Are there any other considerations for bonus sacrifice into Pension (UK)
"The pension is indeed the clear winner and you haven't missed anything. It's easiest to just compare everything in current numbers as you've done and ignore investment opportunities. Given you expect to pay off your student loan in full, you should consider the repayment as a benefit for you too, so the balance is between £580 after tax and £1138 in your pension. As you say under the current tax regime you'd probably end up with £968 in your pocket from the pension. Some harder to value considerations: You might consider there's political risk associated with the pension, as laws may change over the years - but the government has so far not shown any inclination to penalise people who have already saved under one set of assumptions, so hopefully it's reasonably safe (I'm certainly taking that view with my own money!) Paying more towards your student loan or your mortgage is equivalent to investing at that interest rate (guaranteed). If you do the typical thing of investing your pension in the stock market, the investment returns are likely higher but more risky. In today's interest rate environment, you'd struggle to get a ""safe"" return that's anywhere near the mortgage rate. So if you're very risk averse, that would tilt the balance against the pension, but I doubt it would be enough to change the decision. Your pension might eventually hit the lifetime allowance of £1mn, after contributions and investment growth. If that's a possibility, you should think carefully about the plan for your contributions. If you do go over, the penalties are calibrated to cancel out the difference between higher-rate and basic-rate tax - i.e. cancelling out the tax benefits you outlined, but not the national insurance benefits. But if you do go over, the amount of money you'd have mean that you might also find yourself paying higher-rate tax on some of your pension income, at which point you could lose out. The lifetime allowance is really complicated, there's a Q+A about it here if you want to understand more."
"I can think of one major income source you didn't mention, dividends.  Rather than withdrawing from your pension pot, you can roll it over to a SIPP, invest it in quality dividend growth stocks, then (depending on your pension size) withdraw only the dividends to live on. The goal here is that you buy quality dividend growth stocks.   This will mean you rarely have to sell your investments, and can weather the ups and downs of the market in relative comfort, while using the dividends as your income to live off of.   The growth aspect comes into play when considering keeping up with inflation, or simply growing your income.   In effect, companies grow the size of their dividend payments and you use that to beat the effects of inflation. Meanwhile, you do get the benefit of principle growth in the companies you've invested in.   I don't know the history of the UK stock market, but the US market has averaged over 7% total return (including dividends) over the long term. A typical dividend payout is not much better than your annuity option though -- 3% to 4% is probably achievable.   Although, looking at the list of UK Dividend Champion list (companies that have grown their dividend for 25 years continuous), some of them have higher yields than that right now.   Though that might be a warning sign... BTW, given all the legal changes around buy-to-lets recently (increases stamp duty on purchase, reduction in mortgage interest deduction, increased paperwork burden due to ""right to rent"" laws, etc.) you want to check this carefully to make sure you're safe on forecasting your return." "Well, perhaps ""have a dedicated tax advisor"" is an answer then. I   wouldn't have thought of this, as it's not specifically about   taxation, is it? Or more broadly ""consult with a dedicated   professional for the situation in detail""... Yes, that is the only real answer you can get. Anything else will vary between highly localized to entirely incorrect. Pensions are rarely defined benefit anymore, and not many countries still keep state-sponsored defined benefit pension plans. For most, what's left is Social Security system, which is in no way a pension. This is an insurance, and is paid as tax which is rarely refundable (but you won't always have to pay it if you're a foreigner in the country). Usually, Social Security benefits are only available to citizens and (/or, in some rare cases) residents of that country. So it is unlikely (although possible) that you'll benefit from social security payments of more than one country. Some countries have totalization treaties that make your social security payments in one count in the other. If you're in a country that has such an agreement with the Netherlands - you're lucky. Your personal pension savings are basically tax-deferred investment accounts. But tax deferral in one country doesn't necessarily work in another. In the US you have 401k or IRA accounts, but in your own country they may very well be taxable. So you gain the tax deferral in the US, but if your own country taxes them - you lost the benefit, and you will still have to abide by the US tax rules when taking the money out. If you don't plan properly you can easily be hit by double taxation in such cases. Bottom line, you need to plan your pension savings on your own, privately, with a good and solid tax advice (and pension planning advice) that would be relevant to all the countries that you are tax resident at at any given time (you can easily be resident for tax purposes in more than one country). These advisers have to take into account the laws of the countries involved, the tax treaties between themselves and between them and the country of your citizenship,  and the future countries you're planning on visiting or getting old at. Its complicated, and most likely you won't be able to predict everything, especially because the laws and treaties tend to change over time." The straight math might favor leaving it, but I'd personally prefer to have it in my control in an IRA. My own employer offered a buyout on the pension program, and the choice between a nice lump sum vs some fixed number 20 years hence was a simple one for me. Both my wife and I (same company) took the lump sum, and never regretted it. "As the comments above have been trying to get across, the prospective employer is offering to pay you for the bonus/unvested compensation that you would be losing by jumping ship right now to go work for them.  They are not offering to buy any securities that you already hold, regardless of whether they're profitable or unprofitable. Example 1. You participate in your current company's 401(k), and your company matches your contributions at 50%.  However, the matching funds are not yours immediately; they vest in 20%/year increments until you have been at the company for 5 years.  Let's say you've been there for 3 years and have contributed $50K to the plan.  Your company has matched you at $25K, but only 60% of that ($15K) has vested.  If you leave right now for the new employer, you're leaving $10K behind.  So the new employer might offer to ""buy out"" (i.e. pay you) that $10K to help encourage you to switch now.  You might then counter their offer by pointing out that if you stay where you are that $10K is coming to you tax-deferred, whereas their $10K signing bonus would be taxed.  So you ask for $15K instead. Example 2. You work for a Wall Street investment bank.  Each December you receive a performance bonus.  Since you began working there, your three yearly bonuses have been (in chronological order) $500K, $750K, and $1M.  It's June, so you've worked halfway towards your next bonus.  You have a lot of incentive to NOT leave your current employer.  A competing employer may offer to ""buy you out"" of your anticipated bonus by giving you a $1.25M signing bonus (since you'd almost certainly not be eligible for a performance bonus during your first year there).  You might negotiate with them and say ""I'm on track for $2M this year"", and then they would figure out if you're really worth that much to them. So you can see this all has to do with the prospective employer trying to compensate you for any income you're already counting on receiving from your current employer.  By jumping ship now you would be foregoing that guaranteed/expected income, so the competitor wants to remove that anchor that might be holding you back from making the move. Stocks/options that you already own are irrelevant to the prospective employer.  Since you wouldn't be giving those up by changing jobs, there's no reason for them to factor into the equation." Cutting 25% from pensions is a big deal. This is why I'm going to get out of the company pension. If the money isn't mine, what is it? Are they giving me more return on my interest than normal to make up for the fact they can decide to back out of the agreement at any point? No. It's best to roll over a pension plan, you don't want to pay the penalties especially when you are young. Rolling over into another scheme, or rolling over into a scheme that is somewhat self directed would avoid the penalty and could help you achieve higher returns should you feel you will perform better. Making regular monthly or biweekly contributions is imperative so that you catch compounded returns on your investments. Since you state that you are inexperienced, I would suggest rolling over into the new scheme and sitting with the pension advisor for the company, ie Prudential, etc. Telling them some key information like your age, in how many years you expect to retire, your current income, your desired pension income per year and such will greatly help them ensure that you come as close to your goal as possible, providing nothing horrendous happens in the market. I certainly do not agree and you are making some sweeping statements without backing them up. What I am saying is that a company cannot make a promise of credit to an employee without having something to back that up. If you don't have that then you cannot offer pensions or other futures that you cannot ensure are going to be properly funded. No one forces a company to offer pensions in this day and age (there are exceptions of course) so they do not need to offer it at all.   Things like pensions are often used as incentives that can be provided in lieu of cash payments to the employee. If we are going to make cash like exchanges of value then that value should be just as guaranteed as it is when the company promises to pay back a loan.   In short you should not be able to hire employees on a financial promise you cannot keep in good faith. If for some reason you cannot keep that promise, just like with standard credit it should hurt you.   Or you know, as a company don't make BS promises and just pay people what they are worth. I can't answer from the Indian side but on the UK side, if you and your friend are not related then there is no tax implication - you are effectively giving each other gifts - other than a possible inheritance tax liability if one of you dies within 7 years of the transfer and has an estate above the IHT allowance. My perspective is from the US. Many employers offer 401(k)s and you can always contribute to an IRA for either tax deferred or tax free investment growth. If you're company offers a 401(k) match you should always contribute the maximum amount they max or you're leaving money on the table.    Companies can't always support pensions and it isn't the best idea to rely on one entirely for retirement unless your pension is from the federal government.   Even states such as Illinois are going through extreme financial difficulties due to pension funding issues. It's only going to get worse and if you think pension benefit accrual isn't going to be cut eventually you'll have another thing coming. I'd be worried if I was a state employee in the middle of my career with no retirement savings outside of my pension.   Ranting: Employees pushed hard for some pretty absurd commitments and public officials let the public down by giving in. It seems a little crazy to me that someone can work for the state until they're in their 50's and then earn 70% of their 6 figure salary for the rest of their life. Something needs to be done but I'd be surprised if anyone has the political will to make tough choices now before thee options get much much worse and these states are forced to make a decision. I would point this out to the committee or other entity in charge of handling this at work. They do have a fiduciary responsibility for the participant's money and should take anything reasonable seriously. The flip side to this is 95% of participants -- especially participants under 35 or so -- really pay next to no attention to this stuff. We consider it a victory to get people to pony up the matching contributions. Active participation in investment would blow our minds. "Note - this is a complicated topic. I've read the rules multiple times and I'm still not sure I understand them perfectly. So please take this with a pinch of salt and read the rules for yourself. The time(s) at which a test is done against the LTA are known as a ""Benefit Crystallization Event"" (BCE). There are 13 of these (!) - they're numbered 1-9 with the addition of some extras numbered 5A-D. However, the most important ones for those with defined contribution pensions are: Broadly, the idea is that a BCE occurs when you start taking money out of your pension, and when you reach age 75. Each time one happens, the amount you are taking out (""crystallizing"") gets compared against the LTA and a certain percentage of your LTA gets designated as being used. Crystallising doesn't necessarily mean you actually receive the money immediately, just that some of your money is switched into a mode where you can start receiving it in different ways. The rules are designed to avoid double counting, so broadly anything that was taken off your LTA won't be taken off a second time. The cumulative use of your LTA is tracked as a percentage rather than an absolute amount, to take account of any changes in the LTA between the different times you crystallise money. For example if you crystallise £100K when the LTA is £1mn, that's 10% of your LTA gone. If later on the LTA has risen to £1.1mn and you take out £110K, that's another 10%. Once you hit 100%, you start paying a LTA charge on any excess. The really simple path here is if you just get an annuity with your entire pot, before hitting age 75 (and you don't make any further pension contributions after). Then only BCE 4 applies: your pension pot, all of which is being used to buy the annuity, is compared with the LTA. After this point your entire pension pot is considered to be crystallized, so no more BCEs will apply - the tests at age 75 only apply if you still have money that you haven't taken out or used to buy an annuity. The annuity payments themselves will be subject to income tax at your normal rate at the time you receive them, i.e. 0%, 20%, 40% or 45% depending on how much other income you have. In reality most people would want to take 25% of their pot as a lump sum at the same time as buying an annuity, given that it's tax-free if you're under the LTA. At this point BCE 6 applies in addition to BCE 4, but again the overall effect of the test is pretty simple, look at the total pension pot (lump sum + cost of annuity), and if it's under the LTA you're fine. Again, at this point no more BCEs will apply as all the money is considered to have been fully distributed. If you only use part of the money for an annuity/lump sum, then only that part of the money is compared against the LTA, and the rest stays in your pension and will be compared later. The 25% limit for a tax-free lump sum applies to the total you are taking out at that point: if you have £200K and are taking out £100K, you can take out £25K as a tax-free lump sum and use £75K for the annuity. The other £100K stays in your pension. Many people see annuity rates as very low and will want to take on more risk (and reward) by using ""Drawdown"" for at least part of their pension. Essentially, you can designate part of your pension for drawdown, and at that point BCE 1 applies to the money you designate. Once designated, you can start drawing the money out as income, which will be taxed at your normal income tax rate at the time you receive it. Again, you can take 25% as a lump sum at this point which will be subject to BCE 6. There's also an alternative route where you put everything into ""flexi-access drawdown"" without taking any lump sum immediately, and then as you actually withdraw income, 25% is tax-free and the rest is taxed as income. The overall effect is the same, but it gives you more control over when you get the tax-free bit. However, because with drawdown you can actually leave the money in your pension and growing tax-free, there's a further test against the LTA at age 75 under BCE 5A. To avoid double-counting (""prevention of overlap""), the amount left in the drawdown fund at that point is reduced by whatever was previously tested against BCE 1. So if you put £150K into drawdown initially, and it's grown to £200K by age 75, then another £50K will crystallise under BCE 5A. I think that if you put £150K into drawdown initially and it grows by £50K, but you take that out as income so that only £150K (or less) remains at age 75, then the amount crystallising under BCE 5A is nil. Also, when money is in drawdown, you can choose to use it to buy an annuity. BCE 4 is applied at this point (if before age 75), but as with BCE 5A, this is reduced by anything that was previously crystallised under BCE 1. If you only use some of it to buy an annuity, the reduction is pro-rataed, e.g. if you started out with £150K moved into drawdown, and later it has grown to £200K and you use £100K to buy an annuity, then the reduction is £75K so £25K is considered to have crystallised under BCE 4. Once you reach age 75, as well as any money that's still in drawdown, anything you haven't yet crystallised at all gets tested against the LTA under BCE 5B. Broadly, once you go over the LTA, the charges are simple: There's never any explanation given for these two rates, but I think it's all based on trying to at least cancel out the benefit you got from using your pension, on the assumption that: So with the 25% charge + 20% income tax, if you take out £100, you'll end up with £75 gross income, so £60 net income - just the same as if you'd originally paid 40% tax. (This ignores the effect of investment growth, but if you would have saved the £60 in an ISA, the end result is the same: if you had growth of say 50% over the time the money was in your pension, it'll be the same effect if you had £100 growing to £150 and now received 60% of it, or if you had £60 growing to £90 untaxed in an ISA.) The 55% lump sum charge is in case you are paying 40% tax when you take it out, to make sure that it's not a more attractive option than the 25%+income tax: if you have £100, either you get £45 tax free via a lump sum, or you get £75 gross and hence £45 net. I haven't covered lots of cases here: defined benefit pensions. Roughly, when you start receiving the pension, 20x the initial income from the pension is deemed to crystallise under BCE 2 and any lump sum you receive crystallises under BCE 6. In the former case, you could end up having to pay the LTA charge with money you haven't actually got yet, and you can ask the pension administrator to instead reduce your pension to pay it. However, there are lots of special cases for defined benefit pensions, mostly for historical reasons, so you should make sure you check with your pension administrator about this. if you die before age 75, at which point the LTA test is applied via either BCE 5C/5D, or BCE 7. After paying the LTA charge if any, your dependents or whoever else you leave it to gets the remainder tax-free. transferring overseas (BCE 8). ""scheme pensions"" under BCE 2 and BCE 3 (I think these are relatively uncommon) some corner cases covered by regulations (BCE 9)" In the UK, recent changes to pension taxation mean that from April 2011, people earning between £150,000 and £180,000 total and making large pension contributions (>£50,000 or so) will pay a marginal tax rate on additional salary of >100%. This is because pension contributions normally attract tax relief at the highest marginal rate - i.e. 40% if the gross salary is above about £40,000, and 50% for salaries above £150,000. But after April 2011, the rate of relief will be tapered down for gross salaries above £150,000, reaching 20% for a gross salary of £180,000. So for example if you earn £175,000 and make a contribution of £50,000, then an additional £1,000 in salary will incur £500 of direct tax, and also lead to a 1% reduction in tax relief (from 25% to 24%), costing another £500. Once you factor in National Insurance of another 1% or so, the net effect of the pay rise is negative. I'm also a UK, Ltd company contractor that has pondered the same topic. I afraid, however, that I don't understand the maths in the original question. Mortgage interest is flat for the term of the mortgage rather than compounded, so, ignoring the tapering at the end of the lifespan of the mortgage, I get the amount of interest to something like £9,300 (7500 x 0.05 x 25). Does this make the decision any easier for you? As you point out, the total cost of this overpayment from your company account is £12,500. Using the above figure, it would take over 13 years to recoup the £5,000 difference (at £375 interest a year).  I used to be of the same opinion that the mortgage should be paid off at all costs first. But now I'm coming round to the American way of thinking; £12,500 invested in a pension with a 5% yield will easily outstrip the interest saved by making the over payment - 12500 x 1.05 ^ 25 = £43,300 - over 250% better off (£43,300 / (£9,300 + £7,500)). I now make no mortgage overpayments at all and instead pay all the money into my pension. This (amongst other things) keeps me below the upper earnings tax threshold, so I'm only paying corporation tax for the money I'm drawing as dividends. There's a massive caveat to this though; I'm 49. I should be able to draw the tax free element of my pension pot in six years time and pay my mortgage off and it's quite unlikely that the government will be changing pensions policy in that time (but drawing 25% tax free has been a feature of pensions for quite some time). I can then chose to keep working or retire. If my pension is still doing well (9% ish pa at the moment), I could chose to not pay my mortgage off at all. In the next twenty or so years, however, all this could change. In your position I would do a bit of both. Make a regular overpayment to pay down your mortgage (even a small amount that you'll barely notice will make quite a difference to the end date of your mortgage - £100 a month will take years off). I didn't start paying properly into my pension until fairly recently and so If you're not already, I'd also make quite substantial, regular payments into one now, directly from your company, 15-17.5% of your gross drawings. Leaving it until later will only make it more painful. Then when you get to retirement age, no matter what, you'll have a decent pension pot. An actuary I worked with pointed out that if you pay something into a pension, when you retire you should have some sort of pot; if you pay nothing, you are absolutely guaranteed to have nothing. And finally, if you haven't already, fix your mortgage. We're three years into a five year fix. The variable rate we were going to be transferred to was 3.99%. We fixed, not because of wanting any sense of security, but because the fixed rate was 2.59% with no fee. There are much better rates than that about now. Rates are starting to rise, so it's a good time. This is basically a math problem. It depends on the pension benefits, the lump sum, and the chance that the company doesn't honor its pension plan. If you're willing to share the first 2 and the company name, it's possible to roughly figure out the odds of the third if your company has bonds or CDS. Maybe some bored analyst would do it for you here, or you could probably hire a financial advisor for an hour or 2 to figure it out. "No, I do not.  The advice is to take advice :-) but it is not required.  Several ""low cost"" SIPPs allow an ""Execution Only"" transfer from some pensions (generally not occupational or defined benefits schemes [where transfers are generally a bad idea anyway] but FAVCs such as mine are ok). Best Invest is one such, and the fees are indeed relatively low. As far as anyone knows, the government's plans for changes to rules on using pension funds would still apply even once I've transferred my pension pot and begun to withdraw funds (provided I don't commit myself to an annuity or other irrevocable investment). I am not a financial adviser, nor employed or otherwise connected with Best Invest, and I'm not endorsing their SIPP schemes, just giving them as an example of what can be done. [Added after I carried out my plan] I found the process very straightforward; I needed to apply for a pension fund with my new provider and fill in a transfer form, which set up the scheme and transferred the funds with no expense required.  Once the money arrived in my pension account I filled in another form to take the lump sum and set up regular withdrawals from the fund. I had my lump sum within a couple of months of initiating the transfer.  I'm very happy I did not take independent advice because it would have been very poor value for money.  During my researches I was approached eagerly by one firm promising to get me my money quick and claiming to be an independent financial advisor.  Luckily I mistrusted the service they offered."