The struggling UK economy is getting a boost from Brexit stockpiling. UK GDP grew 0.3% in the three months to the end of February, the Office for National Statistics said last week. Economists polled by Reuters were expecting an expansion of 0.2%. Economists said the faster pace of growth was partly due to manufacturing businesses stockpiling materials and parts that would be harder to acquire if Britain crashes out of the European Union. The Office for National Statistics said that it had seen evidence that manufacturers were engaged in stockpiling as the original Brexit deadline approached. Economists expect there was even more stockpiling last month ahead of the original Brexit date of March 29. Howard Archer, chief economic adviser to the EY ITEM Club, pointed to a survey that showed manufacturing activity spiked to its highest level in 13 months in March.

It got a substantial lift from producers and their clients stockpiling inputs and finished products at a record rate to guarantee their supplies in case of a disruptive Brexit. Contrarily KPMG raises the interesting point that whatever view businesses take of the UK’s decision to leave the European Union, they would have been forced to confront supply chain transformation sooner rather than later. And that may turn out to be a very positive thing.

Baby Boomers are those born in the post-war period between 1946 and 1964. Many are now reaching retirement, with the final members turning 55 this year. They are the last generation to receive ‘gold-plated’ final salary pension schemes and have been the major beneficiaries of the housing boom. However, research showed that nearly four in ten (39%) of this generation say concerns over future care costs will hold them back from spending more in retirement.

Three in ten (30%) say ensuring they have enough money for care costs is important to them. In spite of various attempts to address the cost of care, most people are still responsible for picking up the tab for care costs, which can be as much as £50,000 per year for residential care. The average is £32,344.

The state will help for those whose income and asset fall below a specific threshold, currently between £23,250 and £28,000 depending on where you live in the UK. For those receiving residential care, assets include the family home unless a spouse or other dependents still live there.

Brexit and taxation are not two subjects that are mentioned in the same breath that often. But, as a leader of a support business for the financial planning sector, it’s a combination that we thought it was worth giving a little thought to. To start with, and self-evidently, any type of Brexit that doesn’t incorporate the same level of freedom of services as that available to a “full member” will inevitably be detrimental to the UK financial services sector. Most seem to agree that at best it is likely to be some time before any “compensatory” deals on services (let alone goods) outside of the EU are done. Even then, whether they can be as attractive as deals done (by whoever our new trade partners are), with the EU being a bigger buyer than the UK, is also debatable.

Be that as it may (no pun intended), good financial planning should incorporate a degree of anticipation and some appropriate “hedging” where there is uncertainty over potentially material changes that are uncertain. Well, the outcome of the (seemingly interminable) Brexit debate remains the very definition of “uncertain”. In the words of Joe Strummer “Should I stay or should I go?” and the relative merits of each choice are a still a source of serious uncertainty for some. Now, of course, many have immovable positions on this and they are likely to become increasingly immovable with the passage of time – and the increase in anger. But there are more than a few who just don’t know – and especially so in the light of the increasing number of “facts” that were just not available at the time the “will of the people” was first expressed.

Regardless of your own particular view on the rights and wrongs of Brexit it cannot be denied that some form of Brexit is a more than distant possibility. So, given that, what would the likely impact of Brexit on direct taxation be and what, if anything, could or should be done (or at least considered) now (ie. ahead of a possible Brexit) to “hedge” against that anticipated outcome?

Well, first it’s essential to recognise that whatever the aspirations of some hard-line supporters of a fully confederate Europe there has been very little progress towards EU tax harmonisation among member states. Any such change needs the unanimous approval of all members. And the UK have not been alone in consistently opposing any form of harmonisation. There have been some moves towards the establishment of a common consolidated corporate tax base, but we are not really any nearer to establishing that. “Approximation” of the tax codes between member states is about as far as we have got. Since the early sixties, in relation to direct taxation the commonly understood objectives in relation to direct taxation among member states has been eliminating double taxation, enhancing cooperation between national tax authorities and stepping up efforts against cross-border tax avoidance. These objectives have been gradually broadened to include:

(1) eliminating all other tax obstacles hindering cross-border (business) activities and investments within the Single Market;

(2) enabling cooperation between tax authorities to exchange information and assist one another in recovering tax claims; and

(3) countering tax evasion and tax strategies that attempt to reduce liabilities by misusing rights under EU law.

Member states, in determining their own tax codes do however have to ensure that there is no “tax discrimination” between citizens and businesses of all member states. For a number of years now, individuals and companies have challenged national direct tax provisions allegedly hindering the exercise of fundamental freedoms, in particular the freedom of establishment (broadly, the right to set up and manage certain businesses under the same conditions as the Member State’s own nationals), the free movement of workers and the free movement of capital. National tax provisions of both home and host Member States have regularly been found by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to be in breach of EU law, creating a process of “negative integration” specifying which direct tax provisions Member States should not introduce or maintain and obliging them to amend or to repeal such provisions. The ECJ has consistently stated that, although direct taxation falls within the competence of Member States, they must exercise that competence consistently with EU law. Overall ECJ case law has constrained Member States from using direct taxation to create differential treatment between domestic and comparable cross-border situations within the EU, thereby taking important steps toward creating a “level playing field” across the Single Market.

Once outside of the EU (if that is what happens) we will, on the face of it, be freed from needing to “comply” with alignment (with the core freedoms) and the principle of equivalence and non-discrimination. However, as part of any “post Brexit” deal with the EU, it is likely that some “mirroring” of the commitments of Member States will be a condition.

Subject to that, we will almost certainly continue to offer a low tax zone – especially for businesses – as a material “attractor” to the UK. The current corporation tax rate of 19% (falling to 17% in 2020) is a great example of that.

Of course, a change of Government and a radical change in taxation policy possibly linked to a more radical redistribution philosophy may (indeed almost certainly would) militate against this continued benign state, in relation, in particular, to corporate tax rates.

An indirect result of resolving whatever resolution transpires to the interminable Brexit process will be that the Government will have a little more time to actually govern. One might expect, as a result, to see some greater consideration given to and possibly legislation relating to, some aspects of the tax and financial planning process, for example pensions and estate planning. Stranger things have happened!

Loyal home insurance customers who stick with the same provider for six years or more are driving the profits in the sector, analysis from Citizens Advice suggests. The charity said loyal customers are paying an average annual premium of £325 for their sixth year of insurance – nearly double that of new customers (£172). The latest research suggests that home insurance providers tend to make their profits from those customers who remain loyal for six years or more. But the Association of British Insurers (ABI) said that whether or not a firm makes a profit depends on “many factors” and companies have committed to review premiums charged to customers who have been with them for more than five years. It said after six years, a loyal customer could typically expect to have paid a total of £1,596 – £500 more than someone who spends every year as a new customer with their insurer, paying £1,032 on average.

One of the first things you should do if you’re serious about saving for retirement is open a tax-efficient savings/investment account that’s designed for retirement saving. This kind of account will help you grow your retirement money far more effectively. Some of the best accounts to consider are the SIPP (Self-Invested Personal Pension), the Stocks & Shares ISA (Individual Savings Account), and the Lifetime ISA. All of these accounts enable you to hold a broad range of investments including stocks, funds, and ETFs while sheltering capital gains and income from the tax man. I’d forget about a Cash ISA as this is pretty much useless for retirement saving due to the fact that interest rates are so low. Any money in a Cash ISA is going to lose money over time.

Even if you have a workplace pension in place, opening a SIPP or an ISA to save a little more for retirement could turn out to be a great move in the long run. Next, look to take advantage of the generous bonuses that the government is handing out to those who are willing to save for retirement. So, for example, the SIPP comes with 20% tax relief for basic-rate taxpayers. This means if you pay in £800, your contribution will be topped up by HMRC to £1,000. Similarly, the Lifetime ISA also comes with attractive bonuses. Pay in £1,000 and you’re account will be topped up to £1,250. Finally, spend some time thinking about your asset allocation. This is the mix of different assets in your portfolio. This step is really important as it will have a big impact on your overall returns. For example, if 90% of your money is sitting in cash earning 1%, your wealth isn’t going to grow at a high rate.

A growing number of advisers and financial planners are introducing self-imposed fee caps as regulatory pressure forces a sharper focus on portfolio costs. Research published at the end of 2017 found controlling investment fees is one simple way investors can improve their net returns; the simple theory being that paying less for funds leaves a bigger net return. It said that while no quantitative factor alone can ensure outperformance, low cost continues to be the most effective quantitative filter that has been shown, with some consistency, to improve performance.

The introduction of Mifid II last year has forced asset managers to be more transparent on fees. Asset managers have been reducing fund costs, while wealth managers, IFAs and financial planners have made strides to lower the cost of portfolios to end clients. Passive strategies have subsequently started to become the core of some portfolios to lower headline costs, but some advisers are going further and implementing self-imposed investment fee caps. However, The Association of Investment Companies has recently said pension rules designed to bear down on workplace pension investment costs discriminated against investment companies that can produce higher returns but come with higher charges or performance-related fees.