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."
The benefit of paying into a pension is that the payment is effectively made from pre-tax money. Either you pay from your own pocket and then you get income tax relief on the payment, i.e. your gross salary is reduced by the gross pension contribution and income tax is recalculated with the excess either refunded to you or put in your pension (the details are a bit more complicated depending on your marginal tax rate, but the end result is the same). Or your company pays, and then you are never charged tax on the payment in the first place. From the company's point of view, the two are roughly the same. Either it pays you who then pays into your pension, or it pays straight into your pension. Either way the money going out from the company is treated as a cost that is offset against the company's revenue, reducing the amount of corporation tax the company has to pay. There are some National Insurance advantages to paying directly into the pension; neither you nor the company gets relief on NI if the payment goes via you, but no NI is paid in the first place if it goes direct from the company. [EDIT: your question is actually worded to suggest that you want to lend your company money from your own pocket, and then have that loan directly discharged by the company paying into your pension. That's no different to you just paying into your pension directly, and wouldn't have any better tax implications. For the rest of my answer, I assume that the idea is actually to lend your company money that it uses to make an immediate contribution to your pension (as part of your pay from that company), and then the company will repay the loan later by returning the money to you personally. Your pension and you are two separate entities legally.] However, in your case, what you're proposing is that the company should effectively make a loss paying into your pension: it's going to end up with more costs than revenue. So, there won't be any immediate tax saving because there wasn't revenue to pay corporation tax on in the first place. You also won't save tax because the loan will be made from previously taxed income or whatever.  However, there will be a tax loss that can be carried forward and offset against future profits, so if you expect the company to make money in future to repay the loan, you might end up saving some corporation tax. You can also sometimes carry a tax loss back one year, so if your company had profits last year you could get some corporation tax back immediately. The repayment of the loan itself won't be subject to income tax as it's not income. So unless you can carry the loss back, you won't get any immediate tax relief by doing this, but it might give you a way to carry forward your annual allowance to future years, i.e. use it now and get the tax advantage later. However, the annual allowance can already be carried forward by up to three years, so this is only worthwhile if you expect that future revenue to repay the loan to arrive more than three years later. Also, this is only worthwhile if you'll continue to max out the annual allowance for paying into your pension in future years, otherwise you might as well just make the pension payment using that same revenue in future years. However, even if this beneficial tax-wise, I'm not sure if it's actually allowed; this might be viewed as an artificial transaction to avoid tax, and that could lead to HMRC disallowing the future tax relief. You might need to ask HMRC or an accountant about that. If you do make the loan, make sure it's clearly documented so you can show in future why the repayment shouldn't be treated as income. "Firstly, you should familiarise yourself with your options for your pension fund. They changed as of 6th April 2015 so it's all quite new. The Government's guidance on it is here. If you haven't already taken a tax-free lump sum from your pension fund, you can take up to 25% totally tax free immediately. That makes getting a house for 40K very accessible. Beyond the 25%, you can take any of it out whenever you want (""flexi-access drawdown"" or ""lump sum payment"", depending on whether you take the 25% out up front or not). That'll be taxed, as if you earned it as income. So if you didn't have any other income, you can take another £10600 without tax this tax year, and then another £10600 or whatever the allowance goes up to next tax year, and so on. Above that you'd have to pay 20% tax until you reach the higher-rate tax threshold at about £40K/year. You say you do have other income so you'll have to take that into account as well when calculating what tax you'd have to pay. If you've reached state pension age that will add some more income, of course. Or, as you suggest, you can buy an annuity. You can do that with some or all of the money, and you can still take the 25% tax-free first. If you do buy an annuity the income from it will all be taxed, but again your personal allowance will apply. Essentially an annuity is the least risky option, particularly if you get one that is uprated with inflation. Uprating with inflation makes the initial income even lower but protects you against cost of living rises as you get older. In exchange for avoiding that risk, you probably lose out on average compared to some more risky options. You might choose to get an annuity large enough to cover your basic needs and take more chances with the rest." "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." I agree, i don’t think it was always like this. Here is a little story I was told about the coal miners in the Uk. Coal mining was massive industry in the uk for about 150 years, (its the reason the world ended up getting railways, symbiotically) the mines as usual was located in the poorer regions but they was good paying jobs for the working man, anyway along with the birth of the industrial revolution came unions and with unions came protection and in turn pensions. So together these minors saved and saved heavily, there pension pot swelled, unfortunately though the mining industry was hazardous one and these minors died young... anyway fast forward to the 70s Margret thatcher Ronald Regan, and the closure of mines. There was a lot less minors by then and a huge pension pot, every minor in the country could have stopped paying into the pension and retired before 50. Thatcher did not like this and neither did the wealthy bankers, so they stole it all and made new pension rules, The broker that is issuing the moneys after vesting is more than likely deducting a notional amount of tax and NI based on UK income tax laws. If you are not a UK resident, then you should pay income tax on those stock options based on your own tax residency. Best thing to do is speak directly with the broker to explain the situation, ask them to not deduct anything from your stock options - but keep in mind that you will need to declare these earnings yourself and pay the correct rate of tax. From my own personal experience, the UK employer more than likely receives the net value (after the notional tax and NI have been deducted) and in usual circumstances create a tax liability on your payslip (if you were working and had earnings). If of course this deduction is being made by the employer, then you can simply ask them to correct this (most UK payroll software will automatically deduct tax and NI for payments after leaving unless manually intervened, so they probably aren't aware if it is them doing so). There's no such requirement in general. If your particular employer requires that - you should address the question to the HR/payroll department. From my experience, matches are generally not conditioned on when you contribute, only how much. "I've got £476,000 but the maximum house price is £450,000. What   happens to the £26,000. Does it stay there with ~6% interest (and no bonus of course), and would be available when I retire at around 75 (there would be about £106,000 by then)? Yes, anything you don't withdraw for your house purchase stays in the Lifetime ISA and keeps growing there. Also you do keep the bonus on it, which was paid at the time you subscribed, unless you make a withdrawal before age 60. After age 60 you can withdraw and keep the bonus. Note that you need to be buying with a mortgage to be allowed to use the lifetime ISA money (without penalty). This is mentioned on the gov.uk website as well as in the actual regulations that establish lifetime ISAs (search for ""first time residential purchase"" and look at clause (6)). That would mean you'd need to withdraw even less than the £450K and artificially borrow the rest. All that said, I suspect the £450K limit would be raised by 2049, given inflation. Can I buy a house and ""quickly"" sell it again, to simply access the money, The regulations say that on completion of the purchase, you must ""occupy the land as their only or main residence"" (there are a few exceptions, such as if it's still being built, or if you are at the time posted abroad by the government, but essentially you have to move in as soon as possible). There's no time limit stated in the regulations, so in theory you could move in and then sell quite fast, but personally I'd be nervous about this being seen as not genuinely intending it to be my main residence. In theory you could be prosecuted for fraud if you claimed a valid withdrawal when it wasn't, though given the wording of the regulations it looks like you'd be complying with the letter of the law." "As long as you're willing to pay the taxes and the penalties, once you're no longer employed you're allowed to do whatever you want. You can always do an ""direct roll-over"" (See IRC Sec. 401(a)(31)(A) which mandates this) and then withdraw from another qualified account, thus creating a withdrawal, if they refuse to just mail you a check (Why would they care? Don't know). The match may have some vesting restrictions, though. Your own contributions - are yours to do with whatever you feel like. That said, just pointing out the obvious - it's a very bad idea. Unless you expect to die before you're 60 and don't want to leave a dime to your heirs, you would probably be better off leaving it in a tax-sheltered account. If the custodian is bad - just roll over elsewhere, there's tons of excellent IRA providers."