[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 3840)
File  []
>> No. 3840 Anonymous
19th September 2013
Thursday 10:03 pm
3840 Pensions
The OFT have come out and said that many old (i.e. set up before 2001) pension schemes have high charges and offer savers poor value for money. They've also suggested a cap for auto-enrolment schemes, but it's going to be an almost meaningless gesture as you'd be very hard pressed to find a provider offering auto-enrolment terms with annual management charges greater than 1% anyway.


The pension scheme I'm in at work (contribution: 5% employer, 5% employee gross) has management charges of 0.6%, which I'm alright with as it's less than I'd get if I was investing in collectives through an ISA.

However, I've put the charges and contribution details into Invidion's pension calculator for an idea of what I'd get when I'm 65, 40 years from now, and if my salary increases in line with National Average Earnings and I took the 25% tax-free lump sum I'd be looking at a pension in today's terms of 27.5% of my current salary. If I wanted a pension that would be about two-thirds of what I'm earning now then I'll need to contribute, assuming the employer contribution stays at 5%, 15% gross (12% net) of my salary every year for the next four decades. This does depend on what annuity rates will be like then and I'd also be getting the State Pension, as long as they haven't upped the age you receive it to 80 by then.

If it wasn't for the tax relief and my employer matching my contributions then I doubt I'd bother and I'd look into other ways to support myself while I'm in retirement. What about you lads? What are your thoughts on pensions? In my opinion to have any form of decent retirement income you're at the mercy of your employer offering a good pension scheme.
Expand all images.
>> No. 3841 Anonymous
19th September 2013
Thursday 10:41 pm
3841 spacer

Did someone say pension....?
>> No. 3842 Anonymous
19th September 2013
Thursday 11:43 pm
3842 spacer
UK pensions are a waste of time. It's amazing how it varies abroad though. Value for money is far better elsewhere, sadly (for most the UK population being screwed daily).
>> No. 3843 Anonymous
20th September 2013
Friday 6:53 am
3843 spacer
What are they like abroad? More defined benefit schemes? I know BTL on the Graun a regular post in pension articles is that it's wonderful in the Netherlands and we are being ripped off by the greedy bankers over here.
>> No. 3858 Anonymous
24th September 2013
Tuesday 8:38 am
3858 spacer
To me, Auto Enrolment seems like an excuse to scale back the State Pension because more people will have their own personal pensions.

The flaw in this is that I expect many of these pension pots to be piddly amounts. If you didn't have access to a decent pension scheme already then it's likely they'll do the bare minimum of phased contributions of banded earnings. This means contributions only have to be based on earnings between £5,668 and £41,450, so a salary of £15k is now effectively £9,332. Total gross annual contributions (eventually 8%) would be under £750 and that's never going to be enough to provide a worthwhile retirement income.
>> No. 3859 Anonymous
24th September 2013
Tuesday 2:31 pm
3859 spacer
Breaking news, pensions are unsustainable
>> No. 3860 Anonymous
24th September 2013
Tuesday 6:15 pm
3860 spacer

That's probably not the right word to use, but I know what you're getting at. It's only an issue if you're not contributing enough, which is the problem for most people (unless they have other plans for retirement that aren't living in poverty or getting a part-time job in B&Q, like buy-to-let property) because they either can't afford to, they haven't even considered planning for when they retire or the pension scheme their employer offers is poor.

There's a huge gap between what people expect to be living on in retirement and what they're actually going to get - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/239641/framework-analysis-future-pension-incomes.pdf
>> No. 3861 Anonymous
24th September 2013
Tuesday 9:42 pm
3861 spacer

No, the whole system is one giant ponzi scheme that is on the verge of toppling. QE has worsened the already dire situation.

If you are under 45 you will never see your pension.
>> No. 3862 Anonymous
24th September 2013
Tuesday 9:46 pm
3862 spacer

You do know how pension funds work, right? All QE has done is help push down annuity rates even lower.

You're going to need to explain yourself.
>> No. 3863 Anonymous
25th September 2013
Wednesday 12:51 am
3863 spacer

Correct. It's heading for the proverbial cliff.
>> No. 3864 Anonymous
25th September 2013
Wednesday 7:30 am
3864 spacer

How is it? Are you that lad from /emo/ that didn't understand pensions whatsoever but didn't let that stop him from spouting bollocks about zero sum trading and how you end up losing money because the charges are greater than the returns.
>> No. 3865 Anonymous
30th September 2013
Monday 10:18 pm
3865 spacer
>The government's plans for state pension reform mean many people, particularly lower earners, will receive reduced state pensions in future and private pension saving is meant to make up for a lower state pension – but these contribution levels are far from enough to replace this loss



I guess we're not going to get an explanation from >>3861 or >>3863 about why the pension system is a giant ponzi scheme that is about to collapse. There's several reasons not to save in a pension, especially for low earners, without having to make shite up.
>> No. 3866 Anonymous
30th September 2013
Monday 10:26 pm
3866 spacer
This. If you need a good reason not to put anything into a pension, hefty personal debt is a good place to start. No point building up that pot if it's not adding value. State pensions are arguably a Ponzi scheme (this year's pensioners are paid from last year's tax and NI take, not from their own contributions), but a private money-purchase scheme almost certainly isn't.
>> No. 3867 Anonymous
1st October 2013
Tuesday 6:10 pm
3867 spacer

>but a private money-purchase scheme almost certainly isn't.

Why not? The assets bought by these schemes cannot cover future liabilities and can fall in value.
>> No. 3868 Anonymous
1st October 2013
Tuesday 8:06 pm
3868 spacer
>Why not?
They're paying off retirees (or, more accurately, their annuity provider) with the proportionate share of their investment, not the money invested by new entrants.
>> No. 3869 Anonymous
1st October 2013
Tuesday 8:09 pm
3869 spacer

Lad. Please try harder next time.
>> No. 3870 Anonymous
1st October 2013
Tuesday 8:12 pm
3870 spacer

Not always. A look into the market should give most people vertigo once they start pulling the curtain back.
>> No. 3871 Anonymous
1st October 2013
Tuesday 8:15 pm
3871 spacer
Yes, we heard you the first time, lad.
>> No. 3872 Anonymous
1st October 2013
Tuesday 8:38 pm
3872 spacer

u wot m7
>> No. 3873 Anonymous
1st October 2013
Tuesday 8:44 pm
3873 spacer
Jump off, clifflad.
>> No. 3874 Anonymous
1st October 2013
Tuesday 8:47 pm
3874 spacer

u wot m7
>> No. 3875 Anonymous
1st October 2013
Tuesday 8:51 pm
3875 spacer
>> No. 3876 Anonymous
1st October 2013
Tuesday 9:07 pm
3876 spacer
I could be wrong, but aren't group money purchase schemes quite dated now? As far as I'm aware, they're occupational schemes that employers used in the 80's and 90's when they were switching from defined benefit (final/average salary) schemes to defined contribution schemes which still kept the trustee structure in place. These days new pension schemes are almost certain to be group personal pension plans. I don't know if this meant the trustees could choose what the scheme assets should be invested in or if that only applies to defined benefit schemes.

With group personal pension plans you're not going to end in a situation where assets cannot cover liabilities. This is in no small part down to the fact that there is no guarantee on what will be paid out at retirement and instead it is entirely dependent on how much is paid in, the performance of the funds invested in and annuity rates at the time.

My dad worked in a factory with a defined benefit scheme. He took early retirement at 58 with an annual pension of ~£20,000 that increases by 5% each year. The company have since closed the scheme to new members and replaced it with a defined contribution scheme. I know I'm never going to get anything like that when I retire.
>> No. 3877 Anonymous
1st October 2013
Tuesday 9:41 pm
3877 spacer

I hate to say it,lad, but theodds of you retiring are fucking slim.

I earn a decent five figure salary, but a lot ends up re-invested into new projects. I fully expect to not see a pension. Because I will likely be dead before any payout is likely. A window that moves back year by fucking year anyway.
>> No. 3878 Anonymous
1st October 2013
Tuesday 9:42 pm
3878 spacer

Shit. Apologies for typos, I have sausages cooking...
>> No. 3879 Anonymous
1st October 2013
Tuesday 9:53 pm
3879 spacer
Ever thought of re-investing it through a pension scheme? It's not uncommon for the directors of small/medium companies to create a SSAS (Small Self Administered Scheme) for the purpose of buying the company's land/property and then the company pays market-rate rent back to the scheme.

There's a number of things you can invest into with a SSAS or SIPP (Self Invested Personal Pension), so it may be worth looking into. If you're a higher-rate tax payer then pension contributions provide 40% tax relief (IIRC 20% is added to the net contribution and the other 20% is used to extend the basic-rate band).
>> No. 3880 Anonymous
1st October 2013
Tuesday 10:28 pm
3880 spacer
Oh christ we really never do change do we.
>> No. 3881 Anonymous
2nd October 2013
Wednesday 7:54 am
3881 spacer

This is correct, so I don't know why people have criticised it. With a defined contribution pot the annuity you receive (if/when you buy an annuity you should always search the market instead of accepting what is on offer from your existing pension provider(s), especially if you have health issues) will be underwritten based on your life expectancy and other factors like gilt yields. It's a payment for life in return for the lump sum you pay to them and there are strict regulations on what annuity providers can do with their pool of pension pots received to prevent solvency issues. For example, most of Just Retirement's assets under management are in bonds, gilts and cash and they also reinsure their liabilities.
>> No. 3883 Anonymous
4th October 2013
Friday 10:43 pm
3883 spacer
Apparently they're mad on Mumsnet that Auto-Enrolment means they'll have to pay pension contributions for nannies, gardeners and cleaners.

>> No. 3885 Anonymous
4th October 2013
Friday 11:05 pm
3885 Faily Wail


Now Mail weighs in with 'Now' headline
>> No. 3886 Anonymous
4th October 2013
Friday 11:08 pm
3886 spacer

Come the revolution...
>> No. 3887 Anonymous
4th October 2013
Friday 11:16 pm
3887 spacer
I predict that most of the comments will be about Gordon Brown raiding their pensions or how they were fucked over by Equitable Life.
>> No. 3892 Anonymous
10th October 2013
Thursday 8:39 am
3892 spacer
Cofunds have announced they're scrapping their £40 annual platform charge (although the reality is that they forgot to actually charge anyone for it since they implemented it in January).


This means that if you invest in collectives with them then your only charges are their 0.29% platform charge and fund charges (you could put together a decent portfolio with a TER of ~0.9% - I mentioned this on /pol/ previously >>/pol/50165). It's higher charges than in my pension and I wouldn't get the benefit of gross tax relief on contributions, but I'm going to look into squirreling away £100 or so per month into an ISA with them. This way I don't have to wait until I'm at least 55 until I can touch the money and there won't be limitations like having to buy an annuity/using drawdown. The only drawback is that I loathe Cofunds.
>> No. 3893 Anonymous
23rd October 2013
Wednesday 8:12 am
3893 spacer
They've just had a pensions expert on BBC Breakfast, because Scottish Widows have released a report saying that a 25-year-old needs to save £66 per month if they want an annual income of £5,800 (with no inflation proofing) on top of the State Pension when they retire.

Her advice was that if you don't join a pension scheme you're effectively taking a pay cut because you're missing out on the tax relief and the employer contribution and if you don't save and want to live on more than the State Pension then you'll probably have to keep working in your late 60's/70's.
>> No. 3894 Anonymous
29th October 2013
Tuesday 6:42 pm
3894 spacer
>you'll probably have to keep working in your late 60's/70's
Being realistic all 25 year olds probably will.
>> No. 3895 Anonymous
29th October 2013
Tuesday 6:53 pm
3895 spacer
Late 60s for sure, the retirement age should be rising faster than it is and I suspect that the increase will be bought forward at some point.
>> No. 3896 Anonymous
29th October 2013
Tuesday 7:20 pm
3896 spacer
At the minute the SPA will reach 66 by 2020 (i.e. men and women born on or after 1954) and it's legislated that it will reach 67 by 2036 (i.e. born on or after 6 April 1969) and 68 by 2046 (i.e. born on or after 6 April 1978). The government has proposed to bring it forward so that it reaches 67 between 2026 and 2028 instead; it's not on the table to bring receiving it at age 68 forward or indeed extending it beyond age 68.

The government also knows that private pension provisions are an easy target for them (e.g. GORDON BROWN RAIDED MY PENSION) because the funds will be tied up for decades before savers can have access to them. There's talk of limiting tax-free cash available if you decide to take the benfits when you're 55 from 25% to 20% and also capping the maximum you can hold in ISAs to £100k.
>> No. 3897 Anonymous
29th October 2013
Tuesday 7:22 pm
3897 spacer
>it's not on the table to bring receiving it at age 68 forward or indeed extending it beyond age 68.

When I say "it's not on the table" I don't mean that I don't expect this to happen.
>> No. 3898 Anonymous
29th October 2013
Tuesday 10:36 pm
3898 spacer
Can someone explain because I'm not quite sure. What's the difference between giving my money to a pension provider and keeping money stuffed underneath my mattress?
>> No. 3899 Anonymous
29th October 2013
Tuesday 10:53 pm
3899 spacer
In a pension fund, the value of your investment may go up or down. Under the mattress there's no such uncertainty - it's definitely going down.
>> No. 3900 Anonymous
29th October 2013
Tuesday 11:00 pm
3900 spacer
This. What you want to do is invest in a mattress commodities pension fund.
>> No. 3901 Anonymous
30th October 2013
Wednesday 7:56 am
3901 spacer
>Management fees charged by pension providers could be capped between 0.75% and 1%, according to proposals being set out by the government. The Treasury is consulting on its plans to cap fees, which it says could save people tens of thousands of pounds. Some older schemes set up more than a decade ago have been found to charge up to 2.3% a year in management fees.

>The consultation will seek industry input on three possible options: a 1% cap, a 0.75% cap, or a two-tier "comply or explain" cap, where pension providers will be capped at 0.75%, rising to 1% if they can explain to regulators why their scheme must charge more. A Treasury spokesperson said any final cap could lie somewhere between the two levels suggested, depending on the evidence received. The proposed cap would also only apply to auto-enrolment funds.

>The average charge on a pension set up in 2012 was 0.51%, but the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) estimates that there are more than 186,000 pension pots with £2.65bn worth of assets subject to annual charges of more than 1%. Older pension schemes, set up more than a decade ago, were found to be charging as much as 2.3% in annual fees.


So the pension schemes with the charges over 2% are remaining untouched for now, but Auto-Enrolment schemes, which generally have charges below 1%, are going to have their charges capped. What an utterly meaningless gesture.

I know Steve Webb has said they're looking at scrapping active member discounts (AMD) as part of a broader review of pensions charges, on the basis of "That means when you leave a firm they jack your charges up - we don't think this is right so we will probably ban those", but I don't think they've thought this through; if a scheme has an AMD then, unsurprisingly, the charges are lower for active members of the scheme and if you leave you can usually keep the lower charges if you continue to contribute £20pm. Scrapping the AMD may benefit some people, but it's going to make more people worse off.
>> No. 3902 Anonymous
30th October 2013
Wednesday 11:50 pm
3902 spacer
Thinking about it, if the average annual charges on a new pension scheme was 0.51% last year and they introduce a cap between 0.75% and 1% then there's the risk that this will lead to the average charges increasing as providers decide to charge the maximum. It's what happened with stakeholder pensions.
>> No. 3935 Anonymous
7th November 2013
Thursday 6:13 pm
3935 spacer
I was at a presentation by Standard Life and Aviva earlier.

They said someone retiring now would need a pension pot of ~£250k in order to get an income in line with minimum wage and ~£600k to get one in line with national average earnings.

They're also anticipating an auto enrolment (which the Aviva bod said is a substitute for the State Second Pension, except the government aren't the ones paying it) clusterfuck next year. So far it's mainly large companies who have had to have a workplace pension in place and of the ones that have opted for Nest, 98% have sought financial advice and consultancy. Bear in mind the Nest is seen as the simple route and these are huge organisations who have large finance and payroll teams who would have the resources to deal with this in-house. Next summer alone there will be over 30,000 SMEs having their auto enrolment staging date and at the minute many pension providers are scaling back what they are offering because they don't have the capacity to cope and there isn't enough advisers around either (that is assuming they could afford the advice even if they wanted it; prices will be hiked up because many companies are expected to leave it to the last minute). The guidelines from The Pensions Regulator are very stringent and complex and it's not expected that all of these companies will cope if they go it alone and the regulator is rumoured to be very hungry to issue heavy fines and make examples of companies not complying. Apologies if rambling, I'm on my phone.
>> No. 3936 Anonymous
7th November 2013
Thursday 9:56 pm
3936 spacer
I can follow what you're saying but I don't understand the implications. What's going to actually happen, and is it good or bad?
>> No. 3937 Anonymous
7th November 2013
Thursday 11:16 pm
3937 spacer

We're all fucked. In the earhole.
>> No. 3945 Anonymous
8th November 2013
Friday 10:45 pm
3945 spacer
Depending on the size of the employer, the fine for not having a scheme in place and complying with the duties The Pensions Regulator has set out can be up to £10,000 for each of day of non-compliance. It's expected that not all companies who need to have all this in place next year will be able to cope, so don't be surprised if you hear of relatively large fines being dished out to grab headlines.

On a side note, It's early days but the opt-out rates for being automatically enrolled in a workplace pension scheme is ~8% when it was predicted to be ~30%.

One of the Aviva men had a meeting with Steve Webb on Wednesday. He said that the charges cap will be at 0.75% and trail commission on pensions will cease in a couple of years or so. Both Standard Life (whose charges on Auto-Enrolment schemes range between 0.6%-1%) and Aviva representatives are against the cap, as they see it as a PR stunt but they can't back down because the issue has become politicised (even Cameron has Tweeted about capping charges to help 'hardworking people' save for their retirement) - the Standard Life reps said it would better to focus and raise awareness on fund choice as the majority of people stay in the default fund and it won't be suitable for everyone. They fear that the caps will push people towards cheaper funds which don't tend to perform as well; they said, in general, that their actively managed funds cost 0.07% more than their passive equivalents but perform 0.5% better.

They'd also prefer reform to offer more certainty on what income people will receive when they retire, as one of the main reasons people don't take out a pension plan is because they have no idea of what they'll end up with. When annuities were introduced the expectation was that someone would only live for a decade after retiring, nowadays someone has to live for 18 years to 'break even'.
>> No. 3946 Anonymous
11th November 2013
Monday 11:09 pm
3946 spacer
>Both Standard Life (whose charges on Auto-Enrolment schemes range between 0.6%-1%) and Aviva representatives are against the cap

The Pensions Strategy Director of Legal & General has come out today and argued the case for the cap, actually he believes it should be lower (they have an Auto-Enrolment scheme with an AMC of 0.35%, but all of the funds have additional charges of at least 0.1%). This isn't entirely surprising as they tend to offer less of a service than other pension providers.

His argument is that charges of 1% were achieved in 2001 with stakeholder pensions and there has been significant technological advancement over the previous 12 years to accommodate a low cost default cap of 0.5% that people don't have to pay more than if they don't want to and then people can pay extra if they want more fund choice, guarantees, advice and any other optional extras.

Polite sage because I doubt anyone else cares about this.
>> No. 3947 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 11:51 am
3947 spacer
They've been talking about salary sacrifice at work. They gave me a statement that shows that if they reduce my gross pay by nearly 6% my net pay will remain the same because there's less income tax and national insurance to pay along with no personal pension deduction. They then pay an employer contribution that is just under 13% greater than what's paid overall now. Any reason I shouldn't do it?
>> No. 3948 Anonymous
12th November 2013
Tuesday 8:09 pm
3948 spacer

Only if you'll be applying for a mortgage in the near future or you feel you have a misguided duty to pay more tax than you have to.
>> No. 4036 Anonymous
18th November 2013
Monday 10:20 pm
4036 spacer
This. Even HMRC are alright with salary sacrifice as long as it's offered to all employees and doesn't take someone below minimum wage.
>> No. 4037 Anonymous
18th November 2013
Monday 10:29 pm
4037 spacer
Last thing I'll say on the pension charges cap, the FT say it is a bad idea but can see why Webb has gone for it as it "offers the chance for jolly soundbites. It is not, however, based on good economics." The OFT also recommend against a cap.

>> No. 4049 Anonymous
19th November 2013
Tuesday 7:38 pm
4049 spacer
The problem with salary sacrifice and lowering your gross pay is the impact on the "ladder". Typically once you get a rung up you should have a floor under you that increases each step of the way. By accepting this drop you're knocking yourself down if you move to another employer or role.
>> No. 4050 Anonymous
19th November 2013
Tuesday 8:09 pm
4050 spacer

Disclosing your previous salary is just naive. People who know how to negotiate don't answer the question, instead saying something like "my previous role was fundamentally different and I don't think my compensation in that role is relevant". Employers like to bully people into answering the question because it makes it easier for them to underpay you, but nobody you want to work for will refuse to hire you simply because you won't disclose your previous salary. A quick Google will reveal dozens of articles like the following, with recruitment experts unequivocally advising against disclosing your previous salary:
>> No. 4052 Anonymous
19th November 2013
Tuesday 9:55 pm
4052 spacer
I don't agree with that, you'd still know what your notional/reference salary is and any % pay increase or overtime pay should be based on that rather than your post-sacrifice level.

I'm not a good negotiator, so when I've been asked it I tend to lie and inflate what I'm earning. By doing this I ended up earning £4,000 p.a. more in my previous job than one of my colleagues who just accepted what she was offered.
>> No. 4095 Anonymous
27th November 2013
Wednesday 10:44 pm
4095 spacer
Apparently Mexico is the only developed nation with a State Pension less generous than ours.


That isn't entirely surprising when you consider that the system in place here has far more emphasis on private pension provision than other countries. However, too many people aren't saving enough (or at all) and the OECD are warning that high levels of youth unemployment (and a likely SPA of 70 for babies born today) are going to lead to many living in poverty in old age.

>> No. 4096 Anonymous
27th November 2013
Wednesday 10:48 pm
4096 spacer
Doesn't apply to the UK - when you join a new firm you generally have to present your P45 from the previous job showing exactly how much you have earned and how much tax you pay. I have seen people get fired from a new job because they excessively lied about their previous salary.

Employers know that the main reason for changing job is to get a pay rise, so its perfectly ethical and normal to ask for a higher salary than the one you are being paid (you don't have to join them if they don't make you an offer you want, after all), but lying about it or refusing it at best won't get you the job and at worst can easily get you fired in the first week - I have genuinely seen this happen in one place I have worked.
>> No. 4097 Anonymous
27th November 2013
Wednesday 10:49 pm
4097 spacer
Our state pension bill is already far too large. I'm glad it's as low as it is.
>> No. 4098 Anonymous
27th November 2013
Wednesday 10:50 pm
4098 spacer
Was this in a small company? I assume with larger companies it's something that the HR drone will put on file and not really pay attention to.
>> No. 4099 Anonymous
27th November 2013
Wednesday 11:03 pm
4099 spacer

Indeed, I have never needed to show a P45 - the old: I left at short notice and HR have completely failed to provide me one has been fine. They just file details with HMRC and all is good.
>> No. 4100 Anonymous
27th November 2013
Wednesday 11:12 pm
4100 spacer
Nonsense. The quickest P45 I've ever had took 4 weeks to arrive, and only because I bitched about it coming in before the end of the tax year. Clearly you shouldn't lie about it, but refusing the information shouldn't do you any harm. If the person on the other side of the desk doesn't like that you won't tell them the number, that's their problem, and clearly they're not someone you want to be working for. Decline politely, and if at all possible drop hints that this job is not your old job. If they still don't get the hint, ask them to look at it this way: Your salary is confidential information, and I'm sure they wouldn't want you giving that away to their competitors, would they? This goes equally well for people who don't have control of their previous work and therefore won't have a portfolio of evidence to show off. (I've had someone sat in an interview with me show me documents stamped PROPERTY OF xxxxxxx PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL. Needless to say, that was the moment they landed squarely in the "no hire" pile.)
>> No. 4101 Anonymous
27th November 2013
Wednesday 11:27 pm
4101 spacer
It was in a large firm - a bank.
>> No. 4105 Anonymous
27th November 2013
Wednesday 11:59 pm
4105 spacer

Handing over your P45 means that you'll get the right tax code off the bat, but it is by no means mandatory, the only information you *need* to provide is your NI number.
>> No. 4108 Anonymous
28th November 2013
Thursday 12:15 am
4108 spacer
Normally, you can just wait and it'll work itself out the following month, but if you're starting a job in a March with more than a month's salary left of your personal allowance, there is no "following month" and you'll be waiting a year for the refund to come through. Either way, the point is that it's rare to be able to hand in a P45 on day 1.
>> No. 4228 Anonymous
28th November 2013
Thursday 11:43 pm
4228 spacer
The National Insurance fund has been revalued down recently, but there is still a surplus of around £38billion and it has been increasing around £2billion each year.

I know there's an anticipated crisis from the baby boomer population spike, but any future funding problems would be greatly reduced if successive governments used the NI fund for its actual purpose instead of borrowing from the surplus to reduce borrowing from other sources. However, they'd rather reduce the future State Pension (at least not keeping up with inflation) or increase NI rates for workers and scaremonger than actually do this.
>> No. 4262 Anonymous
3rd December 2013
Tuesday 10:09 pm
4262 spacer
On the subject of National Insurance:

According to City A.M., the reason that wages have stagnated is because employers are having to spend more on the likes of pension contributions and a hike in employers NI.

>The proportion of compensation that went to these non-wage benefits increased from 13 per cent in 2000 to 17.2 per cent in 2012, driven by higher pension contributions and a stealthy hike in employer NICs.


There's also calls to scrap NI and replace it with a personal welfare account to wean people off their reliance on state benefits.

>Today, people are treated as if they have paid contributions when they haven't, and claimants with no contributions record get treated much the same as those who have being paying contributions all their lives. Britain is almost alone in Europe in paying unemployed people with weak or non-existent employment records the same as those with a long history of employment.

>Mr Saunders said National Insurance has been subject to so much "tinkering" over the last 70 years that it has become "almost unrecognisable" and people no longer understand how their contributions are being used.

>> No. 4263 Anonymous
3rd December 2013
Tuesday 10:20 pm
4263 spacer

It's the catch-22 of the Pension Guarantee Credit. The maximum state pension is £110.15 a week, but the Guarantee Credit is £145.40 a week, rendering the state pension as largely meaningless for a vast swathe of pensioners.

Not unreasonably, we want to ensure that all pensioners have a decent standard of living in retirement, but it's difficult to implement that without undermining the incentives to save and pay NI. Some middle-income pensioners will benefit from their state pension as a top-up to a private pension, but for those on very low or very high incomes it is essentially irrelevant.
>> No. 4264 Anonymous
3rd December 2013
Tuesday 10:31 pm
4264 spacer
>If “employers’” NICs were abolished tomorrow, wages would increase to compensate
Rather wishful thinking, I fancy.
>> No. 4265 Anonymous
3rd December 2013
Tuesday 11:04 pm
4265 spacer
Employers don't have to pay any NI on the first £148 (IIRC) of weekly earnings. Somone on minimum wage working 35 hours a week would be earning £220.85, so if the NI saving was passed on it would be just over a tenner a week and effectively increase their wage to £6.60 an hour. For someone earning £20k p.a., employer NI works out at around £32.65 per week (just under £1,700 p.a.).

In reality, I think in most salary sacrifice pension arrangements pass on 50% of the employer NI saving and keep the rest for themselves (if there wasn't anything in it for them then they wouldn't do it) so it wouldn't surprise me if that is what the increase in gross pay would be.
>> No. 4266 Anonymous
3rd December 2013
Tuesday 11:26 pm
4266 spacer
>if the NI saving was passed on
Again, wishful thinking. Sure, they could pass on an extra £10 a week to each of their minimum-wage employees, or they could simply pocket the extra £500 per person for themselves. For small business owners still in a tight spot, they might find an extra £5k that they can keep in the business, or pay themselves, a better prospect. For larger companies, you just know that a million-pound saving from abolishing ER NIC is going straight to the CEO or the shareholders.
>> No. 4268 Anonymous
4th December 2013
Wednesday 12:30 am
4268 spacer

You choose to quote City AM? What the fuck, lad. I have met three of their "journalists". Their rigorous training in practical economics was, in all three cases, a degree in English Lit.


>> No. 4271 Anonymous
4th December 2013
Wednesday 12:46 am
4271 spacer
Yes, because as we all know, 'trained economists' are always the best analysts and no one else's input is of any value at all. Moreover, your anecdotal evidence is a compelling reason to accept your ad hominem and appealing to authority argument out of hand.

>> No. 4273 Anonymous
4th December 2013
Wednesday 1:15 am
4273 spacer
I'm not him and nor am I a journo, but he's right - CityAM is a pile of steaming shite.
>> No. 4275 Anonymous
5th December 2013
Thursday 6:19 am
4275 spacer
>The date when people must be 68 to draw a state pension - formerly scheduled for 2046 - will be brought forward to the mid-2030s, Chancellor George Osborne will announce later. Plans to be announced in Mr Osborne's Autumn Statement mean the age could rise again to 69 by the late 2040s.


Looks like everyone under the age of 30 will be at least 70 before they receive a State Pension. Start planning now (be it private pension saving or something else) if you want to be able to retire before then.
>> No. 4276 Anonymous
5th December 2013
Thursday 7:06 am
4276 spacer

What plans do you suggest then?
>> No. 4277 Anonymous
5th December 2013
Thursday 7:19 am
4277 spacer

I fuckin' knew that would 'appen.

This is why I don't bother with a private pension.
>> No. 4278 Anonymous
5th December 2013
Thursday 7:19 am
4278 spacer
>> No. 4279 Anonymous
5th December 2013
Thursday 7:32 am
4279 spacer
Of course it would, the proportion of peoples lives that they spend retired has been increasing enormously, even this won't offset it. You'd have to be a dumb cunt not to have seen it coming.
>> No. 4280 Anonymous
5th December 2013
Thursday 9:27 am
4280 spacer
I've got a better idea. Monopoly money.
>> No. 4281 Anonymous
5th December 2013
Thursday 9:44 am
4281 spacer

>> No. 4282 Anonymous
5th December 2013
Thursday 9:46 am
4282 spacer
>> No. 4283 Anonymous
5th December 2013
Thursday 11:44 am
4283 spacer
The traditional alternatives are investing in property or in equities using a different wrapper, like ISAs. The problem with the latter is many people have poor self control and end up frittering it away.

I have a decent pension scheme at work, so my retirement planning is a mix of that and ISAs. When I'm 55 I plan to semi-retire and do income dtawdown with my pension. That is assuming that the government don't move the goalposts and change the minimum age you can take private pension benefits from. Not many people realise this, but the Stage Pension Age when it was originally introduced was 70; the intention was that you'd get it and then die around 5 years later.

Isn't this more of a reason to have a private pension?
>> No. 4288 Anonymous
5th December 2013
Thursday 2:26 pm
4288 spacer

ISAs? What interest rate do you get with yours?
>> No. 4290 Anonymous
5th December 2013
Thursday 4:25 pm
4290 spacer
>in equities
>> No. 4331 Anonymous
10th December 2013
Tuesday 8:19 am
4331 spacer
Pensioners are being 'burgled' by insurers on annuities

A report has called for an unprecedented investigation into the “excessive” profits the insurance industry is making from annuities, adding that it was nearly impossible for a pensioner to know if they are getting a good deal.

The report said that some insurers in the UK were making up to 20 times more profit on an annuity than other products in their business. Research carried out this summer suggested that insurers make up to £35,500 profit on each £100,000 taken from savers over a 25-year retirement by investing the customer’s money.


It's quite surprising that there isn't a Compare the Market for buying annuities.

It has been well publicised that you shouldn't buy an annuity from your existing pension provider, but many people need their arses wiping for them and simply don't read the information they are given (they should get a very clear and easy to understand booklet from the Money Advice Service and key features documents from their pension provider/prospective annuity provider) and don't search the market for better rates. There is nothing complicated in contacting a few annuity providers and asking for them to give you a quote based on the value of your pension fund; the only variables are whether you want a guarantee period for if you die early (usually 5 or 10 years), whether you want a proportion to continue to be paid to a spouse when you die or whether you want the payment to be level or to escalate annually. It's a bloody myth that it's complex.

It doesn't help when annuity providers are able to make a nice profit from investing the pension pots without passing this on to future annuitants, mind.
>> No. 4358 Anonymous
14th December 2013
Saturday 6:35 pm
4358 spacer
The Graun are saying people in their 20s should be putting 12% of their salary away for retirement and even more if they leave pension saving until later.

>> No. 4359 Anonymous
14th December 2013
Saturday 7:47 pm
4359 spacer

I expect to die young, so fuck it.
>> No. 4360 Anonymous
15th December 2013
Sunday 12:03 pm
4360 spacer
I know someone who was made redundant in his late 50s, decided to take his pension early after his payoff had run out and then died a couple of months later. If he hadn't taken his pension then it would have been paid out as a tax free lump sum to his family and they'd have been about £100k better off.
>> No. 4733 Anonymous
20th January 2014
Monday 6:52 pm
4733 spacer
I've heard that if you get enrolled in a pension scheme the government have made it a bit of a hassle to opt out in the hope that people won't be bothered - something about going to the far end of a fart to request the necessary forms because your employer isn't allowed to give you one so they can't pressure you into opting out. Even if you do opt out your employer will already have made a deduction from your pay and you'll have to wait until the next payroll to get it refunded. At least, these are the gripes I've heard from colleagues.
>> No. 4734 Anonymous
21st January 2014
Tuesday 2:06 am
4734 spacer

And he'd have still been dead. Big whoop.

If you could make those kinds of predictions you'd have a very unusual and special life indeed.
>> No. 4736 Anonymous
21st January 2014
Tuesday 7:41 am
4736 spacer
It's quite a well known risk of taking your benefits early, especially if you're not doing something like drawdown. You don't need to be clairvoyant to know it's generally not recommended.
>> No. 4738 Anonymous
21st January 2014
Tuesday 5:11 pm
4738 spacer

Being dead is a known risk? I doubt it bothers him now.
>> No. 4746 Anonymous
21st January 2014
Tuesday 11:19 pm
4746 spacer
If you take your pension early then you're more likely to die prematurely. Now that's scientific fact.

Some people use their pension funds to buy an annuity before the age of 65 because they're retiring/semi-retiring early, but most people do it because they want to get their hands on the tax-free cash. It's a generally bad idea to do it if you're carrying on working full-time because you'll get a lower annuity rate for being younger and this will be fixed for the rest of your life, you're missing out on years of your pension fund growing and you'll be paying tax on the extra income which you may not even need.

Also, before you crystallise your benefits your pension fund is effectively another form of life assurance. If you take your benefits early in the form of an annuity, like the chap mentioned in >>4360, then you've lost this completely. A much more sensible option would have been to use income drawdown - you can take the tax-free lump sum and then opt not to take the income until you actually need it. The remainder of the pension fund that you have drawn down (e.g. if you wish to take £10k tax-free cash then you'd need to vest £40k and the remaining £30k would be in a post drawdown pot) would continue to be invested and should keep growing - if you were to die then it could be paid out as a lump sum, although after 55% tax*. However, I think most providers require you to get financial advice first and that can cost a fair whack.

*It's not actually as bad as it sounds. A £10k gross pension contribution would cost a basic rate taxpayer £8k. If they died after taking the 25% tax-free lump sum then the remaining £7,500 would be taxed at 55% (i.e. £4,125), so the total paid out would be the initial £2,500 plus the £3,375 = £5,875. As the net cost was £8k, this makes the effective amount lost in tax £2,125 (26.6%). For a higher rate tax payer the net contribution would be £6k, so the effective amount lost in tax is £125 (2.1%).
>> No. 4756 Anonymous
22nd January 2014
Wednesday 4:02 pm
4756 spacer
So when are interest rates going to finally go up high enough (or at all) to make saving and pensions worth while? Right now and for some time it has felt punishing to those who spent their lives doing the right thing while the BoE and government push everyone to breaking point and bend over backwards for those who were reckless and lived beyond their means.
>> No. 4758 Anonymous
22nd January 2014
Wednesday 4:22 pm
4758 spacer
Oh, Dr. Rev. Lord Ian.
>> No. 4760 Anonymous
22nd January 2014
Wednesday 5:37 pm
4760 spacer
Wouldn't it make sense to invest in a pension while things are low? Makes more sense to me than buying high.
>> No. 4761 Anonymous
22nd January 2014
Wednesday 5:39 pm
4761 spacer
Don't expect the BoE to raise rates yet, even if the unemployment rate goes below 7%, it hit 7.1% as of most recent data (released today). The expectation was that it wouldn't go below 7% until the second half of this year, or possibly next year, so I wouldn't expect any real rate rise until next year.

Also 'savers' are no different to anyone else doing stuff with their money as far as I'm concerned, the fact that it's in a bank account rather than in bitcoins or bags of flour doesn't make it special.
>> No. 4762 Anonymous
22nd January 2014
Wednesday 6:26 pm
4762 spacer

It does. Without savers you'd have no economy. See: Run on the bank.
>> No. 4764 Anonymous
22nd January 2014
Wednesday 6:51 pm
4764 spacer

Saving is synonymous with investment. Without depositors, a bank can't lend; Without lending, businesses can't grow. There's a happy medium, between the absurd velocity of money of hyperinflation-era Zimbabwe and the deflationary depression of present-day Japan.
>> No. 4765 Anonymous
22nd January 2014
Wednesday 7:19 pm
4765 spacer
Horses for courses. The key determining factor in whether to put money into savings or a pension pot is whether you want to see it again any time soon. Pulling money out of a pension fund is generally not a good idea.
>> No. 4766 Anonymous
22nd January 2014
Wednesday 7:26 pm
4766 spacer
Savings haven't been synonymous with investment for a very long time.

I never thought I'd see the day when .gs would extol the virtues of lending.
>> No. 4767 Anonymous
22nd January 2014
Wednesday 8:07 pm
4767 spacer
I thought the point of putting money in a pension pot was that you don't want to see it again any time soon and are locking it away for decades instead?
>> No. 4769 Anonymous
22nd January 2014
Wednesday 8:14 pm
4769 spacer
That's what he just said, contrasting pensions with the more medium-term investment of savings accounts.
>> No. 4770 Anonymous
22nd January 2014
Wednesday 8:16 pm
4770 spacer
Oh, right. Now I see. Time for bed.
>> No. 4775 Anonymous
24th January 2014
Friday 10:13 pm
4775 spacer
Polly has written a fluff piece about Steve Webb's decision to postpone putting a cap on Auto Enrolment charges for at least a year. It may be just me, but it seems like a meandering mess that glosses over the subject matter so she can have a pop at the wicked corporations (even though if you read the pension industry's response to the DWP consultation they are overwhelmingly in favour of standardising charges and making disclosure of them mandatory) and the nasty Tories (Steve Webb is a twat trying to grab headlines). I'm not convinced she actually knows the difference between a pension fund and a pension provider. In fact, it's worse than that - scaremongering and discouraging young people from retirement planning, when the average charge on a pension scheme set up in 2012 was a reasonable 0.51% (almost all of the money in schemes with high charges were set up over a decade ago) and there has been several reports recently warning that many are likely to face poverty in old age because they have barely put any thought to funding their retirement, is incredibly reckless. Polly is trying to perpetuate the narrative that pensions are confusing and a rip-off without really trying to understand the subject matter because it goes against what she wants to preach. She's misrepresenting Mitchell Johnson at the end; he's recommended having one combined annual allowance for pensions (which will be £40k for 2014/15) and ISAs (£11,880) which you can split how you like, but Polly has somehow construed that as meaning they're going to get rolled into one account. The only way I can fathom the line 'The Treasury would add £1 for every £1 saved, equal relief for all' from what I can see in the report (http://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/original/121123104830-costlyandineffective.pdf) is that she has completely misunderstood the recommendation about scrapping higher rate tax relief on pension contributions so that everyone gets the same % rate - I can find no mention of this outside of her article.

>> No. 4776 Anonymous
24th January 2014
Friday 10:26 pm
4776 spacer
>and the nasty Tories (Steve Webb is a twat trying to grab headlines)
That's not really a fair criticism. Steve Webb is in fact a headline-grabbing twat. Otherwise, you're spot on.
>> No. 4777 Anonymous
24th January 2014
Friday 11:18 pm
4777 spacer
>Steve Webb is in fact a headline-grabbing twat

That's what I meant. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Some of Polly's criticism of him is unfounded though:

- She is trying to make it sound like the DWP only yesterday announced that the charges cap would be limited to just Auto Enrolment schemes, and only as a hasty response to media pressure, whereas the BBC link in the OP from last September mentions that they were going ahead with a consultation on capping Auto Enrolment schemes.

- It's not really a U-Turn. The consultation paper, which ran until November, asked whether it gave employers sufficient time to get compliant arrangements in place (April 2014 for all companies staging after that date, April 2015 for all companies staging October 2012 to March 2014) but the Regulatory and Policy Committee last month pointed out the major flaw that they'd not really considered the impact this would have on pension providers. Plus, it's recommended that a company has at least a year to prepare for Auto Enrolment; telling companies that have to stage 10 weeks from now that they have to comply with a cap that they're hastily introducing is incredibly poor planning. It's much better that they postpone it and actually think this through than steam ahead.

It's hard to take any of Polly's article seriously. It's little more than blindly following statements from the Shadow Pensions Minister and then coming up with any old shite to try and reinforce what he's saying. You'd have thought her critical thinking skills would have kicked in before coming up with the equal tax relief line; if I contribute £1,000 then the government will match that will a further £1,000? How can she not comprehend how economically ruinous and unsustainable that would be?
>> No. 4810 Anonymous
27th January 2014
Monday 8:00 pm
4810 spacer

I can see why QE and low interest rates are bad for savings, but why are they bad for investing in pensions?
>> No. 4816 Anonymous
27th January 2014
Monday 11:27 pm
4816 spacer
They're not really. Pension funds tend to grow their value by a combination of playing the market and investing in high-dividend stocks. Interest rates don't really come into it, and a pension is generally long-term enough that QE doesn't really matter either.
>> No. 4854 Anonymous
29th January 2014
Wednesday 11:37 pm
4854 spacer
One of yesterday's Editor's Picks on the Graun was another opinion piece of pensions - this time by some bint at Investors Chronicle.


She's saying that under 30's should be removed from pensions and should invest in a new 'giant fund' instead. If she's going down that route then it would have been better to expand the State Second Pension, which is being replaced with a flat rate one, rather than this half baked idea.

She's mentioned that the OFT estimate there's around £40bn of pension money in schemes that offer poor value for money but, rather misleadingly for an article on young people and pension investing, has neglected to mention that these are almost all in old or smalls schemes which is highly likely won't be applicable to them. Is it just me that doesn't find the charges on my pension complex? I received a letter from my employer telling me what the charges would be, I received a Key Facts illustration telling me what the charges would be, I received brochures from Aviva with details of the charges on their internal funds and on the externally managed funds they offer (which I can also view from their fund factsheets), there is a charges section on my annual statement and if I look at my policy online it tells me the details of the additional charges I'm paying on some of my funds.

It's more a case of people not bothering to read the information they are given and they need their arses wiping for them. There needs to be a change of mentality more than anything; it's not uncommon for the value of a pension fund to be in the six figures by the time someone reaches 65 and they wouldn't neglect other aspects of their finances in this way - I reckon that people should take more responsibilty and review their fund choice at least every five years, consider transferring any old pension policies into a scheme with a new employer if the charges are lower (if the charges are higher than they should look at consolidating when they leave that job) and, as charges are continually going down, every 5-10 years or so they should review what they have and see if it would be better for them to set up a new pension policy and transfer their existing benefits in; many pension providers offer lower charges on transfers in than they do on regular premiums. Telling people how complicated and how hard it is to understand isn't the solution as that will just put them off; raising awareness so that people are more likely to shop around would be much more effective at bringing charges down and making the market more competitive, especially if it causes employers to put more consideration into having a good scheme for their employees.

I also don't buy her argument that existing pensions are too small to benefit from economies of scale. For example, Aviva's UK Equity Fund has assets under management of £9,799 million and their 40-85% Mixed Investment Fund has £16,830 million. Before the government launches a cap on pension funds they need to look closer to home first; NEST has an annual management charge of 0.3%, but it takes 1.8% up front of each contribution paid in. This makes the true cost of NEST 4% in the first year and it could take greater than 18 years for the overall charges to average out at below 0.5%. NEST should not be used for anyone aged mid-40s, but you won't see that mentioned in the Guardian fluff pieces because that would involve having a modicum of understanding of the subject matter. I wish they'd employ more specialist writers who are qualified enough to write pieces with merit instead of employing foghorns who mouth off from one subject to the next without really grasping a proper understanding of what they are spewing out.
>> No. 4855 Anonymous
30th January 2014
Thursday 4:24 am
4855 spacer
Nit.then.they.wouldn't.sell papers. Indeed they.still don't. it.they'd sell even less.

Apologies for the.punctuation, aim drunk and autocorrect is doing it's work.
>> No. 4856 Anonymous
30th January 2014
Thursday 4:29 am
4856 spacer
Last night before court is it mate?
>> No. 4857 Anonymous
30th January 2014
Thursday 4:31 am
4857 spacer
I wouldn't know.you PAEDO.
>> No. 4858 Anonymous
30th January 2014
Thursday 4:34 am
4858 spacer
Do ya rip.
>> No. 4859 Anonymous
30th January 2014
Thursday 4:35 am
4859 spacer
what does that mean,
>> No. 4860 Anonymous
30th January 2014
Thursday 4:38 am
4860 spacer
It's prison slang for shut up and do your time.
>> No. 4861 Anonymous
30th January 2014
Thursday 6:09 am
4861 spacer

>> No. 4894 Anonymous
9th February 2014
Sunday 9:32 pm
4894 spacer
The government are considering privatising the administration of the State Pension or, judging by the last line, the Guardian could be engaging in some Daily Mail style scaremongering.

>> No. 4895 Anonymous
9th February 2014
Sunday 10:25 pm
4895 spacer
Sounds like someone in DWP had a crazy idea, and the journalist conveniently left out the part where everyone else in the room pointed out just how crazy it was.
>> No. 4896 Anonymous
9th February 2014
Sunday 10:54 pm
4896 spacer
Why's it crazy?
>> No. 4897 Anonymous
9th February 2014
Sunday 11:03 pm
4897 spacer
I'd have thought that was obvious.
>> No. 4898 Anonymous
10th February 2014
Monday 3:01 am
4898 spacer
Evidently you thought wrong, so please explain.
>> No. 4899 Anonymous
10th February 2014
Monday 4:51 am
4899 spacer
OK, let's shine some light into that skull of yours and see if there's a brain in the way. If they can't make savings on efficiency or staffing costs, and still need to make a profit, where's the saving to the taxpayer going to come from?
>> No. 4903 Anonymous
10th February 2014
Monday 3:20 pm
4903 spacer
> If they can't make savings on efficiency or staffing costs
They will, because they have to.
>> No. 4904 Anonymous
10th February 2014
Monday 4:17 pm
4904 spacer
No, lad. Re-read the article. They literally can't. There's no more scope for efficiency savings, and they'd have to take on all the existing staff on their existing pau and terms, no redundancies allowed.
>> No. 4937 Anonymous
12th February 2014
Wednesday 6:42 pm
4937 spacer
The BoE have moved the goalposts, apparently we're not having the right kind of growth.
>> No. 4950 Anonymous
14th February 2014
Friday 6:28 am
4950 spacer
90% of people know that they can a better annuity at retirement if they shop around, but only around half can be bothered to do so - I'd say this is more a case of people not giving too much attention to one of the most important financial decisions they have to make than the system being 'broken', although it certainly has its flaws. It's well known in many industries that lazy customers who stick with one provider/insurer won't get the best deal, some people won't be happy until they don't have to take any personal responsibility for their own lives whatsoever and get their arses wiped for them instead.

>> No. 4951 Anonymous
14th February 2014
Friday 11:17 pm
4951 spacer
Thinking about it, the solution is bleeding obvious. If the government makes it compulsory for annuity providers to publish a table of their standard rates each week, say what £100k could buy someone on their 55th to 65th birthday, and gets The Pensions Advisory Service to compile them in one place then there's no excuse not to shop around and it could see rates rising. It really is that simple, no need for bluster and the FCA to investigate for a further year.
>> No. 5071 Anonymous
19th March 2014
Wednesday 4:04 pm
5071 spacer
In the budget they've said that they're increasing the limits for trivial commutation (cashing it in because the values are too low) from £2,000 to £10,000 from one employment and from £18,000 to £30,000 for your overall pension benefits.

If I was in my 50s or older with no pension benefits/none from my current employment I'd get auto enrolled and then cash it all in when I'm old enough - most of it will be subject to income tax, but you'd only be funding about 40-50% of it.
>> No. 5086 Anonymous
19th March 2014
Wednesday 9:09 pm
5086 spacer

Annuity rates will probably shoot up to try and make them attractive (shares in Partnership Assurance, an annuity specialist, have more than halved since the Budget). Back in the day Norwich Union (now Aviva) used to have absolutely terrible annuity rates because people who took out a pension with them had no choice but to use them for an annuity, when it was made possible to shop around their annuity rates suddenly went up to make them competitive. They're all a bunch of shysters.
>> No. 5087 Anonymous
19th March 2014
Wednesday 9:18 pm
5087 spacer
About time, annuities are a massive scam.
>> No. 5088 Anonymous
19th March 2014
Wednesday 9:56 pm
5088 spacer
>Osborne unveiled a series of reforms that come into force on 27 March, abolishing several technical rules that will mean pensioners can take more of their savings as cash immediately. He also promised by April next year to remove all remaining tax restrictions on access to pension pots. "Pensioners will have complete freedom to draw down as much or as little of their pension pot as they want, any time they want. No caps. No drawdown limits."

>The existing ability for pensioners to take 25% of their pension pot tax-free at the point of retirement will remain, but the tax rate on drawdown of the remaining cash will be slashed from 55% to 20% for most.


What 55% tax are they on about? As far as I was aware, drawdown income was taxed at your marginal rate and it's only taxed at 55% on death if your beneficiaries decide to take it as a lump sum. Am I missing something or is it the Graun not understanding money again?
>> No. 5089 Anonymous
19th March 2014
Wednesday 10:08 pm
5089 spacer
>> No. 5090 Anonymous
19th March 2014
Wednesday 10:24 pm
5090 spacer

I thought this poster was a joke at first. Then I found out it's legit.

Good grief.
>> No. 5091 Anonymous
19th March 2014
Wednesday 10:43 pm
5091 spacer
The thing I hate most is Hardworking. Hardworking people. Hardworking parents. Hardworking tenants. It's the worst fucking buzzword, even worse than that godawful One Nation shit.

Fuck all of them
>> No. 5095 Anonymous
19th March 2014
Wednesday 10:49 pm
5095 spacer

It's to contrast them with dolescums isn't it? Like people espousing "family values" to contrast themselves with gays.
>> No. 5096 Anonymous
19th March 2014
Wednesday 10:49 pm
5096 spacer
That doesn't mention anything about being taxed at 55% while you're still alive.
>> No. 5098 Anonymous
19th March 2014
Wednesday 10:56 pm
5098 spacer
The average voter is a mong, and politicians know this.
>> No. 5099 Anonymous
19th March 2014
Wednesday 11:07 pm
5099 spacer
Do you mean the image or its contents? I know those two cuts are real, but if that image is for real then evidently Central Office are back on the crack again.
>> No. 5100 Anonymous
19th March 2014
Wednesday 11:17 pm
5100 spacer


It's to appeal to the down-to-earth, normal, hard working, honest, sensible, normal, law abiding, tax paying, normal, hard working, honourable, decent, reasonable voter.
>> No. 5102 Anonymous
19th March 2014
Wednesday 11:21 pm
5102 spacer
The image is real.


>A Conservative advertising campaign drawing attention to changes to beer and bingo taxes in the Budget has been criticised as "condescending".

>The online advert said the 1p cut in beer duty and the halving of bingo duty to 10% would help "hardworking people do more of the things they enjoy".

>A picture of the ad was tweeted by Tory co-chairman Grant Shapps. ( https://twitter.com/grantshapps/status/446363611972534272 )
>> No. 5104 Anonymous
19th March 2014
Wednesday 11:49 pm
5104 spacer
Shame they couldn't help hardworking people do more of the things they need, like paying the leccy or getting to work.
>> No. 5105 Anonymous
19th March 2014
Wednesday 11:55 pm
5105 spacer
But they did do that, by raising the personal allowance.
>> No. 5106 Anonymous
20th March 2014
Thursday 12:20 am
5106 spacer
Yes, because clearly an increase in the personal allowance doesn't help you pay for beer and bingo.
>> No. 5107 Anonymous
20th March 2014
Thursday 12:26 am
5107 spacer
What are you even arguing against?
>> No. 5108 Anonymous
20th March 2014
Thursday 1:16 am
5108 spacer


>> No. 5109 Anonymous
20th March 2014
Thursday 1:30 am
5109 spacer
We could still have a very cold winter yet, Gids. It's not over.
>> No. 5110 Anonymous
20th March 2014
Thursday 1:52 am
5110 spacer
Jesus! I don't think I've ever seen quite so much Old Etonian jizzum roll down the chin of a newspaper before. Not to say it's never happened of course.

>> No. 5111 Anonymous
20th March 2014
Thursday 7:03 am
5111 spacer
To be fair, Gideon is the first Chancellor in quite some time to actually do something positive about pensions instead of just milking them to fill his coffers and not giving savers anything back in return. New Labour were absolutely terrible for people with money in a pension.
>> No. 5112 Anonymous
20th March 2014
Thursday 9:41 am
5112 spacer
Balls' response is that people will squander their money if they can take it all at once; Labour really hate letting people take personal responsibility for their own lives.
>> No. 5117 Anonymous
20th March 2014
Thursday 4:56 pm
5117 spacer

>Labour really hate letting people take personal responsibility for their own lives.

So what do you think happens when they do squander their money once they can take it all at once? They land on the safety net and cost everyone working many of our hexagonal pound coins worth in teabags and small dogs.
>> No. 5121 Anonymous
20th March 2014
Thursday 6:17 pm
5121 spacer
The average pension pot is what? About £25k? If you take the 25% tax free cash then either way you have £18,750 to either buy an annuity (an annuity rate of 5% = £937.50 a year before tax) or as a lump sum (if a basic rate payer then you have £15k after tax). When we're talking about sums like this you may as well take it at once and spunk it on a new kitchen and a holiday, although I believe most people would keep it in their pension and only draw it down when it's needed.

It's up for consultation rather than it's definitely happening, along with raising the minimum age for taking private pension benefits to 57 when the State one goes up to 67.
>> No. 5122 Anonymous
20th March 2014
Thursday 6:23 pm
5122 spacer
And what of slumps the market experiences and thusly in investment from funds comprised of pension savings that can and do lead to the dissolution of said funds?
>> No. 5125 Anonymous
20th March 2014
Thursday 6:42 pm
5125 spacer

>The average pension pot is what? About £25k?

Surely not? That's the average yearly salary in the UK. You're telling me that after 40-50 years of saving up, they only managed to save one years worth of mony?
>> No. 5129 Anonymous
20th March 2014
Thursday 7:13 pm
5129 spacer
An FT article from a couple of months ago says the Association of British Insurers have it at £33k, so not much better.
>> No. 5138 Anonymous
21st March 2014
Friday 6:44 am
5138 spacer
What of them?
>> No. 5139 Anonymous
21st March 2014
Friday 1:29 pm
5139 spacer

It's no worse than Toynbee; she's simply furious that people are to be trusted with their own money, I guess because it goes against her ideals. How much is she on? £150k?
>> No. 5140 Anonymous
21st March 2014
Friday 9:16 pm
5140 spacer
>What 55% tax are they on about?

Answering my own question, but turns out it's:

>3.13 Under the new system, everyone will be entitled to flexibility, regardless of their total defined contribution pension savings. Individuals will be able to draw down on these pension savings whenever and however they wish after the age of 55. Any amount they draw down will be treated as income and therefore subject to their marginal rate of income tax in that year rather than the current 55% charge for full withdrawals. The tax-free pension commencement lump sum (usually 25% of an individual’s pot) will continue to be available.


Polite sage because nobody cares.
>> No. 5142 Anonymous
28th March 2014
Friday 7:22 am
5142 spacer
Savers locked into rip-off pensions and investments could be given a free exit or moved to better deals, regulators will say next week.

The City watchdog is planning an inquiry into 30 million policies sold by insurance companies from the Seventies to the turn of the Millennium, The Telegraph can disclose.


Is there any wonder people don't trust pensions and life companies?
>> No. 5143 Anonymous
28th March 2014
Friday 3:17 pm
5143 spacer
I do wonder how in fucks name Labour can oppose the move.
>> No. 5144 Anonymous
28th March 2014
Friday 3:38 pm
5144 spacer
I can't find any mention of them opposing it. But they were calling for this to happen in 2012.
>> No. 5145 Anonymous
28th March 2014
Friday 4:47 pm
5145 spacer
I can't either. I think we've come a long way with pension charges in the past decade - in 2005 it was seen as acceptable for a Stakeholder Pension to have an annual management charge of 1.5% for the first 10 years before dropping to 1%, which is actually higher than when they were introduced in 2001. Now the average for new schemes is around 0.5%.

They really are bastards when it comes to longstanding customers, though. It's about time the light was shone on these practices.
>> No. 5146 Anonymous
28th March 2014
Friday 5:44 pm
5146 spacer
They said so several times following the budget, they have problems with self responsibility.
>> No. 5147 Anonymous
28th March 2014
Friday 5:48 pm
5147 spacer
I think you're confusing the story linked in >>5142 with the Chancellor's liberalisation of annuity rules.
>> No. 5156 Anonymous
31st March 2014
Monday 10:19 am
5156 spacer
This seems to have gone under the radar after the budget, but the government announced towards the end of last week that, with effect from 1 April 2015, the default fund for qualifying workplace pension schemes will be capped at 0.75% and they'll review it in 2017.

It's quite pointless by itself, but it may be stepping stone for a cap on the pre-2000 schemes with extortionate charges.
>> No. 5180 Anonymous
11th April 2014
Friday 9:53 am
5180 spacer
Steve Webb has said that the next government will have to look into increasing the minimum contributions for Auto Enrolment from 8% as it won't be enough for many.

Whether you agree with him or not, it's refreshing to have a Pensions Minister who actually gives two shits about the subject matter.
>> No. 5200 Anonymous
7th May 2014
Wednesday 8:31 pm
5200 spacer
Apparently we have one of the most sustainable pension systems in the world. God help everywhere else.

>> No. 5204 Anonymous
1st June 2014
Sunday 8:51 am
5204 spacer
>Employees will be able to put their money into Dutch-style “collective pensions”, shared with thousands of other members, in a radical shake-up of workplace pensions expected to be disclosed in the Queen's speech on Wednesday.

>Supporters say retirement incomes could rise by thousands of pounds in the so-called “mega funds”, which are regarded by some as less vulnerable to variations in the stock market.


I don't geddit.
>> No. 5205 Anonymous
1st June 2014
Sunday 6:33 pm
5205 spacer
That page won't load for me, but maybe they massively increase the benefit of the pension scheme for it's members by running as a not-for-profit and cutting out the fucking pirates who usually run these things?
>> No. 5206 Anonymous
1st June 2014
Sunday 6:44 pm
5206 spacer

>> No. 5207 Anonymous
1st June 2014
Sunday 7:26 pm
5207 spacer
If it's going to be organised by the government then it's bound to be a fuck up; as mentioned earlier in the thread, if you are enrolled into a NEST pension scheme (which was set up by the government so that every employer has access to set up a pension scheme) then there's the eye-catchingly low AMC of 0.3% but, because they take a charge of 1.8% of each contribution they receive, it takes nearly 2 decades for their annual charges to average out at around 0.5%. By comparison, if you went to someone like Aviva, Aegon, Friends Life, Scottish Life or Standard Life you'd have access to most, if not all, of their internally managed funds (which, by definition, are collectively pooled) for no additional cost to their base charges, which average out at 0.5% for new schemes. If you look at the main funds they look after they are fucking huge.

There's probably something different about this arrangement I'm unaware of, like your benefits at retirement. It sounds like something more suited to the public sector and combining all of the dozens of local government schemes into one. Also, the timing is strange; I can see the take up rate being very low because so many companies will have recently set up a scheme for Auto Enrolment and don't want to change.
>> No. 5208 Anonymous
1st June 2014
Sunday 7:51 pm
5208 spacer
>then there's the eye-catchingly low AMC of 0.3% but, because they take a charge of 1.8% of each contribution they receive, it takes nearly 2 decades for their annual charges to average out at around 0.5%.
... after which they'll average out below that figure. Obviously the net effect will depend on the performance of the fund at the end, and the contribution charge won't be levied on the return.
>> No. 5209 Anonymous
26th June 2014
Thursday 4:41 pm
5209 spacer
Apparently tax relief on pensions is going to be one of the electioneering 'battlegrounds'. The Centre for Policy Studies say it should be 50%, but only on the first £8k, the Lib Dems want it capped at somewhere between 20-30%, the Tories haven't come up with a plan yet and Labour want to keep it at 40% for higher rate taxpayers but cap it at 20% for additional rate taxpayers.
>> No. 5214 Anonymous
20th July 2014
Sunday 9:38 am
5214 spacer
The finalised details of the pension reforms unveiled in the budget will be unveiled tomorrow, following the consultation period:


>> No. 5215 Anonymous
22nd July 2014
Tuesday 9:32 am
5215 spacer

The minimum age for taking private pensions is going to increase in line with the State Pension (i.e. raise to 57 in 2028 and then stay 10 years lower than it), so if you do want to retire early it looks like you're going to have to be a BTL parasite.
>> No. 5216 Anonymous
22nd July 2014
Tuesday 1:53 pm
5216 spacer

Oh, and here's some delicious butthurt snake oil salesmen financial advisers after finding out that they're going to be funding the levy so that retirees can receive free guidance (which is more or less someone from the Money Advice Service reading a booklet and saying you can do this, this or this) when it comes to taking their pension benefits:

>> No. 5272 Anonymous
4th August 2014
Monday 11:06 am
5272 spacer
Last year the average value of a pension pot buying an annuity/going into drawdown was £35k, but that's inflated by high earners as the median was around £20k.
>> No. 5276 Anonymous
21st August 2014
Thursday 7:56 am
5276 spacer

I read something the other day that said the average pension contribution (including employer payments) is around 6-7% of salary for basic rate taxpayers and double that for higher rate taxpayers. As mentioned in the OP, you really are at the mercy of having a decent employer for any hope of a reasonable retirement.
>> No. 5341 Anonymous
29th September 2014
Monday 7:42 pm
5341 spacer
>although after 55% tax*.

Gideon's announced this is to be scrapped. Makes sense to me as the budget announcements should see a far greater number of people going into drawdown rather than buying an annuity. I can't see there being a large increase in it being used to avoid IHT as it's rather inflexible compared to the alternatives and there's also the lifetime allowance to worry about.
>> No. 5371 Anonymous
14th October 2014
Tuesday 3:17 pm
5371 spacer
It's in the news today that you can stagger taking your tax-free cash (which you could anyway) and Osborne is proclaiming that YOU CAN USE YOUR PENSION JUST LIKE A BANK ACCOUNT.

I presume there'll be measures to stop this being abused - a £100 gross contribution is £80 net, if you take £25 tax-free then a basic rate payer gets the remaining £75 for £60 = £5 quick profit.
>> No. 5373 Anonymous
22nd October 2014
Wednesday 11:53 am
5373 spacer
The Pensions Advisory Service has launched a pilot where they offered free guidance to 9,000 retirees, only 2.5% took them up. So much for Gideon's posturing.
>> No. 5413 Anonymous
17th January 2015
Saturday 10:04 pm
5413 spacer
OP here, if I take this complaint to the Financial Ombudsman Service do you think I have a case? Apologies in advance if it's tl;dr.

A couple of years ago at work we switched our group pension scheme from Aegon to Aviva - the charges were lower so I transferred my pension benefits across. Last November I found out that the annual management charge (AMC) on transfers in should be 0.3% but I'm being charged the standard 0.6% on it, so I queried this with them. Aviva's response was that the 0.3% AMC is only applicable when a new plan is set up and on the application form there's a question that asks whether the transfer is to go into a new plan or the existing one. I ticked for it to go in the existing one.

However I've been over all the literature from Aviva with a fine-tooth comb and at no point is there any mention of transfers having to go into a new plan in order to get the lower AMC - I'm not aware of any other pension provider having this requirement/question on the application form so I wrote back to them saying that the only reason I can think why they have it is to take advantage of not informing their customers of it, unless they get in touch and specifically ask about it - which many people won't, in order to take the maximum possible charges from their pension funds.

The latest response I've had from Aviva is that all options were available to me at the time (even though I was kept in the dark of them) and they simply followed my instructions. They also said that they're not allowed to give me financial advice and that I should contact an IFA - which is a massive cop out to me, as I'm not asking for them advice and have never wanted it from them; I simply want them to make their customers fully aware of the options available to them in the first place instead of making customers go out of their way to get in touch with them. They're saying they don't believe they have done anything incorrect so I can either go back to them again if I have any further concerns/additional information or go to the Ombudsman.
>> No. 5490 Anonymous
27th February 2015
Friday 8:02 am
5490 spacer
Labour want to cut tuition fees to £6,000 and they're going to fund this by capping the amount you can take tax-free from your pensions at £36,000 and changing tax relief on contributions for basic and higher rate taxpayers to a flat 30% while lowering it to 20% for additional rate taxpayers.


I don't think it's been entirely thought through - anyone with a large pension pot who would be affected by this will simply take their tax-free cash out before it comes into effect (unless they're keeping it in indefinitely to get around inheritance tax).
>> No. 5491 Anonymous
27th February 2015
Friday 11:25 pm
5491 spacer
Another populist Labour policy with no grounding in reasonable governance. Welcome to the future, gents, vote Labour at.your.peril.
>> No. 5492 Anonymous
27th February 2015
Friday 11:45 pm
5492 spacer
Don't you mean "vote Labour, unless you're rich?"
>> No. 5493 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 12:07 am
5493 spacer
Yeah, going after pension money, that's the fucking definition of populism that is.
>> No. 5494 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 2:41 am
5494 spacer
No, because 'tuition fees' doesn't actually mean 'money you pay', unless, fuck me, you're a rich fucker.

Actually it represents a complete turnaround from their universal benefits attitude from 2013.

It'll cost more than it saves.
>> No. 5495 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 4:32 am
5495 spacer
Oh really? Poor people don't get to pay tuition fee? Wow.
>> No. 5496 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 7:50 am
5496 spacer
Isn't it only high earners who actually pay off their tuition fee loan? I have no idea how much you have to earn for your repayments to be greater than the added interest but I don't seem to have made much headway in paying off my loan.
>> No. 5497 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 8:08 am
5497 spacer

It's about 18 grand, I think.
>> No. 5498 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 9:49 am
5498 spacer

£16,910 if you started study before September 2012, £21,000 if you started after. In either case, you only pay 9% of your income over that threshold, so most people will only have to repay their loans at a very modest rate.

As has been repeatedly stated on .gs, it's best to think of student loans as a graduate tax. You don't repay a credit card or a mortgage as a proportion of your income, and a bank won't let you off paying altogether if you're not earning good wages. Under the new system, the repayment threshold is almost exactly the same as the UK median income, meaning that you'll only have to repay anything if you're earning above average wages.
>> No. 5499 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 9:58 am
5499 spacer
Sorry, I wasn't entirely clear. I meant a rough point where what you're paying back is equivalent or greater than the compound interest added on. I do salary sacrifice at work so I'm paying back less than I should, as it knocks around two grand off my gross salary.
>> No. 5500 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 10:26 am
5500 spacer

No, the fault is all mine, I wasn't paying attention. The 'interest' being charged on student loans isn't really interest for the most part, but an adjustment for inflation. Under the old scheme, interest rates are tied to the lower of the RPI or the interbank lending rate plus 1%. The new system has a complicated sliding-scale based on your income, but most people will still only be charged interest at roughly the rate of inflation. In any case, no student loan will grow in real terms, just in nominal terms, because the only people paying actual interest are higher earners on the new scheme.

When considering how many people will repay, it's worth bearing in mind that loans are automatically cancelled after 25 or 30 years. Nobody really knows what proportion of graduates will ever pay off their loan, because it depends on long-term forecasts of wage growth and inflation. The treasury currently predicts a huge shortfall, so it's likely that we'll see another massive change in the student loan system within the next couple of years. Current forecasts are that less than 40% of loans made under the new scheme will be fully repaid.

>> No. 5501 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 10:53 am
5501 spacer
>> No. 5502 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 1:35 pm
5502 spacer
Well if we Greens had our way we'd scrap all the fees. Under the current system, although poor people aren't necessarily burdened with the loan, the taxpayer will always lose out in the long-term (it's like a PFI for higher education); rich people who pay their fees out of their own pocket get to avoid the inflation-tied interest and hence opt out of the graduate-tax-like system anyway, which is regressive; and as the Tories keep selling off the loan books there's no telling what conditions the former students will have imposed on them in the future. Best way to fund it, like pretty much all public services, is make it free at the point of use for all and raise progressive taxes on the rich.
>> No. 5503 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 2:29 pm
5503 spacer
What's the green view on pensions?
>> No. 5504 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 2:31 pm
5504 spacer
Not a clue. I don't know anything about pensions myself to be honest. I know I should find out, plan for the future and all that.
>> No. 5505 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 3:11 pm
5505 spacer
University should be more expensive and difficult to get into, and the repayments more harsh. Yesterday at University, two students were bragging about getting low 50s in their essays because they'd done it all in the last day and barely read anything. A lot of the people in that class are the same. They just don't care, and I think it's because they're not really paying for it. Taxpayers are paying for it. People measure how they should treat things by how much they paid for it. Those students would be more upset about dropping their phone than failing their essays.
>> No. 5506 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 3:33 pm
5506 spacer
I know what you mean, the other day I was on the bus, and I heard these little kids moaning about how much homework they had to do. Well it's my taxes paying for them to do that fucking homework, if they don't care and aren't really paying for it then they shouldn't get taught for free.
>> No. 5507 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 3:40 pm
5507 spacer

University should be free, it should be highly selective, and that selection should be based on criteria that are hard to fake, like IQ or the American SAT. Making university more expensive will just worsen inequality and reinforce the class hierarchy, as will increasing selectivity based on criteria like A level grades that are highly influenced by the quality of your school.

Also, build more grammar schools. Nothing else did nearly as much for improving social mobility.
>> No. 5508 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 3:57 pm
5508 spacer

Making higher education more expensive can only possibly exacerbate wealth inequality, and more importantly excludes the gifted from developing their talents for no food reason whatsoever.
>> No. 5509 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 4:22 pm
5509 spacer
>> No. 5510 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 4:24 pm
5510 spacer
Thanks for reminding me that the Greens don't know what inflation is.
>> No. 5511 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 4:44 pm
5511 spacer
If only we had a board we could use for engaging in political discussion.
>> No. 5512 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 4:44 pm
5512 spacer
No no, like all Greens I was just hiding a nugget of bullshit in my house of cards. As soon as someone spots it the whole thing, like our manifesto, falls apart under scrutiny.
>> No. 5513 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 6:34 pm
5513 spacer
Are we trying to become like America? Why can't we have free, or maybe just really cheap tuition fees?
>> No. 5514 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 6:38 pm
5514 spacer







>> No. 5515 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 6:47 pm
5515 spacer
Politics and economics are the same thing.
>> No. 5516 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 6:48 pm
5516 spacer

No it doesn't, because the expense comes in the forms of loans which need regular repayments of £30 a month from the go.


The difference between university students and little kids is that the university students chose to go to university and applied for the money for their university education. If they don't care about their course and just wash out, that money has been wasted.
>> No. 5517 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 7:10 pm
5517 spacer
>> No. 5518 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 7:15 pm
5518 spacer

More like America? Yes. Higher education these days is based on those that can afford it, simple as. Not based on ability, but affordability. Cuba has one of the best educational systems in the world.
>> No. 5519 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 9:10 pm
5519 spacer
If you're going to discuss other countries do it in /zoo/ OK ladm8?
>> No. 5520 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 9:16 pm
5520 spacer
If you are going to complain, go to /101/, okay m8?
>> No. 5521 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 9:48 pm
5521 spacer
So, what about them pensions, eh then, lads?
>> No. 5522 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 9:58 pm
5522 spacer

Pensions are shit. Run by robber barons who spend your money jizzing on coke whores. Fact.
>> No. 5523 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 10:13 pm
5523 spacer
Will this do? >>/101/18262
>> No. 5524 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 10:44 pm
5524 spacer


>> No. 5525 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 10:49 pm
5525 spacer
How can you discuss our economy without discussing government policy?
>> No. 5526 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 10:56 pm
5526 spacer
If the early posts in this thread are anything to go by, pretty fucking easily as it turns out.
>> No. 5527 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 11:48 pm
5527 spacer
As shit as they are I'd be very surprised if everyone on this board with a decent job wasn't paying into a pension.
>> No. 5528 Anonymous
28th February 2015
Saturday 11:52 pm
5528 spacer
There are no "decent" jobs in Britain. Especially for anyone younger than 35.
>> No. 5529 Anonymous
1st March 2015
Sunday 12:54 am
5529 spacer

I blame Thatcher
>> No. 5530 Anonymous
1st March 2015
Sunday 1:03 am
5530 spacer
Higher education is no more based on income than how it was before the tuition fees existed. Sorry to break it to you, I know reality can be hard to come to terms with sometimes.

Whinge because I only ever respond to people who haven't a fucking clue what they're talking about.
>> No. 5531 Anonymous
1st March 2015
Sunday 8:46 am
5531 spacer
Lads stop talking about jobs when you're not on /job/. This is a totally inappropriate board.
>> No. 5532 Anonymous
1st March 2015
Sunday 9:03 am
5532 spacer

You're a totally inappropriate board.
>> No. 5533 Anonymous
1st March 2015
Sunday 9:28 am
5533 spacer

>> No. 5534 Anonymous
1st March 2015
Sunday 7:36 pm
5534 spacer
>Higher education these days is based on those that can afford it, simple as.
I suspect you're trying to get a rise by talking shit, but just in case you're not, you should be aware that that's completely wrong. The value in the job market for a degree has never been lower, but neither has the barrier to entry. Practically anyone can blag their way onto some kind of degree, irrespective of their academic ability or financial situation, and they won't have to even start paying back the loan until they earn over £21k.

Anyone can afford a degree.
>> No. 5535 Anonymous
1st March 2015
Sunday 7:48 pm
5535 spacer

>Anyone can afford a degree.

We've had this argument before but I have to say I suspect it's only sheltered middle class twats who think this. Either that, or thickos who don't actually know what the word anyone means.
>> No. 5536 Anonymous
1st March 2015
Sunday 9:01 pm
5536 spacer
>Anyone can afford a degree.
No, mate. Just stop.

Teenagers and soon-to-be-students don't know about how cheap, and free most of the time, universities on the continent is. I wish we could make it more popular for our young to go there to study. Fuck England.
>> No. 5537 Anonymous
1st March 2015
Sunday 9:04 pm
5537 spacer
But wouldn't you need to be able to speak proper Foreign to go and do that?
>> No. 5538 Anonymous
1st March 2015
Sunday 9:20 pm
5538 spacer
A mate is studying in Denmark. All his lectures and materials are in English (although he is studying Chemical Engineering). It is free, as in he paid fuck all. On top of that, he gets grants and gets to drink Danish fucking beer.

Seriously, fuck England.
>> No. 5539 Anonymous
1st March 2015
Sunday 9:21 pm
5539 spacer
I don't think you understand how student loans work.
>> No. 5540 Anonymous
1st March 2015
Sunday 9:30 pm
5540 spacer
>It is free, as in he paid fuck all.
Apart from living expenses, etc.

>On top of that, he gets grants and gets to drink Danish fucking beer.
Yeah, but he's paying Danish fucking prices for it. Scandinavian pubs make London look cheap.
>> No. 5542 Anonymous
1st March 2015
Sunday 9:42 pm
5542 spacer
But when you talk about the affordability of uni what you're talking about (generally, not you specifically) is fees, when the reality is the only thing meaning some people can't afford to go to uni is the differential between the maintenance loan and the amount you actually need to live. Fees (as we have them today) are irrelevant to the affordability of uni. They are relevant in the United States. We don't live there.
>> No. 5543 Anonymous
2nd March 2015
Monday 11:44 am
5543 spacer

Doesn't matter, fags are cheaper.
>> No. 5544 Anonymous
2nd March 2015
Monday 12:39 pm
5544 spacer
The prospect of being in £25k+ of debt after graduation (if you even graduate, you'll still owe at least £10k if you drop out) is irrelevant to the affordability of going to uni? What planet do you live on where owing that much, even to the Student Loans Company, is not a serious consideration for you?
>> No. 5545 Anonymous
2nd March 2015
Monday 12:43 pm
5545 spacer
I think it's the bit about owing it to the Student Loans Company that makes it not a serious consideration. The terms of the loan are the best around and make it hardly a loan at all, and more of a graduate tax, as has been said.
>> No. 5546 Anonymous
2nd March 2015
Monday 12:56 pm
5546 spacer

We also have to consider that some people have young families to care for or elderly relatives who are dependant on them, or the financial responsibilities inherited from said relatives, or are just already in debt. There's all sorts of circumstances you're just not thinking of when you say "Yeah but you never have to pay it back lol"

Not everyone who attends university is a fresh faced youngster with no real responsibilities in life, and that's what I'm talking about. There are plenty of people who would like to go to uni but find themselves in a position in life that it's just not viable; often it is their own daft fault for making poor decisions in life, but often it's through no fault of their own, it's just the cards life dealt them.

But of course, naive UMCL (Upper Middle Class Lad, for future reference) can carry on thinking it's all just about that massive, practically free loan, and all the handouts they give you to spend on drugs.
>> No. 5547 Anonymous
2nd March 2015
Monday 12:58 pm
5547 spacer
>What planet do you live on where owing that much, even to the Student Loans Company, is not a serious consideration for you?
Earth, circa 2015, where people typically owe more than this on homes and cars. Which planet do you live on that £25k of pretend debt that has no impact on your life whatsoever is a serious consideration for you?
>> No. 5548 Anonymous
2nd March 2015
Monday 1:08 pm
5548 spacer
That's just incoherent. It doesn't matter how old you are or who you need to care for or how many elderly relatives or children you have, debt without burden is still debt without burden. If you want to say that those responsibilities may impede someone's ability to attend university, then you've got a point - but the loan has nothing whatever to do with it.
>> No. 5549 Anonymous
2nd March 2015
Monday 1:08 pm
5549 spacer

This is before you step out into the light of the real world and discover how the "Credit Rating" you had previously believed to be a work of fiction, actually follows you around like an ominous spirit and affects a surprising amount of things in your life. You're still going to want the loans for a house and a car, but nobody will give them to you because you have £25k of untouched debt already.
>> No. 5550 Anonymous
2nd March 2015
Monday 1:14 pm
5550 spacer

Does student loan affect your credit rating? I have 30k of debt with the SLC but I've had no problem applying for large personal loans since.
>> No. 5551 Anonymous
2nd March 2015
Monday 1:21 pm
5551 spacer

Depends on the rest of your credit history to be fair.

I've known people who come out of uni and found themselves unable to break their way into any form of credit besides those awful high APR low limit credit cards. I'd imagine the fact that they owe a huge amount of money and haven't ever made a repayment towards it is a factor in that.

If you're earning enough to make decent repayments on it, then that combined with your net income probably leaves you with quite a good credit score regardless.
>> No. 5552 Anonymous
2nd March 2015
Monday 1:22 pm
5552 spacer
Does a studet loan even effect credit rating though? I've heard contradictory information about it.
>> No. 5553 Anonymous
2nd March 2015
Monday 1:37 pm
5553 spacer

If you had any idea what you were prattling on about, you'd know that post-1998 student loans aren't recorded with credit reference agencies, and so have no effect on your creditworthiness. There are no affordability or default risk issues with student loans, because your repayments are deducted at source via PAYE.

Student loans aren't really loans in any meaningful sense of the word. If you can't afford to repay, then there are no consequences, your debt just gets wiped after 30 years. The real amount of your loan never increases, because the only people who are charged interest at above the rate of inflation are high earners who are making large repayments. No other loan works like that. They're just a really badly named graduate tax.

Young people understand all this, because sixth form colleges explain the system in depth. They know that they're not burdened with debt, they'll just pay a bit more tax at some point in the future. The proportion of young people going to university is at an all-time high, including students on free school meals; This strongly suggests that cost is not in fact a significant deterrent to tertiary study. If we have a problem, it is ignorant people making grand pronouncements.
>> No. 5554 Anonymous
2nd March 2015
Monday 1:40 pm
5554 spacer
Short answer: No. It doesn't get registered as a debt in normal practice.

A longer answer would mention the different system for 1990-98, and that the self-employed and ex-pats are responsible for their own payments.
>> No. 5555 Anonymous
2nd March 2015
Monday 1:46 pm
5555 spacer
>student loans aren't recorded with credit reference agencies, and so have no effect on your creditworthiness.
This statement incorrectly assumes that reference agencies and "credit rating" are the only data points lenders use in assessing creditworthiness.

>> No. 5556 Anonymous
2nd March 2015
Monday 1:57 pm
5556 spacer
They're considering the £50 or whatever people will be paying each month as part of the affordability calculation, in the same way they consider how much tax you're likely to pay each month. It's considered as expenditure rather than liability.
>> No. 5557 Anonymous
2nd March 2015
Monday 1:57 pm
5557 spacer

>I've known people who come out of uni and found themselves unable to break their way into any form of credit besides those awful high APR low limit credit cards. I'd imagine the fact that they owe a huge amount of money and haven't ever made a repayment towards it is a factor in that.

Generally, young people struggle to get credit because they just lack a history of borrowing. People often think of credit records as being purely negative and assume that they ought to be creditworthy because they have never been in debt, but really the opposite is true - it is necessary to build up a positive history of borrowing to show that you are a reliable customer. If you've been living in student accommodation and don't have a credit card, then your credit record is essentially blank.

Those high APR/low limit credit cards are purpose-built for people with limited credit history. Banks offer them to people who are an unknown quantity, because they limit the bank's exposure to risk. What builds up your creditworthiness is a long history of regularly and reliably repaying all sorts of debt: utility and phone bills, hire purchase, credit cards and overdrafts.
>> No. 5559 Anonymous
2nd March 2015
Monday 2:07 pm
5559 spacer
More generally it's a history of meeting commitments. Your utility bills are recorded with the CRAs as well, so switch out your PAYG brick for a contract phone as soon as you can afford it.
>> No. 5560 Anonymous
2nd March 2015
Monday 2:09 pm
5560 spacer

Exactly. The headline in the linked article was blatantly cherry-picked in the interests of sensationalism. The Mortgage Market Review mentioned in the article introduced much stricter affordability criteria, and student loan repayments are only one of many committed expenses that have to be considered when assessing affordability. All that's being taken into account is the reduction in net income due to repayments, the amount of the loan is completely irrelevant. Yet again, the student loan system works just like a graduate tax.
>> No. 5561 Anonymous
2nd March 2015
Monday 2:25 pm
5561 spacer
>The prospect of being in £25k+ of debt after graduation (if you even graduate, you'll still owe at least £10k if you drop out) is irrelevant to the affordability of going to uni?


> What planet do you live on where owing that much, even to the Student Loans Company, is not a serious consideration for you?

One that acknowledges the facts rather than pissing yourself about a 'very big number'.

They could charge £1m a year for all it'll matter to ~80% of graduates, and the only ones it'd affect then are those raking it in anyway.

>Does student loan affect your credit rating?

Not for the past 17 years.

>They're just a really badly named graduate tax.

Yes. The government's done itself a big disservice by not just implementing a direct graduate tax, since this is effectively what this is and I imagine this is more complex and expensive to implement than an actual, tiered grad tax.

>but really the opposite is true - it is necessary to build up a positive history of borrowing to show that you are a reliable customer.

Absolutely. For the record I suggest you all take out a credit card, make one purchase a month on it and make sure it's paid off.
>> No. 5562 Anonymous
2nd March 2015
Monday 2:31 pm
5562 spacer
>I imagine this is more complex and expensive to implement than an actual, tiered grad tax.
Which is easier to evade, debt or tax?

>Absolutely. For the record I suggest you all take out a credit card, make one purchase a month on it and make sure it's paid off.
I make all my purchases on my credit card because it's one of those ones that gives you money back. Apart from building my credit rating it's the only reason I have it - I don't really understand the point of credit cards.
>> No. 5563 Anonymous
2nd March 2015
Monday 2:48 pm
5563 spacer
Tax. Set yourself up as a charity, or buy a vanload of phones and drive them repeatedly across the border with Ireland to reclaim the VAT repeatedly. Or set yourself up with a foreign nominee company and funnel your earnings through that.
>> No. 5564 Anonymous
2nd March 2015
Monday 3:00 pm
5564 spacer
There you are then, so the student loan system is better than a graduate tax.
>> No. 5565 Anonymous
2nd March 2015
Monday 3:23 pm
5565 spacer
>Which is easier to evade, debt or tax?
Doesn't matter, since student loans, which aren't debts, are reclaimed via the tax system already. It's just poorly and inefficiently structured in it's current form.

You haven't shown what you think you have, nor are you responding to the same person.
>> No. 5566 Anonymous
2nd March 2015
Monday 3:24 pm
5566 spacer
The loan reclamation process that is, not the tax system (seperate discussion).
>> No. 5567 Anonymous
2nd March 2015
Monday 3:32 pm
5567 spacer
When you are born, you take on a "debt" that is never paid off, that is structured in the same way as student debt, but you get no say in it. It's called income tax.

>But that's completely different!
Is it?
>> No. 5568 Anonymous
2nd March 2015
Monday 3:43 pm
5568 spacer
I'm pretty sure newborns don't pay income tax, and tax isn't the same thing as debt because of this thing called meaning. Notice how you put debt in quotation marks? It's because it's not actually debt and you know it.
>> No. 5569 Anonymous
2nd March 2015
Monday 3:57 pm
5569 spacer
>I'm pretty sure newborns don't pay income tax
They do if they earn above the personal allowance. There's no age limit on tax.
>> No. 5570 Anonymous
2nd March 2015
Monday 4:32 pm
5570 spacer
Newborns don't earn. Graduates without jobs don't earn. There's no lower age limit on earnings and income tax.
>> No. 5572 Anonymous
2nd March 2015
Monday 4:34 pm
5572 spacer
Also yes, I put it in quotes because it's not a debt. Neither are student loans.
>> No. 5573 Anonymous
2nd March 2015
Monday 4:51 pm
5573 spacer
Not the other lad, but I thought their parents paid it if it's over £100 or something like that. Then again, I might just be thinking of investments which their parents have made for them.
>> No. 5575 Anonymous
2nd March 2015
Monday 5:00 pm
5575 spacer
You are, yes.
>> No. 5576 Anonymous
5th March 2015
Thursday 9:46 pm
5576 spacer
Getting back to pensions for a moment (controversial idea, I know):

If one has a suspicion of not making it anywhere near 70, should one consider opting out of a pension and simply taking the extra pay?
>> No. 5577 Anonymous
5th March 2015
Thursday 9:51 pm
5577 spacer

What makes you think you wont make 70? We have gene therapies now, m8. They can even cure ugly.
>> No. 5578 Anonymous
5th March 2015
Thursday 10:05 pm
5578 spacer
You can take private pension benefits from the age of 55, although they've recently changed it so that it will move in line with increases to the State Pension Age, e.g. when the State Pension Age reaches 67 by 2028 you'll have to be 57 to access your funds.

If your employer is paying in then you should join their pension scheme. For example, if you're on £18,000 a year and the company pension scheme is 5% employee gross and 5% employer then you'll contribute £120 net from your pay. Tax relief grosses this up to £150 and your employer will match this amount, so an overall monthly contribution of £300 has cost you £120. It makes sense to take advantage of the employee benefits on offer from your employer - it's effectively a pay cut if you don't join the scheme and miss out on their contributions.
>> No. 5579 Anonymous
5th March 2015
Thursday 11:24 pm
5579 spacer
That doesn't really answer the question.
>> No. 5580 Anonymous
6th March 2015
Friday 1:24 am
5580 spacer

Possibly, although you'd need to be very confident that you're going to die prematurely. I have a life-limiting congenital heart defect that should finish me off well before retirement, but I still pay reasonable pension contributions. It would be a right shitter if they discovered a cure just in time for me to live out a long, healthy and utterly impoverished retirement.

If you realistically expect to die prematurely, consider how important a lump sum could be to your dependants. Whether or not you have any intention of starting a family, you can't predict the future. If you die before the age of 75 your full pension pot can be passed on tax free, making a pension a particularly attractive way of saving for this eventuality. A life-limiting health condition may make it difficult or impossible to get life insurance, making it even more important to save.
>> No. 5581 Anonymous
6th March 2015
Friday 2:49 am
5581 spacer
>> No. 5582 Anonymous
6th March 2015
Friday 3:17 am
5582 spacer
>If you die before the age of 75 your full pension pot can be passed on tax free
I'm assuming this would apply to defined-contribution rather than defined-benefit schemes. The latter seem to have the disadvantage that if I felt I was going to pop my clogs at around 63 I would get a reduction for taking it early but no increase for poor health as I might get on an annuity.
>> No. 5583 Anonymous
6th March 2015
Friday 7:03 am
5583 spacer
It would depend entirely on the trustees/scheme administrators. There's the possibility that they'd let you draw your pension before the normal retirement age without any adjustment for taking it early due to ill health but it's at their discretion. Plus, the defined benefit pension is likely to be greater than an enhanced/impaired annuity anyway, especially when you consider that most people get an annuity that's level in payment throughout whereas final/average salary pensions usually increase in line with inflation or some other measure.
>> No. 5584 Anonymous
6th March 2015
Friday 2:01 pm
5584 spacer
Miliband's claiming he'd cap charges on drawdown plans, citing some charging as much as 2.75%. You'd have to be pretty thick to pay that much - Royal London's offering is 0.50% for plans greater than £60k, Scottish Widows' 0.28% for plans greater than 50%, LV's is 0.25% on plans above £20k, Aegon's is 0.3% on the first £250k, Aviva's is 0.30% for plans above £30k and Legal & General's is 0.1% above £30k, so it looks like a meaningless soundbite to me as I can't imagine anyone going into drawdown as a result of the Budget changes paying excessive charges unless they're an utter mong.
>> No. 5585 Anonymous
11th March 2015
Wednesday 10:42 am
5585 spacer
Hang on, lads, I've just had a thought.

I read that they're expecting people over 55 to cash in pensions worth at least £6bn in the 3/4 months following 6th April. Pensions funds generally invest in the shares of companies, although some older people may have a fair bit in fixed interest securities, money market instruments and property, so does this mean we're heading for another crash? I can't imagine selling shares worth billions in a relatively short period of time will be good for the stock market and wider economy.
>> No. 5586 Anonymous
11th March 2015
Wednesday 10:56 am
5586 spacer

We're headed for another crash anyway. Maybe they just wanted to find a way to pin the blame on old people.
>> No. 5587 Anonymous
11th March 2015
Wednesday 1:10 pm
5587 spacer
Divide and rule, innit. Plus, if they get voted out and there's a crash they can blame it all on Labour.
>> No. 5588 Anonymous
11th March 2015
Wednesday 1:15 pm
5588 spacer

It's almost as though the entire economic system was somehow inescapably floored. Almost.
>> No. 5589 Anonymous
11th March 2015
Wednesday 5:58 pm
5589 spacer

You'd have thought financial websites would monitor mop prices by now, but no.
>> No. 5590 Anonymous
12th March 2015
Thursday 11:12 am
5590 spacer
Agreed. They'd clean up.

I'll get my coat.
>> No. 5591 Anonymous
15th March 2015
Sunday 10:41 am
5591 spacer
It's expected that Gideon will announce in the Budget this week that people with an annuity already in place will be able to cash it in from next year.


If it's the annuity providers themselves working out the cash value then people will probably get fleeced - the last time they got in trouble was when then EU Gender Directive rules came into effect on December 2012 when it turned out they'd been offering far lower rates than they should have in the weeks before and after.
>> No. 5592 Anonymous
15th March 2015
Sunday 11:14 am
5592 spacer
Wish I knew what things like annuities were. Something that happens yearly, I assume by the name.
>> No. 5593 Anonymous
15th March 2015
Sunday 11:32 am
5593 spacer

Broadly speaking, apart from the State Pension, there's two type of pension provision in this country:

Defined benefit - your employer promises to provide you with a specified benefit upon retirement, usually based on your average or final salary and will depend on how many year's membership you've accrued within the scheme. These are growing increasingly rarer, so if you have the chance to join one then go for it.

Defined contribution - you (and possibly your employer) invest in pension funds, which can usually invest in the shares of companies, property and bonds/gilts. The value at retirement will depend on how much has been paid in, investment returns and charges deducted. One of the options you can do with your pension pot is buy an annuity, where the provider will agree to provide you with a certain level income for the rest of your life and this is calculated from life expectancy tables and gilt yields. I think the current level annuity rate for a 65 year old in good health is 5%, i.e. if you gave an annuity provider £100,000 then they'd pay you £5,000 a year, this example wouldn't rise with inflation or any other measure, so it'd take 20 years to 'break even'.
>> No. 5594 Anonymous
15th March 2015
Sunday 7:51 pm
5594 spacer

This makes me feel inclined to ask: what is the best way to avoid getting financially shafted? Honestly, sometimes I hear people ahead of me in life describing the state of their finances and it fills me with dread for the future.

I'm more inclined to work rewarding jobs for less money, is there any way at all I can offset this choice with wise investments? I gauge it as thinking about my hypothetical child in the future, I'd like to leave them something.
>> No. 5595 Anonymous
15th March 2015
Sunday 9:12 pm
5595 spacer

Save lots, save early, plan everything, keep in control. Good financial planning is quite boring, which is actually really good news - you don't have to be a genius or know some special secret, you just have to put in a little bit of effort to do some simple, common-sense things.

Use a cash ISA(1) to build up a rainy-day fund. Aim to eventually have about three months living expenses in this account. Having that reserve can stop you from getting into debt, which is absolutely vital. If you lose your job and have to live off your overdraft for a few of months, it could take you years and hundreds of pounds in interest to pay off. Avoiding unplanned debt should be your top financial priority.

Once you've got a reasonable cash reserve, get a pension. Pensions are fantastic, because the government allows you to contribute to them tax free(2). If you're a basic rate taxpayer, it only costs you 80p to add £1 to your pension pot; If you're a higher rate taxpayer or if you can use a salary-sacrifice scheme, it could be even cheaper.

Be organised about your finances. Buy yourself a suspension file box(3) and save all of your payslips, bank statements, utility bills and so on. Once a month, set aside an hour or two to check over your outgoings, looking for card payments or direct debits you don't recognise, bills that seem too high and so on. At the front of your file, keep a sheet of paper with the dates on which your various contracts expire, so you know when to shop around for a better deal. Saving a few quid a month on each of your bills can add up to thousands of pounds over the years. Once a year, set aside a whole day to do a personal budget and really go through things with a fine-toothed comb(4).

Think carefully about your expenses - you don't have to be a miser, but a lot of people waste huge amounts of money by spending on autopilot. Do you really use your gym membership enough to justify the cost? Is your takeaway lunch at work really worth £600 a year, or would you rather make sandwiches? Are you paying for subscriptions you don't use?

Be careful to avoid overcommitting yourself. Before you take on a big expense like a car loan, a mortgage or more expensive rent, make sure that there's enough wiggle room in your budget to cope with the unexpected. Getting into debt problems can trash your finances, so err on the side of caution. Think about what would happen if you fell ill, lost your job or got stuck with a big unexpected bill.

Read a book or two on personal finance. I like Rich Dad Poor Dad by Robert Kiyosaki and Plan Now, Retire Happy by Alvin Hall, but there are lots of good options. Avoid anything that makes grand pronouncements or promises, because those books are invariably get-rich-quick self-help bullshit.

(1) http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/best-cash-isa
(2) http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/discount-pensions
(3) http://www.staples.co.uk/fc-metal-file-box-grey/cbs/389273.html
(4) http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/family/money-help
>> No. 5596 Anonymous
15th March 2015
Sunday 9:56 pm
5596 spacer

Couldn't have really asked for a better response. Thank you very much, lad. Saved your post and have added those books to my reading list.
>> No. 5597 Anonymous
15th March 2015
Sunday 10:03 pm
5597 spacer
Equities are the best bet of beating inflation over the long term. If you're looking to invest and a) have enough in cash deposys and b) are contributing to your workplace pension then I'd recommend using your ISA (or NISA as people are trying to dub them now) allowance to invest in collective investments, which offer far more diversity than holding direct stocks and shares unless you have serious money to play with.

For someone in your shoes I'd be inclined to recommend the PruFunds range, but I don't think you can invest in them without some form of financial adviser. Otherwise I'd recommend using some form of fund supermarket, Cofunds only deal with financial advisers so I'd look at the charges of platforms like Fidelity, Old Mutual, Standard Life Wrap and Hargreaves Lansdown. Then it's a case of asset allocation and having this in line with your risk profile, e.g. fixed interest (off the top of my head Royal London Corporate Bond, M&G Optimal Income, Invesco Perpetual Monthly Income Plus, Fidelity MoneyBuilder Dividend), UK equities (Old Mutual UK Mid Cap), property (Aviva Property Trust) and International Equities (Baillie Gifford International) or specific geographical regions (Legal & General US Index, First State Asia Pacfic Leaders, Fidelity Emerging Europe, Middle East & Africa, etc.) and, if you're very high risk, something specialist (First State Global Listed Infrastructure, Axa Framlington Biotech, Legal & General Global Health and Pharmaceuticals Index). The same logic on asset allocation and that also applies to picking pension funds, it's not hard to beat the default fund and it's worth investigating. Asset allocation is far more important than specific fund choice and you can greatly reduce volatility within the investment portfolio. If you need help then we can sort you out.
>> No. 5598 Anonymous
30th March 2015
Monday 12:45 pm
5598 spacer
An investigation has been launched into claims the details of millions of people's pensions are being sold to fraudsters and cold-calling firms.

Firms are selling data about people's salaries, investment values and pension size for as little as 5p without their knowledge, the Daily Mail said.

It is feared it will be used to scam pensioners who can access their full pension pots under new rules in April.


Cold callers and scammers getting their hands on details of millions of pensioners details right before the pensiom changes kick in. How unexpected.
>> No. 5599 Anonymous
30th March 2015
Monday 6:50 pm
5599 spacer
To coin a phrase, scanners gonna scam.
>> No. 5600 Anonymous
30th March 2015
Monday 8:10 pm
5600 spacer
Why is cold calling legal anyway?
>> No. 5601 Anonymous
30th March 2015
Monday 10:00 pm
5601 spacer
It's as illegal as it needs to be.
>> No. 5602 Anonymous
30th March 2015
Monday 10:37 pm
5602 spacer

The TPS doesn't work. Telemarketers operating outside the UK can freely ignore the TPS, because enforcing the Data Protection Act against them is basically impossible. A large proportion of 'cold calls' are in fact exempt from the TPS, because there is an existing business relationship - anyone you have previously done business with essentially has carte blanche to call you, so long as the marketing message is veiled in the right terms.
>> No. 5603 Anonymous
30th March 2015
Monday 10:49 pm
5603 spacer
Neither of your examples support the idea that TPS doesn't work. No government can realistically write a law to prevent international companies targeting UK homes. Calls from companies with whom you have an existing relationship are not cold calls.
>> No. 5604 Anonymous
30th March 2015
Monday 10:53 pm
5604 spacer
>Calls from companies with whom you have an existing relationship are not cold calls.
That's a stretch. The mere fact I have my phone contract with a company is not an open invite to be bombarded with calls trying to sell me an upgrade. If I want an upgrade I'll fucking well ask for one.
>> No. 5605 Anonymous
30th March 2015
Monday 10:55 pm
5605 spacer
I bet if you read the contract you signed voluntarily, you'll find it is an open invite. Did you contact them to revoke your consent?
>> No. 5606 Anonymous
30th March 2015
Monday 11:37 pm
5606 spacer
2/10 SEE ME
>> No. 5607 Anonymous
31st March 2015
Tuesday 12:02 am
5607 spacer
Okay, here I am. What's wrong?
>> No. 5608 Anonymous
31st March 2015
Tuesday 12:15 am
5608 spacer
The idea that standard adverse terms operated by every player in a market with no out are somehow accepted voluntarily.
>> No. 5610 Anonymous
31st March 2015
Tuesday 7:10 am
5610 spacer
>enforcing the Data Protection Act against them is basically impossible.

It probably doesn't help that the Data Protection Act is seriously undermined by the DVLA being one of the worst offenders for selling on people's information.
>> No. 5612 Anonymous
1st April 2015
Wednesday 11:08 am
5612 spacer
According to research by the Telegraph, of the million or so people over 55 entitled to access their pension benefits, 300,000 of them will fall victim to a scam within the next year and around 50,000 will lose their entire pension pots to scammers.
>> No. 5613 Anonymous
1st April 2015
Wednesday 11:11 am
5613 spacer
To add to that - they won't be entitled to any additional state benefits if the DWP deem that they've willingly deprived themselves of an income by cashing in their pension/handing it over to fraudsters and will assume what income their pension would have provided them in any means tested calculations.
>> No. 5614 Anonymous
4th April 2015
Saturday 7:13 pm
5614 spacer

>they won't be entitled to any additional state benefits if the DWP deem that they've willingly deprived themselves of an income

This is only true for the 1st 6 moths. If you take your pensions out, give it to your kids then wait six months and claim JSA, housing benefit and Council ta benefit you will be fine.
>> No. 5615 Anonymous
5th April 2015
Sunday 9:36 am
5615 spacer
Is it really going to fuel a BTL boom?

The average pension pot is probably enough for a nice holiday, to fund some home improvements or buy a new car, but not much else if it's to be cashed in. Anyone taking enough out to purchase a BTL property will either a) pay shitloads in tax or b) have enough saved in their pension to buy a commercial property through it anyway.
>> No. 5616 Anonymous
6th April 2015
Monday 6:49 pm
5616 spacer

I read over Kiyosaki's book this weekend, lad. A massive thank you, it was an easy but informative read offering a perspective which I largely found to be true to my own experiences. I didn't agree with some of the political statements, but I can't deny the validity of his observations about debt, the trappings of the middle class, and the need to find other sources of income. I was annotating all the way through, and even made my own little 'cashflow' diagram. I know the idea is probably deceivingly simple to many, but I feel like I'm better set to avoid some of the bigger pitfalls both you and he describe.

I also like that his emphasis is not on accumulating money pathologically, but rather intelligently finding a way to greater freedom in life. That is something I appreciate, even if my own means and end are slightly different. I've also got Alvin Hall's book on my shelf ready for my next read.

Another thing I'm toying with that might not be relevant to this thread (or if you go by Kiyosaki, really should be relevant to this thread) is virtual stockpicking. There's always been a few notable companies I've wanted to invest in that I learned about through university, growing science/tech companies with excellent records in London and overseas, and now I'm finally learning to put some numbers to the idea. How much I can afford to put in, how useful it would be if I did, how long I'd need to do it, etc.


Thanks for this, too. My strategy isn't really a strategy at all yet, it's still a game to me. Judging by your spectrum I've jumped straight into the 'very high risk' area by looking at specific companies. When it comes to putting real money behind it I'll look at the safer and broader options, too.

I'm fascinated by that last list, as generally medical research is very interesting to me. It also strikes me as an area which is continually developing (though whether that's really the case and whether it's profitable or not are different concerns, I know).

To pose a question to both of you, are either of you concerned with the ethics of the companies you invest in? I don't mean to sound impertinent when I'm getting good advice, but something which puts me off putting my money into a collective fund is that I have no idea where my money goes, or the ethical makeup of each company. Perhaps it's precious of me, but that's why I hold the idea of investing in individual companies as quite important. I read the news surrounding them, I can learn about their actions globally (good and bad), I can be relatively sure the money I get back hasn't been grown through bad practice.

The website Corporate Critic (http://www.corporatecritic.org/) has been quite helpful. Still, is it unrealistic of me to want that degree of control straight off the bat with no experience? I did just run through a few of the companies on the AXA Framlington Biotech fund through CC and they all had very good ratings, anyway. Perhaps research funds are the way to go. I imagine the Pharmaceutical fund could come off far worse in this regard, for example.
>> No. 5618 Anonymous
6th April 2015
Monday 9:11 pm
5618 spacer
>My strategy isn't really a strategy at all yet, it's still a game to me. Judging by your spectrum I've jumped straight into the 'very high risk' area by looking at specific companies. When it comes to putting real money behind it I'll look at the safer and broader options, too.

I'd recommend completing a few attitude to investment risk questionnaires (I know companies like Standard Life and Royal London have their own, but I don't know if there's any decent independent ones, maybe Morningstar) and consider this alongside what your objectives are, how long you're planning to invest for and your actual capacity for loss, with particular emphasis on the latter - you may complete the questionnaire and think you're comfortable taking a high risk outlook, but could you really tolerate losing 20% of your money invested? What about 40%?

>are either of you concerned with the ethics of the companies you invest in? I don't mean to sound impertinent when I'm getting good advice, but something which puts me off putting my money into a collective fund is that I have no idea where my money goes

It is a very good question. It is a trade off of increased diversification against perhaps investing in companies you'd rather not. You can glean a lot of information from the fund factsheets, although this may only tell you the largest companies/industries they invest in and not all of them - a lot of funds will invest in tobacco firms.

Apparently I made this post in 2012 >>2839:

If you want to spread your risk a bit more you could always take out a stocks and shares ISA and invest in ethical OEICS and unit trusts; these funds are usually graded as light green (choosing the most ethical in each sector) or dark green (using positive/negative screening). Ethical funds tend to perform poorly compared to the market as a whole, although some hold their own.

If this is what you're after, then I'd recommend you look into the fund factsheets for: Standard Life Investments UK Ethical, Aberdeen Responsible UK Equity, Pictet Clean Energy, Jupiter Ecology, Sarasin Sustainable Water, any Ecclesiastical Amity fund, BlackRock New Energy, Impax Environmental Markets, JP Morgan Natrual Resources, F&C Stewardship International, Tridos Microfinance, First State Sustainability, Credit Suisse MM Ethical or Allianz RCM Global Agricultural Trends to see if any of those appeal to you.

You might also want to read up on the FTSE4Good Index, the Ethical Investment Research Services or Your Ethical Money (Cochabamba is mentioned) - http://www.yourethicalmoney.org/investments/

I have absolutely no idea if these funds are any good. Ethical funds are generally seen as slightly higher risk than their non-ethical counterparts, and may also be slightly more expensive, but if you compare (off the top of my head) Standard Life Managed v Standard Life Ethical, Royal London Managed v Royal London Ethical or even Aegon (Kames are quite good at ethical funds) then the ethical funds can actually poduce the stronger returns.

You could always consider a stockbroker - I think the ongping charges for someone like Redmayne Bentley is 0.75%.
>> No. 5623 Anonymous
22nd April 2015
Wednesday 3:45 pm
5623 spacer
The DWP guidance is that pension income is only taken into account on amounts above £50pw for JSA and £85pw for ESA - the tax-free cash isn't taken into account so, based on a 5% annuity rate, you could be on JSA and cash in a pension pots ~£69,300 (i.e. £52k net of tax-free cash) before any negative effects. I don't know how many people on JSA will have pension pots worth 2.5 the average annuity purchase fund.
>> No. 5638 Anonymous
1st May 2015
Friday 3:48 pm
5638 spacer
The Work & Pensions Select Committee have proposed increasing the age from which you can access your private pension benefits to 5 years below State Pension Age, so in a few years it'll go from 55 as it is now to 61 if they get their way. It wasn't that long ago you can access them from age 50.

Once they've done that they'll muck around with tax relief on contributions.
>> No. 5639 Anonymous
20th May 2015
Wednesday 10:18 pm
5639 spacer

The Mail, Telegraph and Mirror are all advocating for the over 55s to make pension contributions with the intention of cashing it in in the near future to take advantage of tax relief and the new rules.





They should stop tax relief the moment you start accessing your pension benefits.
>> No. 5640 Anonymous
20th May 2015
Wednesday 10:32 pm
5640 spacer
Also, I've just noticed that the Daily Mail infographic is wrong for the higher rate taxpayer. If they paid in £600 then tax relief on the contribution would gross it up to £750 and they'd be able to claim a tax refund (or adjustment to their tax code) of £150 through their self assessment.

If they wanted £1,000 to go in their pension then they'd still have to pay in £800 and claim the £200 rebate later on. There's around 250,000 higher rate taxpayers who don't realise they need to claim the higher rate relief themselves through their self assessment, it'd cost billions if they did.
>> No. 5641 Anonymous
21st May 2015
Thursday 7:51 pm
5641 spacer
>There's around 250,000 higher rate taxpayers who don't realise they need to claim the higher rate relief themselves through their self assessment, it'd cost billions if they did.

Yeah I used to be one of those. I am PAYE but earn a mint. I don't have any other sources of income, yet every year I would faithfully fill out my tax return with the three numbers from my P60 and always somehow owe HMRC a grand.

Started contributing slightly extra to my pension, declare it on the form and now they send me about a grand every year. Go figure.
>> No. 5642 Anonymous
22nd May 2015
Friday 8:29 pm
5642 spacer
The Daily Mail are reporting that Mumsnet are still mad at being forced to pay pension contributions for their nannies because of auto-enrolment.


On a more serious note, many elderly/disabled people have been distressed after receiving warnings from The Pensions Regulator that they must do the same for their carers or face fines.
>> No. 5643 Anonymous
22nd May 2015
Friday 8:42 pm
5643 spacer
>Families will face a £400 fine and a possible jail-term if they do not pay into a pension for their nanny, cleaner or carer
>Employees face £400 fine and possible jail-term if they do not comply
Typical modern journalism.
>> No. 5644 Anonymous
22nd May 2015
Friday 9:23 pm
5644 spacer
How hard is it to get a job at the Mail? From what I can gather from browsing Mail Online the only ability you need is to be able to turn on a computer - anything above this is a bonus.
>> No. 5645 Anonymous
22nd May 2015
Friday 10:01 pm
5645 spacer
I think you can put in a backdated claim all the way back to the 2011/12 tax year on any pension contributions while you were in the higher/additional rate tax band. Have a word with HMRC if it's relevant.
>> No. 5646 Anonymous
22nd May 2015
Friday 10:06 pm
5646 spacer

It's hard to find highly qualified folks with the Mail's special brand of universal loathing.
>> No. 5647 Anonymous
22nd May 2015
Friday 10:20 pm
5647 spacer

They're not necessarily bad journalists. The problem with online journalism is the excruciating time pressure. Because there's no daily print deadline, everyone is racing to get the story out first.

The author of that piece is a trainee with just over a year on the job, who would be lucky to get an hour to paraphrase whatever press release was chucked on her desk. The sub-editor probably got less than fifteen minutes to tidy the piece up, pick out a couple of stock photos from the archive, write the headline and captions, and upload it to the CMS. Once you factor in unpaid overtime, trainees at the Mail (and most papers) are barely making minimum wage; With hard work, determination and a little luck, they may eventually earn as much as nine pounds an hour.

The Mail are in a position to be very picky about recruitment - they take on about 20 graduates a year, from a pool of thousands of applicants. They're one of the better papers in that respect, as many of their less financially viable competitors are heavily reliant on unpaid interns to run the news desk.

The problem isn't the staff, but the business model of modern online journalism, which demands incredible amounts of 'content' to be churned out as quickly as humanly possible. The celebrity tittle-tattle in the sidebar is what generates the vast majority of the Mail's pageviews; The news content is just filler to provide a veneer of legitimacy and give people something to rant about in the comments section. Over in the print world, there's no money for proper reporting, so column inches are filled with reworded wire pieces and frothing opinion.
>> No. 5648 Anonymous
23rd May 2015
Saturday 9:59 am
5648 spacer
>many of their less financially viable competitors are heavily reliant on unpaid interns to run the news desk.

Didn't it turn out that the Graun were one of the worst offenders for this while at the same time running a very vocal campaign against unpaid internships? It's been a while since I've read the Eye, so I'm a bit hazy on this.
>> No. 5649 Anonymous
23rd May 2015
Saturday 7:58 pm
5649 spacer
Wouldn't be surprising given their record on things such as tax avoidance too.
>> No. 5654 Anonymous
25th May 2015
Monday 5:24 pm
5654 spacer
Fraudsters are posing as members of Pension Wise, i.e. the governments free guidance service, to con people out of their money.


Apparently in the first couple of days of this tax year 1 million people rang HMRC rather than using the Pension Wise service. I don't think there was enough awareness of what the changes actually mean for the public and there'll be more sob stories like this.

Anyone with >£30,000 in a defined benefit pension must take financial advice if they want to transfer it to a personal pension to access their funds flexibly. Hundreds of IFAs have complained that many people are ringing them up and saying they'll slip them a bit of money if they lie and say they've given them advice - these people aren't prepared to pay for full financial advice so are ripe for scamming. Even if they did pay for full financial advice many advisers would recommend to stay in the scheme and would rather walk away than go through the insistent client process for fear of getting sued/a complaint against them once they'd cashed in their pension and run out of money.
>> No. 5655 Anonymous
25th May 2015
Monday 6:02 pm
5655 spacer
>Even if they did pay for full financial advice many advisers would recommend to stay in the scheme and would rather walk away than go through the insistent client process for fear of getting sued/a complaint against them once they'd cashed in their pension and run out of money.
This is the trouble with the masses being deluded into thinking they know what's best for themselves. They want to be able to make decisions without accepting the consequences. They like to hold the gun but don't like to hear "I told you so" when they invariably shoot themselves in the foot with it.
>> No. 5656 Anonymous
25th May 2015
Monday 6:38 pm
5656 spacer
Most people will manage perfectly fine. It's just a minority who are piss poor at managing their finances and you can guarantee they'd be the ones to complain loudest if it goes tits up for them, especially if there's some form of no win, no fee lawyer encouraging them to blame it on a financial adviser.
>> No. 5657 Anonymous
25th May 2015
Monday 7:03 pm
5657 spacer
Just like how 80% of investors think they perform above the average.
>> No. 5658 Anonymous
25th May 2015
Monday 7:10 pm
5658 spacer
That's not impossible.
>> No. 5659 Anonymous
25th May 2015
Monday 7:22 pm
5659 spacer
Not entirely impossible, but the outliers have to be really fucking hopeless for it to be the case.
>> No. 5660 Anonymous
25th May 2015
Monday 7:23 pm
5660 spacer
It's a simple case of managing your income so that you'll meet your expenditure. If you're in drawdown then it's simple - if you're relying on this fund to provide a predominant part of your income in retirement then keep withdrawals to around 4-5% of the policy value or, for another rule of thumb, 90% of GAD income (i.e. 60% of the 150% maximum on capped drawdown plans). Either have the fund you'll be taking the income from as a money market fund or a very low risk/stable fund where there's little risk of negative pound cost averaging (or pound cost ravaging as pension companies are trying to dub it). That's all there is to it.
>> No. 5661 Anonymous
4th June 2015
Thursday 10:17 pm
5661 spacer
Scottish Widows have revealed that they've had 185,000 enquiries since the pension freedoms came into effect, of which 70% (just under 130,000) entirely cashed their pension in. The average pot cashed in was below £20,000.


Friends Life, on the other hand, have fobbed their customers off for two months before announcing that they can't facilitate a partial withdrawal (UFPLS) and they'd either have to cash in the lot, buy an annuity or transfer it elsewhere.

>> No. 5680 Anonymous
10th June 2015
Wednesday 7:59 am
5680 spacer
Pensions freedoms in CRISIS.


It's almost as if the whole thing was rushed through as a pre-election bribe.
>> No. 5685 Anonymous
29th June 2015
Monday 9:36 pm
5685 spacer
Latest estimates have the tax man taking £1.2billion this financial year from people taking advantage of the pensions freedoms.

>> No. 5686 Anonymous
1st July 2015
Wednesday 8:06 pm
5686 spacer
Would now be a good time to switch more of my pension into funds investing in Europe or should I wait until the shit hits the fan more?
>> No. 5687 Anonymous
1st July 2015
Wednesday 10:08 pm
5687 spacer
Shit hasn't really hit the fan yet, stocks wise. We're still in the middle of a big stocks bubble.

Get it away from China though for God's sake. It hasn't been in the news much but the Chinese stock market is collapsing.

>> No. 5688 Anonymous
1st July 2015
Wednesday 10:57 pm
5688 spacer
Fixed interest funds have had a bit of a fall recently due to a large bond sell off.

Wouldn't it make sense to buy low? I'm assuming most people here will have 30-40 years until they access their pensions. One crucial factor that often gets overlooked in investing is the date you actually buy and sell units, even a couple of weeks either way can make quite a lot of difference.
>> No. 5689 Anonymous
2nd July 2015
Thursday 12:38 pm
5689 spacer

Actually, although most equity sectors have fallen 4-6% over the last month, it's not significant enough to warrant messing around with my investment strategy in the hopes of exploiting a fall in the market.
>> No. 5690 Anonymous
2nd July 2015
Thursday 1:23 pm
5690 spacer

Diversified buy and hold is the only sensible strategy for an individual investor. Transaction costs will rapidly erode any advantage you might gain by actively trading.


It has been known for years that Chinese equities have been massively overinflated due to capital control. Foreign investors have historically stayed away from Chinese market because of this (and the difficulty of investing directly in China), but the increasingly desperate search for a safe harbour has brought a lot of foreign money into the Chinese markets over the last year or so. The CPC are getting increasingly nervous about the formation of a bubble, so they are pre-emptively deflating that bubble by relaxing capital control.

It's worth bearing in mind that most of the companies in the SSE Composite are state owned in one way or another. The level of state control over both trading and the biggest listed companies mean that the SSE is a market unlike any other.
>> No. 5691 Anonymous
2nd July 2015
Thursday 2:00 pm
5691 spacer
>Transaction costs will rapidly erode any advantage you might gain by actively trading.

Pension funds, lad. Unless you have a SIPP then you'll only be able to invest in ~140 insured collective funds. Most providers offer free switching so the only real risk is missing out on any gain in the market while they switches take place.
>> No. 5692 Anonymous
2nd July 2015
Thursday 2:11 pm
5692 spacer

The same logic applies to choosing a pension fund - trackers with very low management fees will on average massively outperform actively traded funds that take a bigger cut.
>> No. 5693 Anonymous
2nd July 2015
Thursday 2:36 pm
5693 spacer

It isn't as clear cut for pension funds, unless you're on a platform, as most providers will have their own range of actively managed funds available for no extra charge. You're also constrained by the limited selection of funds.

For example, under my plan the BlackRock Aquila UK Index fund has the same charges as the actively managed Aviva UK Equity fund but the Aviva fund has outperformed it. However, the Old Mutual Mid Cap fund has an additional annual TER of 0.85% but I believe it's worth it because it's blown them both out of the water. If I had the chance I'd invest in a similar tracker, like the HSBC 250 Index, but unfortunately that isn''t an option.
>> No. 5694 Anonymous
3rd July 2015
Friday 11:33 am
5694 spacer
Unsurprisingly, the removal of the 55% tax charge on lump sum death benefits for crystallised funds/funds held by those over 75 means that more people are planning on using their pension as a vehicle to pass on their estate and potentially avoid Inheritance Tax.

>> No. 5695 Anonymous
4th July 2015
Saturday 8:13 am
5695 spacer
I have no idea why the Guardian have called this a raid on pension pots, but it looks like the Government are going to reduce the amount of tax relief available on contributions by additional rate taxpayers.


It's little more than a token gesture to show they're getting tough on high earners, as it's likely they can switch to salary sacrifice/a net pay arrangement and they'll still get full tax relief on it.

>avoid Inheritance Tax.

I'm sure that the coalition government said the nil-rate band of £325k (£650k for a couple) was to be frozen until 2018 or 2019. Osborne has found a way around this by introducing an allowance of £175k per person on your main residence. It's now effectively £1million, but I'm sure I read that residences all the way up to £2.35million can still get some relief.

>> No. 5696 Anonymous
8th July 2015
Wednesday 5:58 pm
5696 spacer
Osborne hinted today that he's considering scrapping tax relief on pension contributions and making income taken out free from tax. In effect, they'll be like ISAs you can't access until you're old but you'll be able to benefit from employer contributions and the tax efficient growth of pension funds.
>> No. 5697 Anonymous
9th July 2015
Thursday 6:31 am
5697 spacer

Tax relief on pensions is a bit of a con.

I know it's classed as tax deferral, because you'll be taxed on the income when you take it out, but it's far more beneficial for higher rate taxpayers as it's very likely they'll be in a lower tax band when they draw an income from it - 40% tax relief when the contribution is made, 20% tax paid when the income is taken out.
>> No. 5719 Anonymous
20th July 2015
Monday 7:48 am
5719 spacer
I'm not entirely sure what they're getting at, but the Guardian are trying to claim the fact that men are more likely to save into a pension than women is evidence of the gender pay gap.

>> No. 5720 Anonymous
20th July 2015
Monday 8:24 am
5720 spacer
Don't give them the time of day please.
>> No. 5721 Anonymous
20th July 2015
Monday 8:55 am
5721 spacer
I don't think the personal finance team for any newspaper, other than the FT, has the faintest understanding of what they're on about. The Telegraph's decline has been quite remarkable.
>> No. 5722 Anonymous
21st July 2015
Tuesday 7:34 am
5722 spacer
Which? are claiming that those taking advantage of the pensions freedoms with a new flexi-access drawdown plan face a 'lottery' of whether they get ripped off by their provider because the system is 'madly complex'.


An annual charge of 0.5% on a pot of £100,000 equates to £500 which, to me at least, doesn't seem overly excessive.

I don't really buy that shopping around is hard, overly complex or that the insurers make it hard to make an informed decision. The website for each pension provider has a section with the product charges and a list with the fund range and any additional charges. It's in plain black and white. You can even request an illustration which shows the effect of charges on your plan. It'd be better if Which? spent their efforts explaining the various charges to people so they could try and get their heads around it, as it is fairly straightforward, rather than informing them how complex it is and hard to understand.

Also, I don't think LV will always be the cheapest. They have a product charge of 0.25% on the first £1million invested and I think the fund charges start at 0.23%, although I'm sure these funds under perform against their benchmarks by some margin, but that's only if you take your entire tax-free lump sum at the outset. If you want to stagger it and take it in several goes then their product charge rises from their simplified charge of 0.25% up to 0.55%. It's also 0.55% for plans below £20k, so won't necessarily be the best deal for anyone with a relatively small pot.
>> No. 5723 Anonymous
21st July 2015
Tuesday 2:44 pm
5723 spacer
>Low pay still experienced by women is a contributing factor towards the worrying gap between how much men and women save for retirement.
>Low pay is a contributing factor

So amusingly, in fact, you couldn't be more incorrect in claiming the article says the pensions statistics are "evidence of the gender pay gap".
>> No. 5724 Anonymous
21st July 2015
Tuesday 5:54 pm
5724 spacer
They've changed the headline, it originally said about the gender pay gap.
>> No. 5725 Anonymous
22nd July 2015
Wednesday 7:49 am
5725 spacer

I've read a bit more in to this. Which? have based their results on investing in the Henderson Cautious Managed fund, so their findings are meaningless if you're not planning on investing entirely in this fund. There's no way someone would use a provider like AJ Bell or Hargreaves Lansdown and invest in collectives; they'd most likely be a DIY investor putting their funds in ETFs and direct shareholdings and only paying a couple of hundred £ a year. If you take out a plan from an insurer chances are you'd invest in their own fund range with no/very little extra charges. It also depends how big your pension pot is as to which plan is most suitable for you. The only worthwhile thing to take from it is that you could have ended up with a cheaper contract elsewhere, but some people may be happy with this if their main driver isn't cost and instead is service levels, fund range, performance, etc.

In other news, latest figures estimate that only 222,000 of the ~600,000 people reaching State Pension age in the 12 months from April 2016 will be entitled to the new flat-rate pension in full.


A lot of occupational schemes contracted out of the additional State Pension, which means they paid less in National Insurance and in return will have either built up Guaranteed Minimum Pension in a defined benefit scheme or will have had NI rebates paid into a defined contribution plan.

I wonder if the government knew little over a third of pensioners would be entitled to the full State Pension when they came up with this plan?
>> No. 5726 Anonymous
27th July 2015
Monday 6:50 pm
5726 spacer

I read something in the FT today saying they're expecting the consultation on tax relief on pension contributions means that it'll be scrapped completely.

Tax relief costs over £30bn a year, two thirds of which is for higher and additional rate taxpayers, so it's not entirely surprising they want to do something about it as it dwarfs the amount collected in tax on pension income. They put the point across that most people aren't aware of it (or at least appreciate the value of it) so they could save billions with it slipping under the radar, relatively speaking.
>> No. 5727 Anonymous
27th July 2015
Monday 10:11 pm
5727 spacer
I can't find the article. Source? I have an FT account btw so a link will do.
>> No. 5728 Anonymous
28th July 2015
Tuesday 6:02 am
5728 spacer
It might have been on the FT Adviser site, actually. I like keeping track of what's going on in the world of financial advice and their view of developments, even if it's mainly them complaining about the FCA and the Ombudsman Service.
>> No. 5731 Anonymous
12th August 2015
Wednesday 7:53 am
5731 spacer
Research by PwC finds that giving pensions the same tax regime as ISAs is more popular than the current system. They found that most people don't actually understand the current system, but would rather they were taxed while they were still working than in retirement.


Towers Watson have also said they'd expect the system to change, as Gideon stating he wants any reforms to be sustainable means they're going with the cheapest possible option.
>> No. 5753 Anonymous
12th September 2015
Saturday 10:09 am
5753 spacer
The Mail are stepping up their campaign about the new State Pension and how the government announcements about it have been misleading due to the number of people whom won't recieve the full amount.

>The Coalition unveiled a new flat-rate pension, to be introduced from April 2016. Ministers claimed this payment of around £148 a week would end the inequality, and that everyone with 35 years of contributions would qualify for the full amount.

>However, a Money Mail investigation earlier this year found that just 37 per cent of those retiring in the first year of the scheme would meet the requirements. Many of those who would fail to qualify were in final salary pension schemes.

>Now, figures from the Department for Work and Pensions show that in the first ten years of the new state pension, around 2.4million people will miss out on £148 a week – of which the majority will be women. Many will claim more than under the current system – but still significantly less than they expected.

>In the first year, around 405,000 people are expected to claim. Just 20,000 women will get the full amount compared to 130,000 men. From April 2017, 30,000 women will qualify against 140,000 men. In 2018, 30,000 women will get the full amount compared to 120,000 men.

>In total just 80,000 women out of 1.2million people reaching state pension age in 2016, 2017 and 2018 will receive £148 a week or more.


>Hundreds of thousands of workers will lose an average of £55 a week from their flat-rate state pension when it is introduced in April, figures reveal.

>Of the five million who will qualify for the supposed universal payout of £151.25 a week in the first ten years, 2.4million will get less than the full amount. By 2035, four million retirees will have missed out.

>Those affected are workers who have contracted out of the state second pension (also known as Serps) at some point in their career – typically because they were in a final salary scheme. Many others hit will have a defined contribution pension and were encouraged to contract out and save into a private scheme instead.

>Anyone who has been contracted out since before 1997 will have an average of £55 deducted. Those who contracted out after this date will have an average of £20 taken away. It is the latest in a string of bitter disappointments and broken promises for a generation of workers who believed anyone who worked full-time for 35 years would be entitled the new flat-rate pension of £151.25.

>Neil Duncan-Jordan, of campaign group the National Pensioners Convention, said: 'The new pension was supposed to be much simpler than the old system but that has turned out to be a nonsense. It is a dog's breakfast, and we face decades more of this confusion. A lot of people are going to get far less than they expected and it is appalling they have not been given proper explanations of how things are going to work. Ministers have been disingenuous about what is going on.'


Naturally, the comments are a mixture of blaming IDS, refugees and dolescum.
>> No. 5755 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 9:21 pm
5755 spacer
Just started a new job in the NHS. My wages are being garnished for an NHS pension. Not sure if I want to stay in the NHS. Should I opt-out of the pension scheme?
>> No. 5756 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 9:40 pm
5756 spacer
Assuming it's defined-benefit, if you manage to stay in the scheme for at least two years you'll accumulate something, and chances are it'll work out better than whatever the cash equivalent is. The value will be uprated each year, though if they've given a projection it may already be adjusted for projected inflation. As a fellow public-sector employee, if I'm reading my pension statement correctly, the cash equivalent of my pension at the moment looks to be a fraction of the contributions I've paid in.
>> No. 5757 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 9:49 pm
5757 spacer
Stay in. My other half is in the West Yorkshire Pension fund and I'm sure it has an accrual rate of 1/45, so if she was there 30 years she'd get a pension equivalent to two thirds of her final/average salary. If you've got the chance to join a defined benefit scheme, especially a generous public sector one, then take it.
>> No. 5758 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 10:10 pm
5758 spacer

Mate once you're on the public sector gravy train, you don't take the decision to get off lightly.

The only downside of working in a body like the NHS is the whinging cunts you get who've never had a proper job before. There's one fat lazy cunt in my lab, I like to imagine her going off to work in a private hospital and then going into shellshock when they don't tolerate things like casual half hour coffee breaks three times a day...
>> No. 5760 Anonymous
18th September 2015
Friday 10:16 pm
5760 spacer
>Mate once you're on the public sector gravy train, you don't take the decision to get off lightly.
Depends what you're doing. If you're an admin monkey, definitely stay in, but if you're a professional use it to build up a couple of years' pension rights and then fuck off to somewhere that'll pay you properly.
>> No. 5762 Anonymous
19th September 2015
Saturday 6:45 am
5762 spacer
The cash equivalent shouldn't matter too much for a public sector pension, as one of the rules implemented with the pensions freedoms was that benefits in unfunded schemes cannot be transferred to a personal pension.

A lot of private defined benefit schemes are taking advantage of the pensions freedoms to reduce their liabilities by undertaking a flexible retirement options/enhanced transfer value exercise. They will write out to each member with their transfer value and say they've appointed an IFA firm to give free financial advice on whether they should stay in the scheme, buy an annuity, go into drawdown, etc.
>> No. 5763 Anonymous
22nd September 2015
Tuesday 8:14 pm
5763 spacer
The Tax Incentivised Savings Association (TISA) has recommended to Osborne's green paper "Strengthening the incentive to save: a consultation on pensions tax relief" that employers and employees should be dissuaded from using the, er, tax incentivised saving of salary sacrifice arrangements in order for the Treasury to raise greater revenue. I'm not entirely sure they've grasped what they're supposed to stand for.
>> No. 5764 Anonymous
24th September 2015
Thursday 6:44 pm
5764 spacer
Can anyone else hear the prerecorded phone messages already?

>Savers on verge of compensation as regulator examines annuity mis-selling


>There are concerns that insurers have widely mis-sold annuities by not making savers aware that they could qualify for a better deal. The City watchdog, the Financial Conduct Authority, has recently ordered a detailed examination of thousands of retirement contracts sold by Britain’s major insurers since 2008


>Scottish Widows warns annuities probe could be 'PPI for the life companies'

>> No. 5765 Anonymous
24th September 2015
Thursday 6:53 pm
5765 spacer
>casual half hour coffee breaks three times a day
I think this is highly dependent on where exactly in the NHS you're working.

I can count the days when I've had a single, full, uninterrupted half hour break in a 12 hour shift on my fingers.
>> No. 5766 Anonymous
24th September 2015
Thursday 7:06 pm
5766 spacer
You could say that about just about any employer.
>> No. 5767 Anonymous
24th September 2015
Thursday 7:13 pm
5767 spacer
I don't need fingers to count it.
>> No. 5768 Anonymous
24th September 2015
Thursday 8:14 pm
5768 spacer

Well, true. I think my statement stands for pretty much everywhere in the organisation except frontline actual medical care though.

And to clarify, I wasn't suggesting that such a leisurely pace is the norm, unless it's a very slow day. I rather meant that the NHS is one of few workplaces where you can get away with such things.
>> No. 5769 Anonymous
24th September 2015
Thursday 8:22 pm
5769 spacer
>I rather meant that the NHS is one of few workplaces where you can get away with such things.
That rather depends on whether you're shit at your job or not.
>> No. 5771 Anonymous
24th September 2015
Thursday 8:30 pm
5771 spacer
Wrong end of the stick, lad.
>> No. 5772 Anonymous
24th September 2015
Thursday 8:34 pm
5772 spacer

Indeed, your meaning jut hit me. It has been a long day. I meant the NHS is one of few places you don't have to be good at your job to pull it off, you just have to stop short of burning a building down.

I'm sure they'll fix that before long when it all gets sold to Sachsmann Freiderberger Pharmeceuticals or whatever though.
>> No. 5773 Anonymous
24th September 2015
Thursday 9:04 pm
5773 spacer
Can't wait.
>> No. 5775 Anonymous
25th September 2015
Friday 5:51 pm
5775 spacer
The Grauniad are scaremongering that there has been a COLLAPSE in the average contributions to company pension schemes, from 9.1% to 4.7%, and have speculated it's because greedy employers are being tightfisted when the reality is that 2.5million people have been automatically enrolled into a workplace pension scheme, many with initial contributions starting at 1% employer, 1% employee gross, which is bound to bring the average down.


The TUC have pointed out that many highly paid directors are forgoing pension contributions and are taking cash payments instead, so there's the risk that they'll take less of any interest in the company pension schemes they have for their employees. This could also bring the average contribution rate down, but it's hardly surprising when the lifetime allowance for how much you can save in a pension is reducing to £1million and the annual allowance is being reduced from £40,000 (compared to over £250k about 5 years ago) to £10,000 for high earners.

>> No. 5776 Anonymous
25th September 2015
Friday 6:30 pm
5776 spacer
Would people mind posting headlines when linking to the FT please?
>> No. 5777 Anonymous
25th September 2015
Friday 6:48 pm
5777 spacer
Senior executives shun pension saving

Company bosses are withdrawing from pension saving in record numbers, sparking concerns they will lose interest in making good provision for workers lower down the ladder.

The concerns were raised by the Trades Union Congress in a new report which found some of the UK’s biggest companies had paid out £34m in cash to senior staff over the past financial year, in lieu of paying into a pension.

A record number of top directors, or 70 per cent, had also opted for cash, the report found, after examining arrangements of 316 FTSE 100 senior executives.

These were typically receiving cash of £153,000, or just under a third of salary, in place of an employer pension contribution, the analysis found.

The TUC’s report found that where pension contributions were made by employers, those for company chiefs were at least five times more generous than shop floor staff.

According to the survey, senior executives were typically getting a pension contribution of 34 per cent of salary, or even as high as 50 per cent in some cases, compared with just 6.1 per cent for a worker outside the boardroom saving into a defined contribution scheme.

>> No. 5778 Anonymous
1st October 2015
Thursday 6:45 am
5778 spacer
Ros Altmann's response to all the criticism about the new flat-rate State Pension can be summarised as "Shurrup, you'll be better off. Besides, don't blame me - it's the fault of that Lib Dem, Steve Webb."

>> No. 5779 Anonymous
1st October 2015
Thursday 2:28 pm
5779 spacer
Open it in an Incognito tab, lad.
>> No. 5780 Anonymous
1st October 2015
Thursday 2:32 pm
5780 spacer
Doesn't work, lad.
>> No. 5781 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 5:59 pm
5781 spacer
Gideon has announced that the 89 Local Authority pension schemes are to be merged into six wealth funds, with assets of over £25billion each, so the funds can be utilised for British infrastructure projects. Quite a shrewd way to boost spending, really.

>> No. 5782 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 8:22 pm
5782 spacer

That is an interesting way of boosting spending. I believe it's known as the Maxwell method.
>> No. 5783 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 9:02 pm
5783 spacer
The public sector schemes are unfunded so, for once, the government won't be fucking pension savers over. They haven't done that to final salary pensioners in about, oh, a year or so when it emerged that the State would no longer pay inflationary increases on Guaranteed Minimum Pension (which people in defined benefit schemes received for contracting out of additional State Pensions to ensure that they'd be no worse off - the reason these people may not receive the full flat State Pension) when they used to pay full inflationary increases on GMP accrued before 1988 and any inflationary increases in excess of 3% on GMP accrued after then, as the scheme would cover the first 3%. They tried to slip it through on the quiet and then tried to deny that they ever paid it in the first place.
>> No. 5784 Anonymous
5th October 2015
Monday 9:37 pm
5784 spacer
>The public sector schemes are unfunded so, for once, the government won't be fucking pension savers over.
I think this might need a bit of explaining, because I'm struggling with the idea that we might somehow get some large funds by merging together all those funds the local government schemes don't have.
>> No. 5794 Anonymous
6th October 2015
Tuesday 7:43 am
5794 spacer
Most public sector schemes - the NHS, the armed forces, teachers, police, firefighters are completely unfunded, with payments met by taxation and member contributions.

>The NHS Pension Scheme, is an unfunded occupational scheme backed by the Exchequer, which is open to all NHS employees and employees of other approved organisations.

>The income is used to offset the payments that the scheme makes to pensioners or people leaving the Scheme.


Local Government schemes are notionally funded. The contributions received plus investment income exceed the payments to pensioner members and administration expenses by around £4-5billion a year, which is added to the investment funds, but the scheme is still a way off covering the liabilities of all 4million+ members; it's estimated there'd be enough assets to cover payments for 20 years, but that's it.

The total liability for all public sector schemes stands at around £852billion, which is why they were blocked from being able to transfer out of the scheme once the pensions freedoms came into effect.
>> No. 5813 Anonymous
9th October 2015
Friday 8:56 pm
5813 spacer
Two pension threads, but this one has the words "public sector" in recent replies so I figure I'll get a better answer in this one.

I may be about to move jobs, from one public employer to another. I am currently paying into a career average scheme with contributions at 5.4% and an accrual of around 1/45. I have been contributing for around 2-3 years but the scheme has changed in this time. My potential new employer has a scheme which would see my contributions at 7.3% and an accrual of 1/54. I have not yet been able to compare any recent uprates. If I am able to transfer from one to the other, would it be worth doing so, or would be it be worthwhile keeping the two separate? Retirement is several decades away yet, so no protected status.
>> No. 5814 Anonymous
9th October 2015
Friday 8:58 pm
5814 spacer
>What is the Public Sector Transfer Club?

>The Club allows easier movement of staff mainly within the public sector. It does this by making sure that employees receive broadly equivalent credits when they transfer their pensionable service to their new scheme regardless of any increase in salary when they move to their new employment. This means that what they can expect from their final salary pension remains broadly the same, and so moving from job to job need not lead to pension worries.

>> No. 5815 Anonymous
9th October 2015
Friday 9:00 pm
5815 spacer
>>5814 To add to this:

>A Club transfer value is worked out using the same method as that described above. The difference is the way the receiving scheme work out the pension credit. Instead of allowing for future pay rises, the same type of factors are used to work out the cash equivalent transfer value. In addition, the Club requires the member’s new scheme to use the salary as it was in the previous scheme. Because of this, if the benefits of the two schemes are identical and if all the member’s service in the previous scheme was covered for spouse’s and civil partner’s pension benefits, the member will receive year for year service credit. If the two schemes have major differences, such as a different pension age or accrual rate, then the service credit will be adjusted to ensure that the member receives benefits of equal value to those he had in his previous scheme.
>> No. 5839 Anonymous
13th October 2015
Tuesday 6:23 pm
5839 spacer

The CPI was -0.1% in September, which just happens to be the month they use to measure future increases to the ISA allowance and public sector pension increases. Funny that.
>> No. 5860 Anonymous
21st October 2015
Wednesday 7:45 am
5860 spacer

The DWP have unveiled a monster called Workie that's meant to warn small employers they'll need to automatically enrol their workers in a pension scheme. Presumably this has come about due to the increasing number of enforcement actions issued by The Pensions Regulator and the number of whistleblowers reporting non- compliance by their employers.


In other news, it's now possible to top up your State Pension but it's a rip-off and you'd probably be better off deferring it; a 65 year old would have to pay £22,250 to get an extra £25 per week.
>> No. 5891 Anonymous
26th October 2015
Monday 6:14 pm
5891 spacer
>Most workers reaching retirement will be worse off under the new universal state pension, expected to be set at £155 a week, according to a highly critical analysis of secretary of state Iain Duncan Smith’s flagship policy.

>On paper, the new state pension, starting on 6 April next year, will be much higher than the current maximum £115.95 a week basic state pension. The exact figure has not yet been set, but it is expected to be around £155.

>But according to Hymans Robertson, a major actuarial firm, less than half of people retiring next year will pick up the full new state pension, while the majority will lose out over the long term. Some workers could be as much as £20,000 worse off, it said. This is because many will not be able to build up additional state pension (previously called State Second Pension or State Earnings Related Pension) in the same way they have in the past.


I'm sure there was a report by the Institute of Fiscal Studies a few years back on the State Pension changes which said future retirees, I'm talking here predominantly about those in their 40s and below, would be much worse off with the new State Pension in the vast majority of situations.
>> No. 5892 Anonymous
26th October 2015
Monday 6:38 pm
5892 spacer
Worse off than what? Before or after George repeatedly ramped up pensions?
>> No. 5893 Anonymous
26th October 2015
Monday 6:54 pm
5893 spacer
Than they would have been otherwise.

What are these ramps up you're referring to? There's been no significant increases to the basic State Pension compared to historic changes.
>> No. 5894 Anonymous
26th October 2015
Monday 6:57 pm
5894 spacer
The 2.5% provided for by the triple lock has been above both wage inflation and price inflation.
>> No. 5895 Anonymous
26th October 2015
Monday 7:05 pm
5895 spacer
Chances are that's going to be scrapped soon, as it's been called unaffordable. Anyway, having a higher escalation rate is all well and good but it loses its effectiveness if it's going to be on a lower initial pension.
>> No. 5896 Anonymous
27th October 2015
Tuesday 5:41 pm
5896 spacer
They've announced today that a decision on tax relief on pension contributions, which was anticipated to be made during the Autumn Statement, has been pushed back to the 2016 Budget.

It's good that they're taking their time over it and aren't rushing to make a decision but I haven't seen an alternative put forward that's better than the current system, in my opinion. If they decided to make it "like ISAs" so that there's no tax relief up front and no tax paid on income, then I don't think the government are trustworthy enough not to change it again in the future and would make the income taxable again further down the line.
>> No. 5904 Anonymous
28th October 2015
Wednesday 10:36 pm
5904 spacer

I've just seen that advert. What a load of shite. Have they really spent about £8.5million on this?
>> No. 6018 Anonymous
8th November 2015
Sunday 9:02 pm
6018 spacer

I'm thinking about switching 10-15% of my pension pot into BlackRock Gold & General, which has returned just over -63% over the past 5 years. Is this a stupid idea? Buy low, sell high and all that. Gold and mining won't keep tumbling forever.
>> No. 6031 Anonymous
11th November 2015
Wednesday 7:08 pm
6031 spacer
Steve Webb has said Pension Wise, the free guidance service from the government, has been a massive waste of money after it's emerged that it has cost nearly £40 million so far and it has only given guidance to about 18,000 people. Effectively around £2,000 for each piece of guidance given and research has indicated around 40% of these have said the service was of very little or no use to them. I've also read that demand has been so low that many staff have been redeployed within CAB and other places so they actually have something to do.
>> No. 6047 Anonymous
30th November 2015
Monday 6:38 pm
6047 spacer
>CPI was -0.1% in September, which just happens to be the month they use to measure future increases to the ISA allowance and public sector pension increases. Funny that.

The Autumn Statement has confirmed that the ISA allowance for 2016/17 will stay at £15,240.
>> No. 6048 Anonymous
30th November 2015
Monday 6:45 pm
6048 spacer
They've already won the election. No need for any more bribery for a few years yet.
>> No. 6049 Anonymous
30th November 2015
Monday 7:10 pm
6049 spacer

If Labour carry on at their current trajectory then they may not even need to bother with bribes this time round.
>> No. 6050 Anonymous
1st December 2015
Tuesday 9:26 pm
6050 spacer
Workers in the UK will have the worst pensions of any major economy and the oldest official retirement age of any country, according to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The typical British worker can look forward to a pension worth only 38% of their salary, once state and private pensions are combined. The Paris-based thinktank said on Tuesday that this compares with above 90% in the Netherlands and Austria and 80% in Spain and Italy. Only Mexico and Chile offer their workers a worse prospect after retirement, although Turkey is the surprise table-topper, giving its retirees an average pension equal to 105% of average wages, according to the OECD report.

Workers in the UK will also have to toil for longer than anywhere else before they qualify for a state pension. Over the next two decades, the state pension age will move up to 68 in the UK, matched only by Ireland and the Czech Republic. In the rest of the developed world, even by the 2050s, the average retirement age will have moved up to only 65.5.

The French and the Belgians enjoy the earliest retirement. France is raising its state pension age from the current level of 62, but widespread early retirement means that, on average, French men and women stop work at 59.4 and 59.8 respectively, with the Belgians not far behind. Koreans labour for longer than workers in any other OECD country. On average, men in South Korea work until the age of 72.9, while women don’t stop working until 70.6

>> No. 6051 Anonymous
1st December 2015
Tuesday 10:20 pm
6051 spacer
So you're telling me I should move away?
>> No. 6052 Anonymous
2nd December 2015
Wednesday 2:03 am
6052 spacer
The only good thing about this is

>Workers in the UK will also have to toil for longer than anywhere else before they qualify for a state pension. Over the next two decades, the state pension age will move up to 68 in the UK, matched only by Ireland and the Czech Republic.
>> No. 6053 Anonymous
2nd December 2015
Wednesday 2:04 am
6053 spacer
How is that good?
>> No. 6054 Anonymous
2nd December 2015
Wednesday 7:28 am
6054 spacer
It means taxpayers won't have to support them once they retire and become a drain on resources. All those years of paying tax and NI without having to cough up for a State Pension, I'm sure Osborne is spaffing over the thought of it.
>> No. 6055 Anonymous
2nd December 2015
Wednesday 12:29 pm
6055 spacer
To borrow someone else's question, how is that good?
>> No. 6056 Anonymous
2nd December 2015
Wednesday 5:26 pm
6056 spacer
You plan to kill yourself before you reach 68 I take it?
>> No. 6057 Anonymous
2nd December 2015
Wednesday 5:32 pm
6057 spacer
Well, it's bad for the person in question, probably their friends and family too, but it's better for everyone else.
>> No. 6058 Anonymous
2nd December 2015
Wednesday 5:39 pm
6058 spacer
Are we getting tax cuts in return? Or are we going to pay the same as before and get nothing when we turn 68? Nuke your nose to spite your face kind of deal. How is that good?
>> No. 6059 Anonymous
2nd December 2015
Wednesday 6:28 pm
6059 spacer
Don't you find it's less stressful not having to worry if your country is going to run out of money?
>> No. 6060 Anonymous
2nd December 2015
Wednesday 6:37 pm
6060 spacer
Explain clearly why this is good for people in their 20s and 30s or just fuck off.
>> No. 6061 Anonymous
2nd December 2015
Wednesday 6:40 pm
6061 spacer
If the government ran out of money it wouldn't be able to rent an army capable of defending us from ISIS. Is that what you want, an ISUK?
>> No. 6062 Anonymous
2nd December 2015
Wednesday 8:40 pm
6062 spacer
We will spend less of our lives being leeches on everyone else.
>> No. 6063 Anonymous
2nd December 2015
Wednesday 8:43 pm
6063 spacer
Or rather, actually, we will spend as much of our lives being leeches on everyone else as we did before.
>> No. 6064 Anonymous
2nd December 2015
Wednesday 8:44 pm
6064 spacer
How is that good?
>> No. 6066 Anonymous
29th December 2015
Tuesday 5:37 pm
6066 spacer
I've heard there's a group of women, calling themselves Women Against State Pension Inequality or something, and they're positively furious that they haven't actually paid attention during the past 20 years or so about the State Pension Age for women being brought in line with that for men and it's only just dawned on them now that they won't receive it at age 60 so they are demanding that the government puts all women born after 6 April 1951 in the same position had they been born before 5 April 1950, i.e. they want their State Pension backdating/bringing forward to age 60.
>> No. 6099 Anonymous
15th January 2016
Friday 6:40 pm
6099 spacer
>At least 16 million people under the age of 43 will be worse off as a result of the new “flat rate” state pension, new figures released by the Government have revealed.

>For the first time figures from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) reveal the extent to which young people will be the biggest losers of the reforms, and confirm that those in their 50s and 60s are the biggest winners. The data shows that the majority of people in their 20s, 30s and early 40s will be worse off by the changes to the state pension, with many facing lost income worth thousands of pounds over their retirement.


Who'da thunked it?
>> No. 6100 Anonymous
15th January 2016
Friday 6:57 pm
6100 spacer
100% Inheritance tax will fix this.
>> No. 6101 Anonymous
15th January 2016
Friday 7:34 pm
6101 spacer
>fix this

That'd suggest there's actually a problem in the first place. We have one of the oldest retirement ages and least generous State pensions in the developed world. The changes are being miserly for the sake of being miserly.
>> No. 6102 Anonymous
15th January 2016
Friday 7:58 pm
6102 spacer

Google the phrase "dependency ratio".
>> No. 6103 Anonymous
15th January 2016
Friday 8:00 pm
6103 spacer
>We have one of the oldest retirement ages and least generous State pensions in the developed world.

Fucking good.
>> No. 6104 Anonymous
15th January 2016
Friday 8:18 pm
6104 spacer
We have an aging population, but that doesn't mean State retirement ages need to be increased so quickly or making the State Pension, already one of the lowest in the developed world, even worse for those below forty. There are issues, but this is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
>> No. 6105 Anonymous
16th January 2016
Saturday 12:46 am
6105 spacer
About bloody time.
>> No. 6106 Anonymous
16th January 2016
Saturday 8:47 am
6106 spacer
It'll just push more people into poverty in retirement. Many in this country lack the foresight or resources to plan their retirement provision and don't realise that the State Pension alone is very unlikely to be enough for a decent standard of living.
>> No. 6107 Anonymous
16th January 2016
Saturday 10:02 am
6107 spacer

As of 2012, the government had pension liabilities of five trillion pounds, of which only 0.3 trillion is funded. That vast shortfall leaves us with three choices - massively cut the state pension, massively increase the rate of immigration, or go bust.

>> No. 6108 Anonymous
16th January 2016
Saturday 10:35 am
6108 spacer
What is it they so differently in other countries? In France the State retirement age is 62 and the average worker receives pension income around 68% of their salary, whereas here it will reach age 68 during the 2030s and the average worker receives around 38% of their salary, including private pension income. I don't think anyone is expecting it to be fully funded, but that's a vast difference.
>> No. 6109 Anonymous
16th January 2016
Saturday 1:05 pm
6109 spacer

France have significantly higher taxes, amounting to 44.6% of GDP versus the UK's 39%. They're still facing serious long-term problems due to their dependency ratio. France desperately needs to reform its pensions system, but is unable to do so due to trade union opposition. Last time they tried to raise the retirement age, there was a general strike. Youth unemployment in France is nearly twice as high as in the UK, in large part due to the generous entitlements afforded to older employees.

>> No. 6111 Anonymous
18th January 2016
Monday 5:50 pm
6111 spacer
>Pension tax perks for higher earners are set to be abolished in George Osborne’s March Budget as the chancellor pitches a pension overhaul towards swing voters on lower incomes.

>The Treasury has set aside plans for full-blown reform of the pension tax relief system, in favour of a shift to a “flat-rate” government contribution, to appeal to lower earners, according to people close the Treasury. Currently, the bulk of tax incentives for retirement saving are enjoyed by higher earners. While basic rate taxpayers make 50 per cent of the total pension contributions, they benefit from only 30 per cent of pension tax relief.

>At present workers benefit from pension tax relief at the same rate as their income tax, whether 20, 40 or 45 per cent. The chancellor is now working towards a plan which would see a single pension savings incentive of between 25 and 33 per cent for all, several people close to the discussions said.

>Although the changes are expected to be announced in the Budget, they are unlikely to come into effect for at least 12 months, to allow time for the industry and savers to prepare for the reform.


I'm not really sure on this one. I can't see it encouraging basic rate payers to contribute significantly more in their pensions, but I can see higher/additional rate taxpayers putting in considerably less and turning more towards non-pension equity investments and property instead.
>> No. 6113 Anonymous
18th January 2016
Monday 6:44 pm
6113 spacer
So he's proposing changes a year after an election to take effect two years after an election, and this is supposed to be a vote grab? Surely after the Oxfordshire debacle the last thing the Tories need is to be winning in the locals in 2017-8.
>> No. 6128 Anonymous
20th January 2016
Wednesday 9:50 pm
6128 spacer

Tax relief is a bit of a misleading term. If you contribute 5% of your salary or if you contribute nothing at all to your workplace pension scheme you'll have the exact same amount of tax deducted on your payslip. A more accurate way to describe it would be saying you are being reimbursed for the tax paid on income that you have decided to defer taking until retirement.

You can argue it's an unfair advantage for higher rate taxpayers, as many of them will likely be basic rate taxpayers when they do retire, but it doesn't make sense to make pension saving less attractive at a time when you're trying to enourage it because you're scaling back the State Pension.
>> No. 6139 Anonymous
6th February 2016
Saturday 9:15 am
6139 spacer
Up to four million people retiring from April are at risk of receiving an incorrect amount of state pension because their incomes are being calculated using data "riddled" with errors, The Telegraph has learned.

Britain's biggest company pension schemes have repeatedly warned Ministers that the data being used to calculate the new "flat-rate" payouts is unreliable, meaning people could receive as much as £6,500 too much or too little over the course of an average retirement. Sources said that when pension schemes and HMRC compare savers' records an average of one in five does not match. This is because the data has been manually collected each year since 1978. In the worst cases around half of savers' records held by pension schemes do not match HMRC records with errors distorting people's incomes by up to £5 a week.

The problems relate to the "contracted out" part of someone's pension, whereby some 18 million workers were in the past given the option to swap an element of their state pension for a base level of final-salary-style pension income. Savers who "contracted out" of their state pension entitlement at any point, will have an amount deducted from their new, flat-rate pension, the maximum level of which is £155.65. From April 6 the new state pension will replace the current basic pension worth £119.30, which has additional elements.

Contracted out data is, under the new state pension, for the first time being used to calculate the level of basic state pension payout. Previously, errors relating to contracted out information would not have affected state pension payments.

It has also emerged that some 6 million people whose funds have since been transferred into personal pensions may find that their full records no longer exist. This is because the Government scrapped rules forcing personal pension providers to collect this data in 2012. Last night industry experts claimed the Government has known about the problem for years and has chosen to ignore it.

In an effort to contain the problem, pension schemes have begun a "mass data reconciliation" process with HMRC in which they will check millions of pension savers' records against HMRC's own data. But because people's incomes are due to be calculated in April, around two years before the process is due to finish in 2018, some people's benefits will be calculated using unchecked data.

The Royal Mail Pension Plan, which has 100,000 members, warned the Work and Pensions Commitee that a "high" proportion of the data it holds is different to HMRC data. Similarly, the BT Pension Scheme said data veriances meant it would be difficult to calculate conctracting out deductions for its 300,000 members "with any confidence".


The new flat-rate State Pension, which isn't actually flat-rate as many people will have a different entitlement, is a complete and utter clusterfuck.
>> No. 6140 Anonymous
6th February 2016
Saturday 9:18 am
6140 spacer
Whoops. Accidentally deleted >>6114, which was:

>>6113 It's not really a vote grab. That's the spin the FT have put on it, but it's simply a way to save a fair bit of money which will relatively go under the radar.

The Mail, Telegraph, Sunday Times, etc. are branding it as a ruthless attack on the hardworking middle classes with another stealth tax.
>> No. 6157 Anonymous
21st February 2016
Sunday 10:26 pm
6157 spacer
Steve Webb is claiming that Osborne is planning on scrapping tax relief on contributions and being able to take a 25% tax free lump sum at retirement. If that happens then the only incentive to save in a pension will be employer contributions. He's going to make himself so unpopular that he'll never replace Cameron

>> No. 6158 Anonymous
22nd February 2016
Monday 6:19 pm
6158 spacer

For shitty fucking fucks sake.

I'm in an automatic enrolment pension now, I already expect I'll probably have to opt-out anyway in 2019 when the minimum contribution ramps-up to a ridiculous 8% total.
>> No. 6159 Anonymous
22nd February 2016
Monday 6:58 pm
6159 spacer
>I'll probably have to opt-out anyway in 2019 when the minimum contribution ramps-up to a ridiculous 8% total.

I'm sure I read you're meant to contribute 15-20% (including your employer) to have any chance of a decent retirement, otherwise all you'll end up doing is saving up for a nice holiday, a car or a new kitchen.

>Someone on average earnings of about £27,000 per year and targeting the “gold standard” of a total pension of two-thirds of their pre-retirement income, and securing inflation protection and provision for a surviving spouse, would need to work to 77 if they only saved at the minimum mandated by the government. The outlook is starker for those who begin pension saving later in life and are only contributing at the minimum rate of 8 per cent, found the report.

>> No. 6167 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 1:54 pm
6167 spacer
It's in the FT that Cameron has told Osborne to back down and play it safe with any changes to pension tax relief/being able to take a 25% tax free lump sum because there would be a Tory backbench rebellion over it and he doesn't want to antagonise them any further with all the divisions over the EU.
>> No. 6168 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 6:38 pm
6168 spacer
>I'm sure I read you're meant to contribute 15-20% (including your employer) to have any chance of a decent retirement, otherwise all you'll end up doing is saving up for a nice holiday, a car or a new kitchen.

I don't want to fall into the trap of "I'm 25, I've got plenty of time to save", but saving a small amount is better than saving nothing, and forcing a higher minimum contribution is going dissuade many more people from saving anything at all.
My personal situation is that I've decided that at this point in my life, saving towards a mortgage is more important than contributing to a pension. Obviously I can't predict what house prices and pensions will be in ~50 years time, but it's a reasonable assumption that the sooner I'm rent-free, the better off I'll be in my 70s.
>> No. 6169 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 7:10 pm
6169 spacer

You're probably right; if you are working class, then your goal in life is to finish paying off the house by the time you are 60 so you can finally sell it and use the money to retire in a more impoverished country like Spain.

All this stuff about pensions is for people who get paid about twice as much as they need to actually live on, making savings a realistic possibility.

It's truly frightening how no matter how much money you accumulate in life, it's somehow always just short of quite enough.
>> No. 6170 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 7:37 pm
6170 spacer
How much money do I have to save to not die?
>> No. 6171 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 8:15 pm
6171 spacer
Can you afford to contribute to both? With pension contributions the earlier you can start the better because of compounding on investment growth.

About tree fiddy.
>> No. 6172 Anonymous
2nd March 2016
Wednesday 9:27 pm
6172 spacer

You can have your head preserved in liquid nitrogen for £50k.
>> No. 6173 Anonymous
4th March 2016
Friday 10:38 pm
6173 spacer
>George Osborne is set to abandon a planned raid on middle-class pensions in the face of a Tory backlash.

>Well-placed sources say the Chancellor will reluctantly drop plans to introduce a flat rate of tax relief on pensions in this month’s Budget. The scheme would have penalised the better off and raised billions for the Treasury.

>He is still considering a controversial scheme to scrap pension tax relief altogether, and instead allow savers to draw their pots tax-free years later. But sources say it is now likely to be restricted to youngsters entering the job market for the first time – if it happens at all.

>Treasury sources last night insisted that final decisions on the proposals have not yet been taken ahead of the Budget on March 16. But the Chancellor is said to have been swayed by the counsel of the Prime Minister and the intense lobbying campaign.

>Cutting tax incentives for people to save through pensions has been seen at the Treasury as a short-cut to balancing the budget by the end of the current Parliament without big tax increases. Pension pots can be seen as a soft target when it comes to reform, as the consequences of reducing allowances or tax relief is often not seen until years later.

>But after a series of detailed consultations the Chancellor is understood to have concluded that removing higher rate tax relief from the middle classes would be both a political and economic mistake – as well as undermining his reputation as a Chancellor who has set out to help savers.

>There is still intense debate among Treasury officials over the creation of a so-called pensions ISA for young people new to the labour market. Subscribers would lose all tax relief coming in but would pay no tax several decades later when they begin to take their pensions.

>The Government has so far raised an extra £6billion of extra income a year by dramatically cutting the annual and lifetime amounts that individuals can save into pensions without paying tax. When the Coalition came to power in 2010 people were allowed to save up to £1.8million in their pension pots untaxed – a figure which Osborne has lowered to £1million in recent budgets. No further lowering of limit is now expected in the coming budget.

>> No. 6174 Anonymous
9th March 2016
Wednesday 5:34 am
6174 spacer

The latest on the rumour mill is that Osborne is looking to merge NI and income tax, so there'd be tax relief of 32% for basic rate taxpayers and 42% for higher rate taxpayers, although NI isn't paid on pension income so I imagine there'll be a workaround not to piss off the wrinklies.
>> No. 6175 Anonymous
10th March 2016
Thursday 5:50 pm
6175 spacer

>I'm thinking about switching 10-15% of my pension pot into BlackRock Gold & General, which has returned just over -63% over the past 5 years. Is this a stupid idea? Buy low, sell high and all that. Gold and mining won't keep tumbling forever.

It's made over 40% in the past 3 months or so. I'm rich, rich I tells ya.

Remember, lads. When it looks like the shit is going to hit the fan encourage people to invest in gold, that way you can profit off of their fear.
>> No. 6176 Anonymous
18th March 2016
Friday 6:19 pm
6176 spacer
There's a nice little bonus in the budget for savers - the lifetime ISA. You can contribute up to £4000 per year and get a 25% bonus if you use the money to pay for a house or withdraw it after the age of 60.

>> No. 6177 Anonymous
18th March 2016
Friday 6:24 pm
6177 spacer
Yes I saw that. As soon as I actually have an income I'll be looking into that heavily.
>> No. 6178 Anonymous
18th March 2016
Friday 6:41 pm
6178 spacer

It's a very good thing for people who stand to benefit from it, (I've just opened a help to buy ISA, and I'll likely be transferring it to a lifetime ISA in a couple of years if I need the higher cap on payments), however, it should make absolutely no sense at all for the governments perspective.

Firstly, who can say if it'll still exist in 40 years time when todays 20-somethings are ready to withdraw it. How can the government budget for the bonus payments, when it must be almost impossible to predict the popularity? How much of an impact could it have on the economy if too people are saving and not spending? It doesn't even have any real net-benefit to first-time-buyers, it will only serve to drive prices up even higher.

It's not even a great vote-grabber as it only benefits a small range of people who are probably a little more likely to be Tory voters anyway.
>> No. 6179 Anonymous
18th March 2016
Friday 6:54 pm
6179 spacer
They know that given the evidently narrow criteria you need to keep the bonus, it'll be at least 20 years before it'll become a problem. Unfortunately, it's starting to look like they'll still be in power come then.
>> No. 6180 Anonymous
18th March 2016
Friday 7:04 pm
6180 spacer
It pretty much confirms they'll be making major changes to the pension tax regime once the EU Referendum is out of the way, otherwise you'd be able to bang a load of money in the Lifetime ISA, take it out at 60 tax free and then bang it straight into a pension and benefit from tax relief on it.

It's also ironic that politicians have been kicking up a fuss about exit charges on old pension contracts and then they go and introduce something like this.
>> No. 6181 Anonymous
5th April 2016
Tuesday 5:28 pm
6181 spacer


I'm guessing Gareth Malone was busy.
>> No. 6182 Anonymous
5th April 2016
Tuesday 5:55 pm
6182 spacer
I really don't get what their problem is. They're being transitioned to an equal regime, and the reforms were passed two decades ago. In unrelated news, in a change with rather shorter notice, NHS staff across the UK are getting a pay cut (unless they're fortunate enough to receive a payment this week). Boy George's Single State Pension means an end to contracted-out status, meaning an increase in their NIC deduction of 1.4 points. Even with the 1% increase and the increase in the personal allowance, that's enough to reduce the take-home by around £20-30pm.
>> No. 6183 Anonymous
5th April 2016
Tuesday 6:04 pm
6183 spacer
Read the debate in Hansard. The reforms they take issue with happened under the last government and have effectively swept the metaphorical rug of two pension-planning years from under their feet.

>The Pensions Act 1995 sought to equalise the state pension age for men and women at 65. In 2007, the then Labour Government decided that the pension age would increase to 66, and then to 68, but over a very long period—from 2024 to 2046. However, the coalition Government then decided to pass the Pensions Act 2011, which speeded up the changes so that the state pension age for men and women would reach 66 in 2020. To achieve that, they brought forward the increase in the pension age to 65 for women from 2020 to 2018.

>Is it not also the case, as several of my constituents have said, that these changes compounded measures in the 1995 Act of which women were not informed? One lady said that until she got a letter saying, “You are no longer retiring at 64, but at 66,” she knew nothing about the fact that there had been a change, so for her the difference is six years.
>> No. 6184 Anonymous
5th April 2016
Tuesday 6:09 pm
6184 spacer
But that hasn't particularly affected women. Everyone is being made to wait those two years.
>> No. 6185 Anonymous
5th April 2016
Tuesday 6:21 pm
6185 spacer
Women tend to live 3 years longer than men anyway. Why do we never heard anyone making a fuss about this biological glass ceiling?
>> No. 6186 Anonymous
5th April 2016
Tuesday 6:40 pm
6186 spacer
Because no-one cares except you, apparently.
>> No. 6187 Anonymous
5th April 2016
Tuesday 6:51 pm
6187 spacer
I think people with a sense of humour might care.
>> No. 6188 Anonymous
5th April 2016
Tuesday 7:04 pm
6188 spacer
The equalisation only happened because of EU discrimination law.

>> No. 6189 Anonymous
5th April 2016
Tuesday 7:19 pm
6189 spacer
>in a change with rather shorter notice, NHS staff across the UK are getting a pay cut

It's been known about for quite some time. Consultation on the new State pension started in 2011 at the latest and contracting out for occupational money purchase schemes stopped in April 2012. Around half of employers with active defined benefit schemes have indicated they'll cease further accrual once contracting out ends to try and cut down on costs.
>> No. 6190 Anonymous
5th April 2016
Tuesday 7:40 pm
6190 spacer
The change had been on the cards, but the end of the rebate was IIRC only announced after the PRB had started its work and started taking submissions. It is also rather less than 20 years notice of changes to the previous state pension age.
>> No. 6481 Anonymous
31st July 2016
Sunday 3:32 pm
6481 spacer
The government has said a pledge to keep the “triple lock” on the state pension will remain in place for the rest of this parliament, after Ros Altmann argued the policy should be abandoned after 2020.

Baroness Altmann, who left government in July, said on Saturday that she believed the triple lock had fulfilled its purpose and it was not sensible to keep it beyond 2020.

“Since 2010 the incomes of our 13m pensioners have been boosted, and pensioner incomes are more than £10 a week higher now than they would have been if the state pension had only been linked to average earnings,” she said. “Indeed, pensioner households are no more likely to be poor than other age groups in today’s Britain. I believe the triple lock has fulfilled its purpose and suggested, as pensions minister, that the next parliament needs to secure those gains, but a triple lock is not necessary for that any more.”

Baroness Altmann recommended the triple lock be replaced with a double lock, which would see the 2.5 per cent floor dropped, and the state pension only guaranteed to rise by the higher of average earnings or inflation from 2020. “By moving to a double lock, billions of pounds could be saved in future pension spending,” she said.

“If money is saved by using a double lock, this could offset the need to keep increasing the state pension age.”

Pressure has increased on the government over the triple lock after an official report, hastily buried after being published in error last year, estimated the policy was costing around £6bn a year. The report, by the Government Actuary’s Department, warned policy costs could spiral further in future years.


Anything to appease the grey vote.
>> No. 6484 Anonymous
1st August 2016
Monday 1:05 am
6484 spacer
I'm one of those orderly people who has started pensioning at 23 but this is a totally ridiculous policy that needs to be abandoned. It's abhorrently expensive and 2.5% is a totally arbitrary number. If we ever enter proper Japan level deflation it'll crush government finances.
>> No. 6485 Anonymous
3rd August 2016
Wednesday 8:14 am
6485 spacer
It's a bit of a non-story, really. The government have promised that the triple lock would run until 2020, with no guarantee over what would follow, and Ros Altmann has merely put a suggestion forward for how it should go forward from that point. The press are making it sound like she's calling for it to be immediately scrapped.


The EU want us to keep contributing towards pensions for Eurocrats once we've left. The current pension obligations stand at around €60bn and the annual payments amount to approximately €1.4bn.

>> No. 6486 Anonymous
3rd August 2016
Wednesday 11:38 am
6486 spacer
>The EU want us to keep contributing towards pensions for Eurocrats once we've left.
What was the point of us leaving again?
>> No. 6487 Anonymous
3rd August 2016
Wednesday 5:27 pm
6487 spacer
To stop them making a Mrs Brown's Boys D'Movie sequel.


Worth every penny. I don't realistically think they could get us to continue paying towards the pensions - if a final salary scheme had a shortfall then they'd look to increase the contributions of active members and come up with a funding plan with the employer. They wouldn't chase up a past employer attached to the scheme unless there was BHS style shenanigans afoot.
>> No. 6488 Anonymous
3rd August 2016
Wednesday 9:26 pm
6488 spacer
Normally there'd be no way this would hold up - it's the EU as an institution to fund, nothing to do with the UK nor it's contributions to the EU.

This is not normal however and it will inevitably be used as a political bargaining chip.
>> No. 6489 Anonymous
3rd August 2016
Wednesday 10:01 pm
6489 spacer
>This is not normal however and it will inevitably be used as a political bargaining chip.
Quite. Those British nationals in the scheme (civil servants but not MEPs) must of course retain their entitlements, so it's not unreasonable to expect the UK to continue to fund those.

Because of a rule that allows MEPs to opt to join their national pension schemes instead, pretty much without exception UK MEPs chose to join the gold-plated and diamond-encrusted MPs' Pension Scheme, so regardless of the decision to leave we have to fund that anyway.
>> No. 6490 Anonymous
5th August 2016
Friday 6:32 pm
6490 spacer
>Millions of workers could be denied flexible access to their final salary pension pots if a radical shake-up to let companies ditch pension promises made to staff is passed by the Government.

>The move would prompt a rush of people trying to cash in their pensions which would need to be "slowed", the chairman of the Work and Pension Select Committee has said, as he prepares to launch an inquiry in which MPs will explore ways to contain the problem.

>Under the measures, understood to be favoured by MPs and pension funds, cash-strapped employers would be allowed to reduce workers' pensions by tens of thousands of pounds without first going through courts.

>This would be likely to leave staff at some firms scrambling to move their money out of schemes as quickly as possible to fully encash their fund before their employer imposed cuts.


Employers have been wanting to get rid of final salary schemes for decades and it looks like the issues with BHS and Tata could be the final nail in the coffin.
>> No. 6529 Anonymous
15th August 2016
Monday 7:36 am
6529 spacer
To the surprise of no one, except the media and the Labour party, the majority of people using flexi-access drawdown are being prudent about the level of income they are taking.

>> No. 6530 Anonymous
15th August 2016
Monday 10:48 am
6530 spacer
The rest are probably getting scammed out of their money before they get to spaff it on anything else.
>> No. 6531 Anonymous
15th August 2016
Monday 12:52 pm
6531 spacer
Most people caught in a pensions scam aren't retirees. It tends to be people in their forties and early fifties who let their greed get the better of them and fall for being told they can 'unlock' their pension early or fall for a sales pitch about an unregulated investment in airport car parking spaces, hotels overseas or some eco twaddle with guaranteed double figure returns when in reality the underlying investment may not exist.
>> No. 6532 Anonymous
16th August 2016
Tuesday 7:22 pm
6532 spacer
FTSE 100 companies reporting pension deficits paid out 25% more in dividends than their combined deficit


Last year FTSE 100 firms running defined benefit schemes spent £71bn in dividends, compared to £13.3bn in pension contributions. The total funding shortfall for all the schemes is £42.3bn.

I know executive pay has gone out of control, but if there weren't so many restrictions on pension saving for them then maybe they'd care more about the type of scheme they/their employees are in.
>> No. 6533 Anonymous
16th August 2016
Tuesday 8:41 pm
6533 spacer
>but if there weren't so many restrictions on pension saving for them
I know, it must be so hard for them to only be able to stick £40k in the fund before losing tax relief.

I think it's a bit silly that these firms are pleading poverty and demanding to be able to change over to CPI when it's abundantly clear they have more than sufficient means to service the funds themselves and they're merely choosing not to do so.
>> No. 6534 Anonymous
16th August 2016
Tuesday 9:12 pm
6534 spacer
>I know, it must be so hard for them to only be able to stick £40k in the fund before losing tax relief.

It's all relative. If you're earning millions and have amassed a fairly substantial wealth then you're not going to be reliant upon your company pension scheme in retirement, so you're less likely to give a fuck about what scheme employees are offered, especially when you can only contribute £40k a year and the maximum you can hold without incurring a lifetime allowance charge is £1million (why you have both a lifetime allowance and an annual allowance doesn't make sense to me) so it becomes quite piddly in their scheme of things, except perhaps to shelter some funds from IHT, and maximising dividend income immediately would take priority over it.

Anyway, I'm sure defined benefit schemes can switch from RPI to CPI already.
>> No. 6535 Anonymous
16th August 2016
Tuesday 9:29 pm
6535 spacer
>when you can only contribute £40k a year and the maximum you can hold without incurring a lifetime allowance charge is £1million
Those aren't absolute limits, they're the amount you can contribute without losing any of it to tax. It takes a special kind of cunt to fuck over the firm's pensioners for the sake of not deigning to render unto Caesar.

>Anyway, I'm sure defined benefit schemes can switch from RPI to CPI already.
Right, but it's pretty cuntish to do so on the pretext of it somehow being unaffordable when you can evidently afford it easily. On the one hand they could reduce the hole by £30bn by changing the uprating to CPI. Alternatively, they could reduce the hole by £30bn by, you know, paying in £30bn that they very clearly had on hand.
>> No. 6659 Anonymous
26th September 2016
Monday 7:51 pm
6659 spacer
At an event during the Labour conference Steve McCabe, on the work and pensions committee, has suggested changing pensions tax relief so it favours young people more.


Hargreaves Lansdown came up with something similar a few days, tiered tax relief depending on your age. It's completely arsebackwards as the people who would benefit from this would chiefly be young people from rich families who could afford to make large contributions at a relatively young age.
>> No. 6660 Anonymous
26th September 2016
Monday 11:27 pm
6660 spacer
The wonders of progressive regimes.
>> No. 6661 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 7:59 am
6661 spacer
Yeah, it overlooks a few things really.

Firstly, the Tories are looking to change tax relief not to incentivise saving but to boost tax revenues.

Secondly, if you are to encourage retirement saving then this is the wrong area to focus on. You'd have thought an employer contribution would be enough of a carrot - if you pay £80 into your company pension scheme then tax relief grosses this up to £100 and your employer matches this with a further £100, so your £80 contribution has turned into £200.

The main reasons people don't pay [enough] into pensions aren't to do with incentives, it's because a) they don't understand enough about them, b) they can't afford to/have other priorities, c) they feel the pension provider will rip them off, d) they can't trust the government to stop tinkering with them, usually for the worse, and changing tax relief from something straightforward to a more complex system would put people off - especially as many don't give serious thought to their pensions until they're in their forties and fifties and are in a secure financial position, possibly with the mortgage paid off or thereabouts, but would find themselves worse off under that proposed system.

The whole reason the new retirement savings vehicle, the lifetime ISA, doesn't have the word 'pension' anywhere near it is because of the amount of stigma associated with it. Call it an ISA and people will be more encouraged to use it.

Pension tax relief is simple - it's not really a relief, it's income tax deferred until retirement. Basic rate taxpayers fare the worst out of it, though, with it being most beneficial to:

- Non-taxpayers as they can still get 20% tax relief up to the higher of their earnings and £3,600 gross.

- Someone earning just over £50,000, as the pension contribution can be used to claim back lost child benefit.

- Someone earning just over £100,000, as the pension contribution can be used to claim back lost personal allowance.

- Higher rare taxpayers, especially those who will be basic rate taxpayers in retirement. The 25% tax-free lump sum skews pension contributions more favourably for them than basic rate taxpayers.

The 'fairest' system, in my opinion, would be a flat rate of relief somewhere around 30%, before leaving it alone and not fucking about with it so people can plan their retirement safe in the knowledge the government won't move the goalposts.
>> No. 6662 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 8:33 pm
6662 spacer
At my wage I put in £120 gross wage per month and my employer gives me £210 on top of that. It's a no brainer. I'm the only one bothering to save for a pension that I know of though (23 years old).

>The main reasons people don't pay [enough] into pensions aren't to do with incentives, it's because a) they don't understand enough about them, b) they can't afford to/have other priorities, c) they feel the pension provider will rip them off, d) they can't trust the government to stop tinkering with them, usually for the worse, and changing tax relief from something straightforward to a more complex system would put people of

You forgot e), the yolo factor.

Most of it boils down to a) and e)in my opinion.
>> No. 6663 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 9:11 pm
6663 spacer
I'm 29 and most people I know don't bother with pensions, even the ones with quite a lot of disposable income.
>> No. 6664 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 9:36 pm
6664 spacer
It's weird. By that age I estimate I'll have £30k in mine.
>> No. 6665 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 10:10 pm
6665 spacer
Which, by the power of compound leeching and fees, will get you an extra two boiled eggs per week when you retire at 80, as long as it doesn't get means-tested away because you need looking after.
I do not have a lot of love for the pensions industry.
>> No. 6666 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 10:22 pm
6666 spacer
Keep at it lad, retire at 55 - I did similar and thats my plan.
>> No. 6667 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 10:25 pm
6667 spacer
The minimum pension age is now linked to the State Pension, e.g. when the State Pension age goes up to 68 the minimum age you'll be able access your private pensions will go up to 58. Younglad will probably be 65 before he can touch his pensions.
>> No. 6668 Anonymous
27th September 2016
Tuesday 11:07 pm
6668 spacer
You can get a quarter of it at 55 or something.
>> No. 6669 Anonymous
28th September 2016
Wednesday 6:42 am
6669 spacer
You can take as much as you like from age 55 at present, but that age is set to go up.
>> No. 6670 Anonymous
28th September 2016
Wednesday 7:06 pm
6670 spacer
Debbie Abrahams, shadow work and pension secretary by virtue of being able to fill a vacancy after Angela Rayner was moved to shadow education secretary as a result of the mass cabinet resignations, has declared at the Labour conference today that they would introduce a socialist pension system if they were in power.

Very light on any substance or specifics, unless repeatedly mentioning fairness counts, other than saying they'd keep the triple lock, fully support WASPI and would stop basing the State Pension on "outdated metrics" such as life expectancy.
>> No. 6671 Anonymous
28th September 2016
Wednesday 7:36 pm
6671 spacer
>"outdated metrics" such as life expectancy

Yeah what the fuck do those actuaries actually know about statistics and death rates. Let's just pretend everyone is going to live to 100 and pay them accordingly.
>> No. 6672 Anonymous
28th September 2016
Wednesday 8:01 pm
6672 spacer
Before she was an MP she was a public health consultant, with jobs such as 'Head of Healthy Cities' for Knowsley. Well qualified to formulate policy on pensions.
>> No. 6673 Anonymous
3rd October 2016
Monday 5:54 pm
6673 spacer
Tory conference time. Richard Harrington, pensions minister and property developer, has suggested that, like the Lifetime ISA, people should be able to use their pensions to fund a property purchase. Now that's a turn up for the books.
>> No. 6674 Anonymous
4th October 2016
Tuesday 9:18 pm
6674 spacer
John Glen, the parliamentary private secretary to Philip Hammond was asked at an event today whether there will be a change to the pension tax relief system in the Autumn Statement. He's said that it's a very real possibility because it will fit in with Theresa May's plans on assisting working people on low incomes and this would be evidence of that they're actually doing something with these intentions.
>> No. 6675 Anonymous
5th October 2016
Wednesday 12:52 am
6675 spacer
I wish I knew what that meant, as someone who made their first ever pension contribution last month.
>> No. 6676 Anonymous
5th October 2016
Wednesday 7:01 am
6676 spacer
Basically, pension tax relief isn't really a relief. It's a deferral of income tax already paid as you're now not taking this income until you retire.

Just about everyone receives tax relief of 20% on their contributions, e.g. if you contribute £80 to a pension then tax relief grosses this up to £100 - the £20 is 20% of £100. If you're a higher or additional rate taxpayer then you can apply for further relief of 20/25% from HMRC, which is used to increase your basic rate band or change your tax code rather than increasing the amount going in the pension - a higher rate taxpayer still has £100 gross going in their pension, but they can eventually have the net cost to them reduced from £80 to £60.

It's relatively straightforward, although basic rate taxpayers benefit the least from this system. What the Tories are looking to do is either a) carry on with what Gideon wants to do and scrap tax relief altogether but make the income tax free (which is a bad idea and would solely be to save the government money) or b) introduce a new rate of tax relief, which isn't linked to income tax rates, of possibly 25-35%.

Hope that makes sense.
>> No. 6679 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 8:06 pm
6679 spacer
The work and pensions secretary, Damian Green, has thrown his weight behind proposals for a new State Pension system where you reach State Pension age after building up 45 years of NI credits - someone leaving school at 18 could get their State Pension at 63 whereas someone going to university could have to wait until they were 66/67.

>> No. 6680 Anonymous
10th October 2016
Monday 8:40 pm
6680 spacer

I suppose I can't argue with the logic of this, but fuck that.
>> No. 6696 Anonymous
25th October 2016
Tuesday 7:56 pm
6696 spacer

Pension news:

• In a completely unsurprising turn of events, the amount of money lost to pension fraud has gone up since the pension freedoms were announced; from £5.4million in 2014 to £13.3million in 2015.

• Britain has for the first time slipped out of the top 10 in the Melbourne Mercer Global Pension Index, the world's most comprehensive comparison of global pension systems, largely down to the new State Pension which is going to be far less generous for most retirees.

• The WAPSI women have reached their crowdfunding target of £75k in six days. They are now to launch a legal challenge against the 1995 and 2011 State Pension age changes. Their ultimate aim is for all women born in the fifties to have their State Pension backdated to age 60.
>> No. 6697 Anonymous
25th October 2016
Tuesday 8:05 pm
6697 spacer
>They are now to launch a legal challenge against the 1995 and 2011 State Pension age changes.
Yes, I can imagine how distressing that must have been. I, for one, can't see how two decades could possibly be anywhere enough notice.
>> No. 6698 Anonymous
25th October 2016
Tuesday 8:28 pm
6698 spacer
They really need to close the loophole whereby people on unemployment benefits receive NI credits. It makes absolutely no sense that doleys are rewarded in old age the same way working people are.
>> No. 6699 Anonymous
25th October 2016
Tuesday 8:43 pm
6699 spacer

It really is ridiculous.

Between the 1940s and 2010 the State Pension age was 65 for men and 60 for women. Under the 1995 Pensions Act the State Pension for women was to rise from to 65 between 2010 and 2020.

The 2011 Pensions Act escalated this so it'd reach 65 by 2018 instead. It also brought forward the State Pension age reaching 66 to 2020. Men as well as women will have to wait longer to get their State Pension due to the 2011 Act - c. 2.3 million men and c. 2.6 million men are affected by the escalation to age 66. The maximum increase in time is 18 months, affecting c. 300,000 women and these women will have had nearly 8 year's notice (February 2011 to January 2019, when women born August 1954 would have reached State Pension age under the 1995 Act).

Their campaign is a load of bollocks.

Under the old State Pension system it was fine because of all the additional pension you could accrue on top of the basic amount, the new system got rid of this.
>> No. 6738 Anonymous
28th November 2016
Monday 7:07 am
6738 spacer
The government may be preparing to increase the official state pension age to 70 for millions of people currently in their 20s, a former minister has claimed.

Steve Webb said documents produced by the Department for Work and Pensions suggested a “more aggressive” timetable on state pension age (SPA) increases than previously planned was being prepared.

This could affect tens of millions of workers aged under 55, and bring a pension age of 70 into the official timetable for the first time for people currently aged between 22 and 30, he added. The current official SPA for people in their 20s is 68, though under the existing schedule it could be expected to rise to 69.

>> No. 6739 Anonymous
1st December 2016
Thursday 4:59 pm
6739 spacer

As someone in my early 30s I feel I need to jump on that BTL bandwagon as quick as possible if I am ever going to have a hope of retiring before Alzheimer's consumes my precious memories.

My work pension is linked to the retirement age and the stock market seems overinflated as my parent's generation (50-60s) panic and dump and spare cash into the FTSE in the vain hope of securing even a small regular dividend.

What other options do I have?
>> No. 6740 Anonymous
1st December 2016
Thursday 5:14 pm
6740 spacer
Pose as a Syrian refugee and they'll give you a council house.
>> No. 6741 Anonymous
1st December 2016
Thursday 5:25 pm
6741 spacer
>My work pension is linked to the retirement age

You can take your pension at any age from 55, although that's set to rise to being 10 years lower than the State Pension age so will be 56 from 2020, etc.

>the stock market seems overinflated as my parent's generation (50-60s) panic and dump and spare cash into the FTSE in the vain hope of securing even a small regular dividend.

Your pension will probably be invested in many things, not just the FTSE, such as overseas equities, commercial property, gilts and corporate bonds.

Besides, lots of people are putting off investing due to uncertainties over the likes of Brexit. That or doing stupid things like selling when the markets crashed immediately after the EU Referendum vote and reinvesting once the FTSE reached record highs, crystallising investment losses. Best thing that could happen to us from a retirement planning perspective would be for the markets to tank, so our regular contributions buy more units.

I know it shouldn't be encouraged, but the best thing to do is BTL. No other option gives you the option to borrow in order to acquire a relatively large capital asset where the loan repayments will be met by the rental income. It's effectively acquiring an asset for next to nothing. If I went to the bank and asked for £200k to invest in high yielding shares and corporate bonds, with the aim of the dividends and interest distributions meeting the loan repayment, they'd tell me to fuck off.
>> No. 6742 Anonymous
1st December 2016
Thursday 10:08 pm
6742 spacer
> If I went to the bank and asked for £200k to invest in high yielding shares and corporate bonds, with the aim of the dividends and interest distributions meeting the loan repayment, they'd tell me to fuck off.

Its pretty risky. Every budget/statement there are new taxes/regulations aimed at landlords. The latest thing is agents fees to tenants being banned, making it easier for tenants to move around and so increasing competition amongst landlords, reducing rents and profits.
>> No. 6743 Anonymous
1st December 2016
Thursday 10:21 pm