Women affected by the controversial state pension age increases should be entitled to access Pension Credit as compensation for the financial hardship they are facing, cross-party MPs have said. Labour’s Carolyn Harris and Tim Loughton, a Conservative MP, said they would not rest until we get justice for all women affected by these changes. It comes after two women who took the Government to court over the changes, which have increased women’s state pension age from 60 to 65, lost their landmark legal fight. About 3.8 million women born in the 1950s have been affected by increases to the state pension age, which are aimed at equalising it with that of men’s.

The retirement age will move to 66 for both sexes by 2020, ahead of further increases in the coming decades. The women claim they were not given adequate notice of the changes to prepare for extra years without their pension – although the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) maintains they were “clearly communicated”. The situation, the women say, has left them financially struggling in their early sixties, or having to work far longer than expected.

When it comes to saving money, many people will chose to put some aside for their children’s future. However, a Child Trust Fund set up by the Government could mean children already have up to £1,000 in the bank. Although many will save money for their children’s future, one scheme means their child could already have up to £1000 in a Child Trust Fund.

This is a fund set up by the Government which automatically gives children a sum of money at different stages in their lives. The money is deposited automatically and it can be claimed when children reach a certain age. On top of this basic payment, low income families received double payments each time and could have as much as £1000 saved per child. Even if parents did not open a Child Trust Fund account, they will still be able to access the money as the Government will have automatically opened the account and deposited the money on the child’s behalf. This benefit applies to all children born between 1 September 2002 and 2 January 2011 and only applies to those who are eligible for child benefit.

The money is available to access when the child turns 18-years-old. At this stage, the savings can either be reinvested into a similar adult ISA or can be used to fund immediate expenses such as university fees.

Should investors who buy high-risk bonds be compensated when things go wrong? The obvious answer is no, with the clue in the word “risk”. But what if a bond is marketed to small investors with a “quarterly interest rate”, and is approved for inclusion in an Isa, and is promoted by a financial advice firm authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Would you expect the bond to lose not just the interest, but all the money you deposited? This is the type of scenario in which many investors in so-called “mini-bonds” have found themselves. About 11,000 investors in London Capital & Finance’s mini-bonds could lose a total of up to £236m, in one of the worst financial scandals for a decade.

Mini-bonds are just an IOU to a company, are rarely secured on anything, and are usually completely illiquid and cannot be traded. They are simply too risky for the average small investor. Even if the interest rate on the bond is 8%, it’s hardly enough to compensate for the evidently high risk of losing your shirt. Now Charles Randall, chairman of the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), has conceded that it was “clear that there’s too much confusion” about what investments were covered by the regulator and which were not.

In recent years, the fees charged by pension schemes has come under much closer scrutiny. However, argues a new study by the Pensions Policy Institute (PPI), low fees are not necessarily the most important factor in determining the size of someone’s final pension pot. According to the study, charging structures play an important role in determining the size of a pension pot. But it says: “In order to secure improved outcomes, charges need to be considered alongside other factors such as contribution levels, investment strategies, member communications and experience, the strength of governance oversight and the impact of having multiple pots.” Perhaps expectedly, the most important factor identified by the PPI report was the contribution levels of members. The study found that someone contributing an extra 2% of their salary on top of the legal minimum contribution would achieve a 25% increase in their retirement income, regardless of the charging structure of their pension scheme. Another big risk to pensioners identified in the report is instances of multiple changes for those who have several pots. With the introduction of auto-enrolment, a growing number of savers are now likely to have multiple pension pots with the various employers they have had over their working life. This, the report says, can work against people achieving better results, as they can lose out by paying multiple charges across the accumulation period. Multiple pots can also mean that people are at risk from losing track of their pensions.

Tax on property transactions is a contentious issue, and the government is again being urged to rethink the way it taxes property investors to spark the housing market. In a plea to the government to reduce stamp duty charges to ease pressure on the UK property market, Mortgages.online, an online mortgage broker, believes the buy-to-let market should be a major focus. Stamp duty was last increased for all property purchases in 2014, while April 2016 saw the second home surcharge introduced, meaning that a 3% additional charge was payable for any buy-to-let or additional properties bought. This came in alongside the announcement of progressive tax relief cuts for landlords – Section 24 – which is currently in phase three and will mean that landlords will only be able to claim income tax relief on residential finance costs at the basic rate of tax by April 2020.

Commentators have been quick to point out that the increased stamp duty payable on buy-to-let purchases, and the removal of the ability to offset mortgage costs has put many investors off the property market, with a knock on effect of reducing the stock of rental properties.

An Inheritance tax should be reformed to reflect inflation, a lawyer has argued as receipts rose to a record £5.4 billion. HM Revenue and Customs figures showed that revenue in 2018-19 rose by 3% from £5.2 billion the previous year. Of the £5.4 billion collected, 72% was from estates worth more than £1 million. In 2016-17, 4.6% of deaths resulted in a charge. The figure was 5.9% before the financial crisis but fell to 2.7% in 2009-10. It has climbed steadily since then, due to long-term rises in property prices and the nil-rate band remaining at £325,000 for the past decade. In the past nine years the amount HMRC has raised through IHT has more than doubled.

The proportion of estates which pay the tax has also been increasing, although it still remains relatively low at 4.6%. Experts believe that the introduction in 2017-18 of a top-up allowance on the normal IHT threshold had yet to have any strong impact. The residence nil rate band (RNRB) gives an additional allowance to people leaving their family home to direct descendants like children or grandchildren. It will be worth an additional £175,000 by 2020-21.

The figures show the RNRB hasn’t reduced the amount paid overall in 2018-19, because so much of the tax is collected from larger estates, for whom this is a small portion of their estate — and who begin to lose this relief as soon as their estate is over £2 million. In July, the Office of Tax Simplification proposed several changes to inheritance tax. The body did not make any recommendations on the RNRB, saying it was too soon to do so.

HMRC has won an IR35 tribunal case at the High Court against three BBC presenters who will now have to pay back tens of thousands in taxes. The High Court ruled that they had effectively been forced into contracting through personal service companies by the BBC, arguing that there was an “imbalance of bargaining power”. The judges said: “The BBC were in a unique position and used it to force the presenters into contracting through personal service companies and to accept reductions in pay.”

The presenters argued that they were self-employed but the court ruled that because they were told how, where and when to work, that the “assumed relationships were ones of employment”. HMRC published draft legislation in July that, from April next year, places the onus on private sector firms to check whether contractors need to pay tax and national insurance contributions, shifting responsibility from the contractor to the employer using their services. But commentators have emphasised how vital it is that HMRC now provides the greater clarity which is still needed to avoid others having to go through this ordeal.

Labour is plotting a staggering spend increase that would see spending on welfare hit nearly four times the amount that currently goes on the health service. The research was released as Labour admitted it was planning to impose fresh tax hikes to fund a raft of new spending commitments made at its annual party conference in Brighton. Conservative Party chairman James Cleverly warned that the benefits system must give a “safety net to those who need it while being fair to our hardworking taxpayers”. Labour’s benefits bombshell includes a so-called universal basic income that would give everyone a fixed sum regardless of their wealth.

John McDonnell has previously announced that the party would trial the scheme if it takes power and picked Liverpool, Sheffield and the Midlands as the first places to test it out. Tory analysis of trade union investigations into the cost put the estimated price tag for the scheme at around £504 billion a year. Labour have also rejected planned future increases in the pension age that would mean workers retiring from age 67 or older. Financial experts have estimated that would cost around £9.9 billion, a 10 per cent hike in costs of the State Pension, or a significant cut in the amount paid out to pensioners.