

2:31

they're long-term financial planners like we are.

2:33

So, you know. they might be able

2:35

to put you in the right direction

2:38

but don't quote me on that okay

2:40

definitely get in touch with them though

2:42

we'll put a link in the notes

2:44

and i don't know if episodes with

2:46

Phil Billingham who is the sort of

2:49

down semi-retired owner and director of perceptive

2:51

great guy and you know you might

2:53

get some benefit from that even though

2:55

one of them is 2018 so it's

2:57

going back a bit but we talked

3:00

generally about you know financial planning for

3:02

ex-patts but I mean, again, the fact

3:04

that you're thinking about this stuff does

3:06

your credit. You're obviously, you know, you're

3:08

moving to a new country, you're going

3:11

to go all in, save as much

3:13

as you can. I imagine you'll probably

3:15

be earning quite well if you're moving,

3:17

you know, if your company's moving you

3:19

abroad, they're probably going to pay you

3:22

pretty well to do it. So you

3:24

want to bank as much of that

3:26

as possible. First thing I would say

3:28

to do is please, please, don't get

3:30

rid of your UK bank bank bank

3:33

bank bank bank account. It's mad. You

3:35

know, for as long as you're a

3:37

Brit, which you are by birth, then

3:39

yeah, and if there's any chance at

3:41

all that you'll move back, you must

3:43

maintain a UK bank account. Yeah, and

3:46

you keep holding your ISA, Lysa, and

3:48

DC pensions? Yep. Because once you've got

3:50

them, they're yours, you can add to

3:52

them obviously, once you're technically a non-nuclear

3:54

tax purposes, but they can stay in

3:57

place, still as tax efficient as they

3:59

always were, and as and as and

4:01

when, and if you come back, and

4:03

if you come back, you can, you

4:05

can then pick them, you can then

4:08

pick them, you can then pick them.

4:10

from where they really stopped. Let's start

4:12

again. Yeah, so we know nothing about

4:14

tax wrappers available in Luxembourg, but there

4:16

will be mechanisms to... you know, through

4:19

which you can invest, with no idea

4:21

what the tax benefits, if any, of

4:23

those might be, but you know, you've

4:25

got to sort of take the philosophy

4:27

that you've already put in place, you

4:30

know, 29 to have mid-5 figure sums

4:32

in ISA, lifetime ISA, and DC pension

4:34

is a cracking result. So the fact

4:36

that you're in that sort of shape,

4:38

you're going to keep that mentality going,

4:41

find a way to invest, you know,

4:43

certain things are universal no matter where

4:45

you are in the world, global equities,

4:47

global equities. keep your costs low as

4:49

possible, keep your taxes low as possible

4:52

of course. There is a double taxation

4:54

treaty with the UK so you're not

4:56

going to pay tax twice, you know

4:58

when you bring money back on shore

5:00

or whatever, but I think you are...

5:03

The fact they think about this is

5:05

just really encouraging and I'm sure you're

5:07

going to be fine. There is Gov.uk

5:09

page as well that Nick has found

5:11

which will stick a link in the

5:14

notes too. Other than that I don't

5:16

know I've got a lot else to

5:18

say on that. Not really. I mean

5:20

if you're looking to come back and

5:22

it sounds like you are at some

5:25

point in the future, then there's no

5:27

need to think about transferring your pension

5:29

whilst you're abroad possibly. Which you could

5:31

then cure us back into the UK

5:33

scheme when you come back possibly as

5:36

well. So But as Pete said, you've

5:38

done really really well to this point

5:40

in time you're thinking the right things.

5:42

There's nothing specifically that we can think

5:44

of but you don't close your bank

5:47

account. Keep your eyes on DC pension

5:49

where they are and you can pick

5:51

those up again when you come back.

5:53

Yeah, one word of warning. Financial advice

5:55

is very heavily regulated here in the

5:58

UK, it is much less so in

6:00

lots of other countries. We are a

6:02

long way ahead of many European neighbours

6:04

in terms of regulation, protection for investors

6:06

and all that sort of stuff. So

6:09

just be mindful of that. Still so

6:11

many overseas and ex-pat financial advisors are

6:13

in the world of flogging very expensive

6:15

policies and pensions and all that sort

6:17

of stuff. Why all the stuff you've

6:20

learned here? Keep your costs slow, invest

6:22

properly, pay as little taxes you can,

6:24

you know, legally, obviously. And you'll be

6:26

fine. When it comes to coming back,

6:28

that would, but almost certainly, certainly if

6:31

you, you know, do what you're planning

6:33

to do and really build some serious

6:35

wealth while you're out there, I would

6:37

definitely get advice at that point. buy

6:39

somebody who knows what they're doing, not

6:41

from me. Okay, question two, this is

6:44

from Joe, hopefully not my wife, no.

6:46

Hi Pete, hi Roger, may I ask

6:48

a question about pensions now being subject

6:50

to inheritance tax? My father-in-law's strategy for

6:52

passing on his wealth was to pass

6:55

on an unused pension fund, previously protected

6:57

from IST, and he had also invested

6:59

in aim shares, again, also previously exempt

7:01

from ICT, but now subject to 20%

7:03

tax. He is nearly 82. What options

7:06

might you suggest for him to consider

7:08

on either of those points, but in

7:10

particular the pension part? Draw the pension

7:12

and gift it, question mark. Thank you

7:14

very much, love the port and religious

7:17

listener. Joe, thank you Joe, appreciate it.

7:19

Careful with the word now, nothing much

7:21

has changed yet. The only thing that's

7:23

actually changed is capital gains tax rates,

7:25

which will probably address a bit later

7:28

on for another question. So pensions are

7:30

not currently subject. to inheritance tax. They

7:32

will be but 50% relief so you'll

7:34

pay 20% inheritance tax from April 2026.

7:36

So dad's nearly 82, God willing, he's

7:39

got many years left in him so

7:41

we need to kind of assume that

7:43

he's going to be affected by these

7:45

and we'll answer your question on that

7:47

basis but just be careful. Any kind

7:50

of knee-jerk reaction based on things having

7:52

changed is arguably slightly premature. And the

7:54

problem is you've got two dates here

7:56

to think about. 2026 frame shares, 27

7:58

on the pensions. The first thing to

8:01

say would be, he doesn't need to

8:03

take anything, any action at all on

8:05

the pension for nearly two years, really,

8:07

because if anything happens between. now and

8:09

then have a bid then it's still

8:12

subject to the current rules it'll be

8:14

kicked out in the inheritance tax free.

8:16

One thing he could consider and please

8:18

Joe this is not advice right if

8:20

dad wants to you know have all

8:23

the sort of protection of the regulatory

8:25

system here he needs to speak specific

8:27

advice but some people are considering taking

8:29

out the tax-free cash, so if he

8:31

hasn't crystallised his pension yet, given that

8:34

he's over $75, I think it might

8:36

make sense for him to consider taking

8:38

out his tax-free cash and giving it

8:40

away. Obviously, if he does that now,

8:42

he's taking it from an inheritance tax-free

8:45

regime inside the pension. for the next

8:47

two years and bringing it into his

8:49

estate. Now if he gives it away

8:51

seven-year clock starts and potentially exempt transfer

8:53

so you know if he dies within

8:56

seven years then the tax on that

8:58

gift would be payable on a sliding

9:00

scale. So could consider doing that. What

9:02

about regular gift in Rudge? Yeah, by

9:04

all means you can gift as much

9:07

as you want to out of income.

9:09

Yeah. So if if a father-in-law decides

9:11

that... whether it be now or whether

9:13

it be 2027, he can start to

9:15

draw the pension down, pay income tax,

9:18

whatever rate he's got to go on,

9:20

ideally be a basic rate of pay,

9:22

income taxpayer possibly, and then he can

9:24

gift as much as that as he

9:26

wants to without any limit for inherited

9:29

tax purposes, because it won't affect the

9:31

standard living, because it's brand new income

9:33

he doesn't need. Yeah, I mean, I'm

9:35

kind of almost waiting for this to

9:37

be challenged, you know, you know. is

9:39

giving up income you don't need and

9:42

you didn't take prior, I'm almost expecting

9:44

that to be challenged by the revenue

9:46

at some point, but we'll see. Not

9:48

yet. Yeah, because there was an element

9:50

of that, wasn't there with people within

9:53

ill health, that much retirement, they're not

9:55

going to take, because I mean in

9:57

the health I'll leave it, go for

9:59

ICT purposes. So that was some sort

10:01

of technical avoidance that was subjected to,

10:04

but that's a good therapy. I mean,

10:06

it might not being... it certainly hasn't

10:08

yet that I'm aware of but we

10:10

draw down a sexually being a pot

10:12

that you draw off it is income

10:15

it's taxes income hmm but I would

10:17

want to sort of belt embraces that

10:19

and make sure you're taking regular amounts

10:21

and giving away regular amounts all the

10:23

usual rules for giving from income apply

10:26

now if that makes dad a higher-rate

10:28

taxpayer he's no worse off is that

10:30

he's going to pay 40% income tax

10:32

and will pay no inheritance tax because

10:34

of the gifts from income exemption, but

10:37

better if he can keep any withdrawals

10:39

to the basic rate and might be

10:41

tricky though. Yeah, I think in his

10:43

favour if he's not drawing the money

10:45

at the moment and he's 82 already,

10:48

they'd have our job to justify you

10:50

could draw this and not pay the

10:52

tax on it. I don't know. Yeah,

10:54

so what are the options? Take Tastry

10:56

cash and give it away. Start drawing

10:59

an income and give that away. Aim

11:01

shares. Aim shares. I mean you mentioned

11:03

actually before we recorded it. Yeah, the

11:05

fact that it wouldn't be worth putting

11:07

any more money into aim shares for

11:10

that particular reason. Because if you invest

11:12

now, you won't have owned the shares

11:14

for two years. by April 2026. That's

11:16

right. So his point is putting any

11:18

more money in for what you see

11:21

is the current benefit of ICT of

11:23

I Aimsures. Yeah, because you wouldn't get

11:25

it. You're not going to get the

11:27

benefit. Yeah, it's business relief. So you

11:29

won't get that. I suppose you could

11:32

gift away the Aimsures at some point,

11:34

but again, that's then going to be

11:36

a pet, I suppose, from... Yeah, I

11:38

mean if that's in good health he

11:40

could consider gift into Vivos. That's a

11:43

specific under life insurance policy. Essentially it's

11:45

a seven year decreasing term insurance policy

11:47

designed to broadly match the inheritance tax

11:49

payable on any gifts. So if he

11:51

wants, you know, if he's in good

11:54

health and you know, the premiums on

11:56

that will reduce his estate further, he

11:58

could consider taking out. life insurance to

12:00

pay any inheritance tax, just make sure

12:02

that's done properly, make sure it's written

12:05

in trust. So essentially he's providing for

12:07

the inheritance tax by taking out insurance.

12:09

So there are some options here, but

12:11

this is, yes, serious stuff. You don't

12:13

want to get this wrong. So I'll

12:16

be talking to a good lawyer and

12:18

I'll be talking to a decent financial

12:20

planner on this thing. But please don't

12:22

need jerk. A lot of these things

12:24

are not in yet. I know that's,

12:27

none of us are getting any younger.

12:29

you know, you haven't mentioned anything about his

12:31

health, if his health is declining, you know,

12:33

it might be that he'll be okay, but

12:35

I mean, I don't want to take that

12:38

bet, do you? No, not too. And if

12:40

his health is declining and he might need

12:42

more support in the future, he might need

12:44

to draw up on the pension rather than

12:47

give it away to provide for his

12:49

own care. And that'll reduce the estate.

12:51

Exactly. Question, do you mind if I

12:53

take this one? Because I'm going to

12:55

slightly curtail this. This is number three.

12:57

No, that's right, yeah. Because I'll be

13:00

talking for a lifetime of the card

13:02

on this way. This is from Sam

13:04

and he's asking on behalf, he, Sam

13:06

could be she, Sam is asking on

13:08

behalf of a family member, Glinda, they've

13:10

called her. Not the real name. What may,

13:13

it might be. We don't know any

13:15

difference. That'd be a weird sort of

13:17

double cross, wouldn't it? We'll call her

13:20

Glinda, because she may or may not

13:22

be. This is a welcome to my

13:24

co-host, who may or may not be

13:27

called Raj. So Glinda is 58, intends

13:29

to continue working until she can claim

13:31

her full state pension. So another nine

13:34

years or so. She currently has two

13:36

private pensions. One is a SIP. One

13:38

is her workplace scheme with a smaller

13:41

provider I've never heard of called Creative

13:43

Trust. I haven't either. A

13:45

few years ago she chose to

13:47

withdraw 25% cash, tax-free cash from

13:49

her sip with a view to

13:51

investigate their rental property. And in

13:53

the end she didn't do that.

13:55

That money is now sitting in

13:57

cash as a buffer. That's fine.

14:00

they sort of draw down part that's

14:02

still inside the pension is invested 100%

14:04

equities. The workplace scheme is growing nicely,

14:06

obviously that's uncrystallized, she's still paying into

14:08

it. Now Sam says, you've spoken at

14:10

length about pensions but my question has

14:12

not yet come up though I appreciate

14:14

it may be niche. If the SIP

14:16

has been crystallized and the workplace scheme

14:18

has not, can they still be combined?

14:20

Basically, Sam's got a bunch of questions,

14:22

so I'm going to ask him and

14:24

we'll answer them in line, I think.

14:26

So if the SIP has been crystallised

14:28

and the workplace scheme has not, can

14:30

they still be combined? Yes, sort of.

14:32

Some providers will essentially allow you to

14:34

have one pension, but with kind of

14:36

two pots, a pre-imposed retirement pot. Crystalised

14:38

and uncrystallized. So depends on the provider,

14:40

but the general answer to that is

14:42

yes, it can. Does Glinda need to

14:44

take her tax-free cash from her workplace

14:46

scheme before transferring or combining the scheme

14:48

into her SIP for ease of management?

14:50

Well, no, because it would stay uncrystallized.

14:52

Yeah. Right, so as long as the

14:54

SIP or AN other provider has this

14:56

capacity to hold both crystallised and uncrystallized

14:58

money in the same pot, then you

15:00

won't have a problem. If Glinda opts

15:03

not to take the tax-free cash before

15:05

transferring does she lose that option? No.

15:07

All right, there's always an option. for

15:09

her to take touch for her cash

15:11

until she dies. A slightly more general

15:13

question. What is the point of crystallization?

15:15

Why is it even a thing in

15:17

a world of flexi-axis drawdown? It seems

15:19

irrelevant to me. I understand this question

15:21

because I get that a lot. Do

15:23

you venture an answer on that? Yeah,

15:25

the point of crystallization originally was to

15:27

sort of draw a line under your

15:29

benefits. So if you crystallized a pension,

15:31

you had used up a certain proportion

15:33

of your lifetime allowance. is still a

15:35

thing but it's not a thing anymore

15:37

because it might possibly come back at

15:39

some point in the future. So when

15:41

you crystallize the pension pot, you said,

15:43

right, I've drawn a line out of

15:45

that, I've had my tertiary cash out

15:47

of that bit, and I've used up

15:49

a certain percentage of my lifetime allowance

15:51

with this, that's still in the background

15:53

really. Yeah, and you might, as Glinda

15:55

is doing, crystallize one pension and keep

15:57

paying into another. And so it provides

15:59

a kind of useful demarcation from that

16:01

point of view as well. But in

16:03

a world where you can facilitate, for

16:06

instance, monthly off plus payments from a

16:08

pension, yeah, where essentially you're doing lots

16:10

of mini crystallizations, I do get your

16:12

points out. It seems to be a

16:14

bit of an anachronism less relevant these

16:16

days. Well, it used to be used

16:18

for a calculation as well. So if

16:20

you had a crystallized pension pot, so

16:22

that the 75% that's sitting in the

16:24

background not being drawn upon, that was

16:26

tested again against the lifetime allowance at

16:28

age 75. So any growth from the

16:30

crystallization point to the point of, to

16:32

the age 75. It was tested again.

16:34

So that's another reason for the crystallization,

16:36

but that's no longer relevant. I had

16:38

a sort of weird wave of kind

16:40

of nostalgia for the lifetime allowance then.

16:42

It's easier then. Yeah, well exactly. It

16:44

is so more complicated now. It's like

16:46

mathematics. It's a yes or no answer.

16:48

And now it's like, well, it's all

16:50

a bit up in the air. You

16:52

still have crystallization events. Yeah. But they're

16:54

not tested. Yeah, exactly. Oh, and you've

16:56

got two different calculations you might want

16:58

to do depending on whether you're taking

17:00

test for cash or whether you can

17:02

prove you're taking test for cash. A

17:04

lot more complicated now and it does

17:06

my head in. So I had a

17:08

weird sort of little... Oh, I remember

17:11

lifetime allowance. It was so nice and

17:13

easy. Well, but the worry is, if

17:15

you crystallize stuff now when there's no

17:17

lifetime allowance test, but somebody reintroduces, reintroduces

17:19

it in the future... Don't put the

17:21

fear of going into people right now,

17:23

but that's the other reason the crystallization

17:25

is a thing Yeah, I think because

17:27

you know you never know it may

17:29

change again, but Sam's last question do

17:31

platforms charge different levels of fees post

17:33

crystallization? If so can Glinda transfer her

17:35

crystallize it to a new provider if

17:37

savings can be made on fees? Yeah,

17:39

sometimes not normally sort of difference in

17:41

the sort of What is the word?

17:43

Ongoing charge. Yeah, what do you call

17:45

it when the platform holds? It's custodians.

17:47

Normally they want charge different, you know,

17:49

for actually holding the investments. That'll be,

17:51

you know, either a fixed fee or

17:53

a sort of percentage-based ad for law

17:55

and fee. But there are often like

17:57

admin fees when you're in drawdown. So

17:59

if you're taking. regular withdrawals or whatever,

18:01

they're usually being and often being annual

18:03

drawdown for you. Not always, but essentially

18:05

that's going to be platform specific, Sam.

18:07

But, you know, Glinda can transfer a

18:09

crystallized sit to a new provider, she

18:11

can do that anytime. Yeah, and the

18:14

non-crystallized game transfer as well without having

18:16

taken the tax for cash. There'd just

18:18

be potentially held in two separate parts.

18:20

I know I've got a crystallized pot

18:22

on a non-crystallized pot, which I transferred

18:24

across to A, another company, and they

18:26

are holding it under one umbrella, but

18:28

with two separate pots underneath. Now the

18:30

genius that is Nick, who does all

18:32

kinds of things, basically stops my life

18:34

from derailing when it comes to meaningful

18:36

money, he's found a creative pension trust.

18:38

is an auto-enrollment pension provider for businesses

18:40

in addition to providing the auto-enrollment pension

18:42

service they also provide a free pension

18:44

tracing service so all pensions can be

18:46

transferred in. Therefore I expect they can

18:48

handle having a pension which is just

18:50

the drawdown pot transferred to them. But

18:52

I think probably, if anything, Sam, we're

18:54

talking about Linda doing the other way

18:56

round. Could the Creative Pension Trust be

18:58

moved into Vanguard SIP may not be

19:00

possible as the workplace is still contributing?

19:02

I'd say almost certainly not. The employer

19:04

won't contribute to a third-party pension if

19:06

they've got the Creative Pension Trust in

19:08

place. So we're really only talking about

19:10

shifting it, probably once Glinda retires. Or

19:12

stops working for that company and she

19:14

can set it into the SIP. Great

19:17

questions though and nicely put Sam. They're

19:19

really good. Do you want to do

19:21

before? I'll do number four. There's a

19:23

picture here which I want to describe.

19:25

So this is from Phil. Hi, Peter

19:27

Roger. I've been an avid listener to

19:29

the podcast for a very long time

19:31

now, probably five years. What a journey.

19:33

Thank you all for the content. you

19:35

put out. Pete, I think I read

19:37

your book first which put me onto

19:39

the podcast or perhaps it was the

19:41

other way around. I can't remember. I'm

19:43

pleased to say that when I read

19:45

your book I then went through it

19:47

with a fine tooth comb and ticked

19:49

off everything I needed to do. Needless

19:51

to say I've been in a good

19:53

situation for a while now thanks to

19:55

you, your book and this podcast. I

19:57

still use the meaningful money, a budget

19:59

spreadsheet to plan my monthly fileances. I

20:01

did leave a review a good while

20:03

ago on the app store, letting you

20:05

know how meaningful money has helped me.

20:07

I've attached a picture of my copy

20:09

of your book, hope you don't mind

20:11

all the post-it notes. We need to

20:13

put that in the show notes. That's

20:15

going to go in. There's a book

20:17

with so many post-it notes attached to

20:20

it. Which means there's good stuff inside

20:22

the book. Yeah. Right, so the question,

20:24

if we get to the question, my

20:26

question is surrounding emergency funds and what

20:28

criteria we should apply as to whether

20:30

something is an emergency. I think it

20:32

should become self-evident really, but classic things

20:34

such as a broken down car, a

20:36

leak in the house or a boiler

20:38

breaking down are all perfect scenarios for

20:40

an emergency fund. But what about other

20:42

more vague scenarios? This question has come

20:44

about because of my current situation. I

20:46

unfortunately have a toxic boss and work

20:48

environment which is affecting my mental health.

20:50

It's clear I need to leave the

20:52

job as my continued attempts to change

20:54

the environment and my mindset have been

20:56

unsuccessful. So I'm about to hand in

20:58

my resignation in the next few weeks

21:00

and just go ahead and use my

21:02

emergency fund as this detriment to my

21:04

mental health cannot continue. However, there's a

21:06

strong feeling inside that this isn't really

21:08

what an emergency fund is for, particularly

21:10

too as I don't have a strong

21:12

exit plan. I have no other job

21:14

lined up, I just need to get

21:16

out of there. So what do you

21:18

think? Should the fund have strict rules

21:20

as to what it is and is

21:23

not an emergency? I suspect your answer

21:25

will be that the holder of the

21:27

emergency fund decides what is and is

21:29

not an emergency. That being said, if

21:31

there isn't strict rules surrounding it, then

21:33

it could be quite easy for someone

21:35

to decide a night out on the

21:37

ale is an emergency due to a

21:39

stressful week. Or can the rules be

21:41

more fluid and the night the pub

21:43

is acceptable? Sorry about the pub is

21:45

acceptable. Sorry about the pub is acceptable.

21:47

Did you notice that deleted Phil's surname?

21:49

Yes, just in case the buses... Did

21:51

you get the buses in? Exactly, in

21:53

case a quite unusual surname, Phil's, I

21:55

thought, I better just delete that before

21:57

Roger gets to that point in question.

21:59

Look, man, I mean, I just don't

22:01

even hesitate. There is many things vastly

22:03

more important than money, and your own

22:05

mental well-being is right way up the

22:07

top of that list. This is a

22:09

massive emergency in my head. It is

22:11

an emergency. If there's one thing that

22:13

your fund can be used for, it's

22:15

to walk away from this. Yeah. And

22:17

F-U money. Yeah, yeah. You know, it's

22:19

got a clean rating, so we're going

22:21

to be careful. But you know, but

22:23

yeah, that's what it's for. It's what

22:26

you've built it for. And I literally

22:28

wouldn't lose a second sleep over this,

22:30

Phil. Because you've got to do it.

22:32

I mean, you're going to do it.

22:34

I'm about standing my resignation. I'm about

22:36

to handing my resignation. I'm about to

22:38

handing my resignation. I'm about to handing

22:40

my resignation. I'm about to handing my

22:42

resignation. I'm about to handing my resignation.

22:44

I'm about to handing my resignation. I'm

22:46

about to handing my resignation. I'm about

22:48

to handing my resignation. I'm about to

22:50

handing my resignation. I'm about to handing

22:52

my resignation. I'm about to handing my

22:54

resignation. I'm about to handing my resignation.

22:56

I'm about to handing my resignation. I'm

22:58

because probably this questioning came in a

23:00

few weeks ago. So you made the

23:02

right decision. Man, just get out of

23:04

there and be well. Just lean on

23:06

that emergency fund. That is literally what

23:08

it's for. I wouldn't say going down

23:10

the path after a stressful week is

23:12

an emergency fund because you'd have an

23:14

emergency every week, wouldn't you? You'd find

23:16

a way to happen. Well, in our

23:18

previous podcast that you can, we talked

23:20

about planning and you could, you know,

23:22

a stressful week is built in as

23:24

part of your social social life. Yes,

23:26

not an emergency fund I would suggest.

23:29

I agree. So yes, it's going to

23:31

be a little bit subjective, but the

23:33

whole point is for not normal events.

23:35

not events that happen in the normal

23:37

scheme of life. And I think probably

23:39

many of us have stressful weeks, fairly

23:41

regularly. So no, that certainly wouldn't count.

23:43

But it might be helpful, Phil, because

23:45

I've already mentioned in ones, Nick Mitchell,

23:47

who does so much for me here

23:49

in the podcast, wrote this under your

23:51

question. So this is Nick's own words.

23:53

Back in 2004, I worked for the

23:55

government and I wasn't suited to working

23:57

in the office environment. I made the

23:59

decision to leave without a job to

24:01

go to go to. because I had

24:03

an emergency fund. I knew I could

24:05

pay the bills for six months if

24:07

I found no work. I got temporary

24:09

work almost immediately, a few days here

24:11

and there, which helped me not to

24:13

dip into the emergency fund. I got

24:15

a permanent job after three months of

24:17

doing temp work. So look, Nick did

24:19

it for exactly the same reason. He

24:21

couldn't continue in that environment. It's clear

24:23

that you can't either. This is. textbook

24:25

what an emergency fund is for. So

24:27

good luck Phil. I'm sure you'll find

24:29

work soon and you and all of

24:32

us deserve a place to work which

24:34

is not toxic and not detrimental to

24:36

our mental health. Here here. Right question

24:38

5 from Emma. Hi Pete and Roger.

24:40

Thanks for all your podcast episodes. Been

24:42

listening for years and you've saved me

24:44

a lot of money through not needing

24:46

to pay an advisor. Thanks to your

24:48

free info and not making expensive mistakes.

24:50

Cool. You're welcome. I like red wine.

24:52

I'm not sure if I'm your core

24:54

demographic, a 33 year old woman in

24:56

London, but I find all your content

24:58

useful for me, my friend's brother and

25:00

parents. It's hard to get stats actually,

25:02

YouTube is about 85% male. So Emma,

25:04

delighted to have you with us. My

25:06

question is, and this is a doozy

25:08

of a question, I co-own a flat

25:10

and living it, my friend owns the

25:12

other half but doesn't live with me.

25:14

We have a joint residential mortgage and

25:16

I also have to pay a £250

25:18

per month service charge and ground rent

25:20

as its leasehold with right to manage.

25:22

It's a 35 year mortgage so we

25:24

get about 200 pounds per month equity

25:26

and pay around 800 pounds per month

25:28

interest. It's a great flat but I

25:30

want to move to a larger property

25:32

in a different area, initially renting because

25:35

it'll take quite a long time to

25:37

sell the flat for various reasons I

25:39

won't go into. If we rent the

25:41

flat out and I go and rent

25:43

elsewhere, I'll be making a loss on

25:45

the flat, because I'm a 40% taxpayer,

25:47

the rental income would cover the mortgage

25:49

and service charge and agency fees, but

25:51

I believe I'd have to pay tax

25:53

on the income, not the profit, hence

25:55

the loss. All right, come back to

25:57

that minute. There's also insurance, council registration

25:59

fee, maintenance, etc. Obviously I'd then pay

26:01

rental money to a landlord too for

26:03

the house I moved to. I know

26:05

property taxes have changed in recent years

26:07

and I'm very supportive of landlords being

26:09

taxed on profits, however my initial research

26:11

suggests that professional landlords who buy property

26:13

through companies only pay tax on company

26:15

profits, whereas I would pay tax on

26:17

revenue. I pay 40% versus them paying

26:19

corporation tax in a company, 25% is

26:21

my understanding right and is there any

26:23

regulation or tax relief specifically for accidental

26:25

landlords? who were also renting a home

26:27

themselves rather than having a big empire

26:29

of properties as a business? Also, how

26:31

would the tax work for co-owners? Would

26:33

I just pay 40% tax on half

26:35

of their rental income? My friend lives

26:38

abroad. Oh my gosh, it just gets

26:40

more and more complicated in case that's

26:42

relevant I know there are a lot

26:44

of accidental landlords due to the cladding

26:46

relationship changes etc So I'm hoping the

26:48

question is also useful for the listeners.

26:50

Yeah, good question Emma Accidental landlords interesting

26:52

phrase isn't it? But yeah, basically when

26:54

you're stuck with a property that you

26:56

can't sell easily. Yes, and you end

26:58

up having to rent because you can't

27:00

sell it always gonna take a long

27:02

time. So yeah, I get that Okay

27:04

I think it hit the nail on

27:06

the head early doors that you've identified

27:08

that you pay income tax on the

27:10

rental income rather than the profit on

27:12

it. Because she's a high-rate taxpayer so

27:14

it doesn't get interest relief. No. Yeah

27:16

you don't get relief for the mortgage

27:18

and stuff. You used to back at

27:20

the day didn't you? You would be

27:22

able to take some things off it

27:24

wouldn't be the top line revenue would

27:26

it? You would be able to take

27:28

service charge and stuff like that off

27:30

of it? I managed to certainly any

27:32

maintenance insurance insurance. Yeah you'd have to

27:34

ignore the mortgage I think. Yeah if

27:36

you pay a manager I think you

27:38

essentially your profit would be rent minus

27:41

all those costs but you couldn't take

27:43

off the mortgage. No which you used

27:45

to be able to. So it wouldn't

27:47

be quite as bad as you think

27:49

but it still would. You still wouldn't

27:51

pay a chunk. Yeah let's work our

27:53

way through this right because there's a

27:55

few questions that are buried in here.

27:57

Initial research suggests that professional landlords who

27:59

buy property through companies only pay tax.

28:01

on company profits, whereas I pay tax

28:03

on revenue. So owner property directly or

28:05

through a company, Roger, go. Well,

28:07

if you only personally, as you

28:10

currently do, then as Pete said,

28:12

your calculation of profits would be

28:14

your rental income less your fixed

28:16

costs ignoring a mortgage. So that's

28:18

the bit on which you pay

28:21

your tax. You can hold a

28:23

property in a company. and then

28:25

the company would receive the rents

28:27

and then as the owner of

28:29

the company you could pay off

28:31

dividends and only pay tax on

28:34

the dividends because you don't own

28:36

the rental income. The company owns the

28:38

big $64,000 question is how do you

28:40

get that property into the company? Yeah

28:42

you can't just magic it in there. No

28:45

so you're either going to sell it

28:47

to the company which kicks out a

28:49

capital gain potentially potentially but it may

28:51

not do not for her it would

28:53

do for your partner probably the other...

28:55

the friend who wants to do the half.

28:57

You won't have capital gains tax on

28:59

disposal because it's residential currently and you

29:02

get sort of time pre and post

29:04

also, not pre and post, the first

29:06

year and I think three years after

29:08

you move out if memory service also

29:10

counts for residence relief. You've got more

29:12

here, right? So basically you shouldn't pay

29:14

capital against tax on it, but how

29:16

do you transfer that property in? The

29:18

company either has to buy it, in

29:20

which case it needs money, where is

29:22

the money coming from? You can't gift

29:25

a property to a company, as

29:27

far as I'm aware, it would be,

29:29

because a company can't receive

29:31

a gift. Certainly not a company

29:33

that you own, that would be

29:35

bizarre. Could you lend the property to

29:37

the company? Potentially, and that

29:39

be the director's loan, then,

29:41

and the company will receive

29:43

the rental income into the

29:45

company, and then you draw

29:47

some... Oh heck, well the company would pay corporation

29:50

tax on the rent, the profit of the

29:52

rent, and then you pay tax on the

29:54

dividend income that comes at the bottom of

29:56

it. But I would love to hear the

29:58

conversation between you and your lender. because firstly

30:00

you know it's only a residential mortgage because

30:02

you're living in it if you rent it

30:04

out you're gonna need you are sort of

30:07

contractually bound to talk to your lender yes

30:09

you probably couldn't do an under lease on

30:11

it no Right, Emma, this is getting complicated.

30:13

So we'll sort of try and hold it

30:15

together. The company thing, it's not as easy

30:18

as you think. Obviously you've got to get

30:20

the property in there. Then yes, the company

30:22

pays corporation tax. If you want to take

30:24

any money out, you're going to pay the

30:26

dividend tax rates, higher rate tax on that.

30:29

On top, you know, after the 25, you

30:31

know, the corporation tax already paid. So it's

30:33

not just the 25%. I don't know of

30:35

any sort of special... tax release for accidental

30:37

landlords. That's very much an accountancy question. I

30:40

don't know about that. As far as a

30:42

co-owner is concerned, you don't have to worry

30:44

about that. You would only have to pay

30:46

tax on your half of the income. Yeah.

30:48

Assuming you've got it set up that way,

30:51

right? But usually that's how it would be

30:53

by default. It would only be different to

30:55

that if you had intentionally opted to have

30:57

some of the income. have the income paid

30:59

to you on equally for whatever reason. So

31:02

if you put like three quarters of the

31:04

deposit in and your friend put in a

31:06

quarter, you could opt to have the rental

31:08

income split that proportion. But that would all

31:10

be sorted out with a rental agreement and

31:13

all that sort of stuff. So don't worry

31:15

about your friend and the fact that's just

31:17

like, oh my gosh, that even makes it

31:19

more complicated, but that's not your concern. You've

31:21

want to go to think about tax on

31:24

your half. I hope that answers the question,

31:26

but this is, you need a talk to

31:28

an accountant who understands properties. Really, Emma. Yeah,

31:30

the mortgage is a big thing here. Really

31:32

big thing. And a massively limited factor, I

31:35

think. Yes. And, you know, people that have

31:37

got big empire properties, they set up a

31:39

company and throw money to the company in

31:41

formation in cash, and the company has then

31:43

bought the properties. It's far easier for them

31:46

to do that going on, but because you

31:48

already owned the property, and it's 50, of

31:50

mortgage on it. I mean you can't on

31:52

you can't have a mortgage on a property

31:54

that the company owns. No, you know, the

31:57

company would have to have a mortgage and

31:59

the company wouldn't have any income on the

32:01

way to base any kind of no mortgage

32:03

application. So I think the property thing is

32:05

not going to work for you. No, but

32:08

definitely talk to an accountant, but I reckon

32:10

they would probably dismiss that pretty quickly. Yeah.

32:12

I would have thought so. Okay. Great question,

32:14

nothing straightforward is it? That's life, I'm afraid.

32:16

Simon. You all read this one? Yeah, I'll

32:19

do this one. Simon, thanks for an excellent

32:21

podcast, one of the best in the personal

32:23

finance space. Very kind, thank you. Although we

32:25

just say, what do you mean, one of

32:27

the best? Yeah, although we just say, what

32:30

do you mean, one of the best? Praise,

32:32

one of the best, Simon. Right, question seven.

32:34

No, we understand that completely, completely. So, we

32:36

understand that completely, we understand that completely, completely.

32:38

So, we understand that completely. So, we understand

32:41

that completely. So, we understand that completely. I,

32:43

we understand that completely. We understand that completely.

32:45

We understand that completely. We understand that completely.

32:47

We understand that completely. We understand that completely.

32:49

We understand that completely. We understand that completely.

32:52

We understand that, completely. We understand that, completely.

32:54

We understand that, completely. We understand that, completely.

32:56

We understand that, completely. We understand that completely.

32:58

Each year I have made bed and ice

33:00

the transfers to diffuse any capital gains and

33:03

to move more of my money into a

33:05

tax shelter. As we have had a strong

33:07

investment environment over this period I still have

33:09

a reasonable balance in the GIA. Now the

33:11

government has reduced this annual capital gains tax

33:14

allowance to such an extent that I expect

33:16

to be unable to diffuse all of my

33:18

capital gains each year. This will limit the

33:20

amount I can bed and I expect the

33:22

GIA balance to start increasing compounding the issue.

33:25

To be honest, I don't think this will

33:27

be an unusual position to be in as

33:29

you will not require an unfeasible balance in

33:31

a GIA to pay CTT on gains solely

33:33

due to inflation. You're still with this listeners.

33:36

Complicated. I'm trying to get through this. My

33:38

current plan is to allow the above to

33:40

happen by only utilising my annual CTT allowance

33:42

and not paying CTT while I'm working. My

33:44

question is how CTT is charged in early

33:47

retirement? Let's say I stop working at 55

33:49

and don't take my pension until 57, the

33:51

earliest I can. I will have no income

33:53

for two years, so my personal allowance will

33:55

be unused. In this case, can I make

33:58

15, 570 pounds worth of gains in the

34:00

tax year before CTT? Searching online, I can

34:02

only find information. on basic and higher rate

34:04

CDT and not nil rate. Thank you. Simon.

34:06

Tons of stuff in here again. The question

34:09

continues like, okay we need to address that.

34:11

Let's talk about bed and icering. Seems like

34:13

a weird phrase, doesn't it? Bed and Icering.

34:15

This is like a weird phrase, doesn't it?

34:17

Bed and Icering. This is a carryover from

34:20

practice that used to be called bed and

34:22

breakfasting. Bed and breakfasting was the practice of

34:24

selling shares late on one day. and buying

34:26

them back the next day. Why would you

34:28

do that? You would do that to realize

34:31

capital gains. Because you remember, you only realize

34:33

a game when you sell. But by selling

34:35

at the end of the day and buying

34:37

at the beginning of the next day, the

34:39

market wouldn't have much time to move. So

34:42

essentially you'd be buying back at nearest down

34:44

at the same price as you sold for.

34:46

So that's bed and breakfasting. Because one option

34:48

you can do is you can do that,

34:50

you can do the sell bit, the bed,

34:53

the bed, the bed, to... realize your gain

34:55

and then drop the proceeds in an icer

34:57

and we call that bed and icer. There

34:59

is such a thing as bed and pension.

35:01

Yeah, it doesn't happen often but essentially bed

35:04

and icer is exactly what Simon talks about

35:06

progressively shifting money out of a GIA into

35:08

an icer. Now one of the things

35:10

I'm going to call you out on

35:12

here Simon, hope you don't mind, because

35:14

of the reduced capital gains annual exemption,

35:16

this will limit the amount I can

35:18

bed and I expect the GIA balance

35:20

to start increase. increasing compounding issue. So

35:22

you are limiting the amount you want

35:24

to gain each time because the annual

35:26

exempt allowance is now so low £3,000.

35:28

So we've got now a judgment question.

35:30

Do you do that? Do you limit

35:33

the amount you can gain and hence

35:35

pay no capital gains tax? Or do

35:37

you say, well, if I'm a basic

35:39

rate taxpayer, I'm only going to pay

35:41

capital against tax 18%. I suck it

35:43

up and pay it, even if I'm

35:45

making the gain and excess, you know,

35:47

of the exempts allowance, but I make

35:49

sure the full 20 gram goes into

35:51

my eyes for each year. That would

35:53

be always our suggestion. Yeah, the reason

35:55

being... Simon is that, okay, you suck,

35:57

you've cashed this thing in it and

35:59

it goes against the grain because I'm

36:01

going to pay tax when I don't

36:03

need to. But the important thing is,

36:05

if your plan is to leave this

36:07

investment for lots and lots of years,

36:09

the money you shoved in an ISA

36:11

would then from that point on be

36:13

tax-free. And hopefully it'll be worth more

36:15

in the future than it is today.

36:17

So you're paying an early charge for

36:19

tax for tax now instead of a

36:21

bigger charge for tax later on. By

36:23

all I mean suck it up and

36:25

it goes, I understand, it goes against

36:27

the grain and we all understand that.

36:29

I'm paying tax when I don't have

36:32

to, but what you're saying is, I'm

36:34

still going to carry on making gains

36:36

on that money and I'd rather those

36:38

future gains be tax free, so I'll

36:40

suck it up and pay it now.

36:42

Yeah. I mean if you're a high

36:44

rate taxpayer you're going to pay CDT

36:46

at 24% but still. Also anything that's

36:48

unwrapped in that I say you're going

36:50

to pay income tax on dividends on

36:52

dividends potentially. might not be high yield

36:54

but that you know any dividends it

36:56

does produce you are going to pay

36:58

income tax on that's not the case

37:00

if you shift into an eyeser so

37:02

we would generally say look if you've

37:04

got a decent-sized pot tax is going

37:06

to be part of your life use

37:08

these allowances as soon as you can

37:10

even if it means paying a smaller

37:12

amount of taxes you go right so

37:14

that's the first thing we would say

37:16

there Simon there's a very long first

37:18

thing but there it is My question

37:20

is how CTT is charged in early

37:22

retirement? And the example is, basically, if

37:24

you don't have any income... Can you

37:26

use your personal allowance of 12-570 to

37:28

kind of soak up any gains you

37:31

make? And the answer to that is

37:33

a very clear, unequivocal, no you can't,

37:35

because that is an income tax personal

37:37

allowance. You cannot offset capital gains against

37:39

your income tax personal allowance. So you

37:41

said searching online, I can only find

37:43

information on basic and higher rate CTT

37:45

and not nil rate. Because the only

37:47

nil rate CTT is gains within the

37:49

annual exempt allowance of 3,000. So you

37:51

can't, unfortunately, it's a great idea. I'm

37:53

sure we'd all love to be able

37:55

to do that, but you know, if

37:57

you have no income for two years,

37:59

the... The only benefit is that any

38:01

CTT you pay, you're going to pay

38:03

more of it at the basic rate.

38:05

Yes. But there is no such thing as

38:07

zero rate CTT. No. And like you say

38:10

something, you allude to it anyway. The GIA

38:12

balance is going to increase over time. So

38:14

at some point in the future, you're going

38:16

to pay tax on it when you cash

38:18

it in. So are you better to pay

38:20

the lower level of tax now than

38:23

a higher level of tax later on

38:25

and we would always go for the...

38:27

pay a small amount now because it's

38:30

always going to grow. So it may

38:32

as well grow in a tax-free environment.

38:34

Great. Yeah, that would definitely be our

38:36

feeling, Simon. Hope that helps. Remember that

38:39

we can't give advice here, so it

38:41

just gives you stuff to think about

38:43

really, but you make your own decisions.

38:45

All right, promise? Don Sewers. Thank you.

38:48

Final question. We're putting in an extra

38:50

one today, because this is sort of

38:52

tax year-end dependent, and tax

38:54

relief. My taxable employment income

38:56

for 2425 is around 30,000

38:58

pounds. I already contribute to

39:00

a workplace pension via salary

39:03

sacrifice. Very important. The total

39:05

amount paid in by my

39:07

employer employer is 12,000 pounds.

39:09

The first thing we need to identify

39:11

is whether the 30,000 is after the 12

39:13

grand. I'm really putting the lines I'm

39:15

thinking the salary sacrifice is gone and

39:18

you're left with 30,000 pounds in my

39:20

head. We'll establish that. I'm using my

39:22

full ISAR allowance. Wow, we're doing well.

39:25

Still have savings investments in the GIA,

39:27

not sheltered from tax, and would like

39:29

to pay a lump sum into a

39:32

sit before the end of the tax

39:34

year. Great planning. My questions are, and

39:36

we'll do these one at a time,

39:39

what is the maximum I can pay

39:41

in? Is it 30,000? Or do I

39:43

have to subtract my employer

39:45

workplace contributions? So only

39:48

18,000. I keep finding

39:50

conflicting information online. But...

39:52

you can actually pay in the 30

39:54

so if your net relevant earnings

39:56

after the salary sacrifice of 30,000

39:58

pounds then that that's the amount you

40:01

can pay in and get tax relief on

40:03

personally. You can ignore from that calculation the

40:05

amount of contribution made by your employer because

40:07

the 30 plus the 18 is below the

40:09

60,000 pounds limit. 30 plus 12. Yeah, you

40:11

said 18. Oh yeah. So I'm just clav-dishing.

40:14

Yes, so you can put in 30,000 pounds

40:16

ignoring the amount your employer is putting because

40:18

you can get full tax relief on your

40:20

net relevant earnings of 30. Yeah. Okay. So

40:22

that's an unequivocal answer. Next, Allison, says, if

40:25

it's 30,000, does this mean I actually pay

40:27

in 24,000? Yes. The question three, if it's

40:29

30,000, would I receive a government top-up on

40:31

all of it, even though I didn't pay

40:33

tax on the first 12-570? Roger. Yes. Question

40:35

four, does the contribution to a SIP actually

40:38

reduce my taxable income? So if I contribute

40:40

the full 30 grand, assuming I can, is

40:42

my personal allowance then unused by employment? I

40:44

have savings and investments income of around 10,000

40:46

from my GIA. Would this then fall inside

40:48

my personal allowance and no tax bid you?

40:51

Nope. No, it's a question. It doesn't affect

40:53

your taxable income at all. No, we tend

40:55

to, you know, when they teach us about

40:57

how to do... like income tax calculations and

40:59

stuff and we got pension contributions. They say

41:01

things like it sort of essentially extends your

41:04

basic rate banned, don't they? You make a

41:06

pension contribution? It doesn't actually, but it kind

41:08

of has the same effect of doing that.

41:10

But the answer to that question, Allison, is

41:12

no, afraid not. You've earned 30,000 and even

41:15

though you've fully paid that into your pension,

41:17

you still essentially have used your... That's because

41:19

you've earned it. And the 30,000 pounds is

41:21

your gross contribution, which means you actually pay

41:23

a net 24,000 pounds in and it gets

41:25

grossed up to 30. Yeah. I kind of

41:28

wanted to keep the answers fairly succinct to

41:30

there, Allison, just because you've had confusing information

41:32

online, but hopefully that's been really clear for

41:34

you and it's helpful. Yeah, well, we do

41:36

have a lot of it. That's what we're

41:38

here for, you know, and the nice thing

41:41

is, because we're now doing this in my...

41:43

had a series of Q&As. We're answering the

41:45

questions for people that are most important at

41:47

the right time. So let's keep them going

41:49

there. Should be a bit more timely, hopefully,

41:51

rather than people who wait like five months

41:54

for their questions to be answered. And the

41:56

question you might have, somebody else might have

41:58

as well, they just have them asked it.

42:00

So yeah, but please keep them coming in

42:02

and drop them into hello at meaningful money.

42:05

TV, perhaps with the subject line podcast questions

42:07

so we can filter it back out and

42:09

get them in the right place. a bit

42:11

easier as he has to sort through the

42:13

mountain of email. But we love to hear

42:15

from you, thank you all for your kind

42:18

words, gives us a real shot in the

42:20

arm, to do that, to hear that, and

42:22

it means that Roger keeps turning up. You

42:24

know, it's nice to hear nice things. It

42:26

is, yeah, I think it's great. And I

42:28

think, you think, you know, we're sitting here

42:31

with a couple of microphones having a bit

42:33

of a chat about stuff that we understand

42:35

a bit of, and it affects a bit

42:37

of, and it affects stuff that we understand

42:39

a bit of, and it affects, and it

42:41

affects, and it affects, and it affects people's

42:44

lives, and it's great. Yeah, also Roger is

42:46

incredibly vain, so we've got to soothe his

42:48

ego. I told you how handsome you're looking

42:50

today. There are a lot of complaints, but

42:52

I'm not coming in. Yeah, fair enough. But

42:55

look, that's it for this week, folks. Hope

42:57

you enjoyed it. Hope it was helpful. Links

42:59

are all at the show notes, meaningful money.

43:01

TV slash QA7. More than anything, we hope

43:03

you enjoyed it. Thank you for listening. Thank

43:05

you for all your kind words. I've enjoyedues.

43:08

I've enjoyed it. I've enjoyed your week. I've

43:10

enjoyed it. I've enjoyed it. I've enjoyed it.

43:12

I've enjoyed it. I've enjoyed. I've enjoyed. I've

43:14

enjoyed. I've enjoyed. I've enjoyed. I've enjoyed. I've

43:16

enjoyed. I've enjoyed. I've enjoyed. I've enjoyed. I've

43:18

enjoyed. I've enjoyed. I've enjoyed. I've enjoyed. I've

43:21

enjoyed.