Lease cars and lack of pension provision
Discussion
desolate said:
And that's before we get on to talking about the high proportion of charlatans and thieves.
Where is your evidence for this ? I know drainbrain (groak )used to be a pension salesman.
He doesn't tend to mention that any more these days though. Ploughed all his loot in to slot machines and slums.
zarjaz1991 said:
Final salary pensions. Gordon Brown, mid 00's. Tax relief changes on dividends. Referred to colloquially as the 'pensions grab' or 'pensions raid'. As a result of that, it's not possible to have any confidence that the way things are currently set out will retain their ((already fairly tenuous) advantages in the long term. Certainly, if they become substantially advantageous, I fully expect the government will raid them.
Far be it for me to defend Brown, but in the interests of accuracy, it was Norman Lamont who cut the credit from 25% to 20% in 1993, and who then planned to further degrade it anyway. When Brown did it instead, he made the point (and we forget this) that the tax credit was unfair to those who couldn't save much/at all and that it wasn't the best way to encourage saving and investing for the long term anyway. Most people agreed with him, many employers had stopped making pension contributions because actuaries had calculated that funds did not need the money because g'ment was so heavily subsidising them. drainbrain said:
desolate said:
And that's before we get on to talking about the high proportion of charlatans and thieves.
Stuff like this, you mean?http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-9-bi...
Never Happened. Fake News. Don't be so ignorant and boring. Ya COMMIE !!!
desolate said:
That would suggest one of two things, either
a) The Pension industry isn't very good at explaining what it does
b) It would rather not explain properly
It is mostly b). a) The Pension industry isn't very good at explaining what it does
b) It would rather not explain properly
They are very, very good at explaining things when taking you to court for money they want off you, so I don't wear that it's a).
The entire industry is rife with scams predicated on people not understanding what they are getting into. See also: property sales, life assurance and several others.
TFP said:
desolate said:
And that's before we get on to talking about the high proportion of charlatans and thieves.
Where is your evidence for this ? I know drainbrain (groak )used to be a pension salesman.
He doesn't tend to mention that any more these days though. Ploughed all his loot in to slot machines and slums.
Do you want an argument about what "high proportion" means?
zarjaz1991 said:
It is mostly b).
They are very, very good at explaining things when taking you to court for money they want off you, so I don't wear that it's a).
Which pension fund company took you to court (or what on earth are you referring to)?They are very, very good at explaining things when taking you to court for money they want off you, so I don't wear that it's a).
zarjax1991 said:
The entire industry is rife with scams predicated on people not understanding what they are getting into. See also: property sales, life assurance and several others.
You're priceless!It seems you understand very little but try and pretend that's not the dad!
Remind me how pensions companies can 'steal your fund'...?!
So, let's try this one.
I'm in a job for a year. I am in a 'workplace pension' so myself and my employer contribute, let's say, £60 a month each. Roughly. So that's 12 x £120 so £1400. Approximately.
I'm then made redundant - no fault of my own - and I get a new job with a similar scheme, but through a different provider. I don't want to leave £1400 stuck in the old scheme so I ask to transfer it.
I am warned in advance that the administration costs to transfer the fund might exceed the value of the fund.
How is that not a scam? If a bank told me the cost of switching my current account to a different bank might cost more than the £1400 in it, that would rightly be seen as a scam and highly sharp practice, if not actually illegal. So why is it ok for the pensions industry to do it?
I'm in a job for a year. I am in a 'workplace pension' so myself and my employer contribute, let's say, £60 a month each. Roughly. So that's 12 x £120 so £1400. Approximately.
I'm then made redundant - no fault of my own - and I get a new job with a similar scheme, but through a different provider. I don't want to leave £1400 stuck in the old scheme so I ask to transfer it.
I am warned in advance that the administration costs to transfer the fund might exceed the value of the fund.
How is that not a scam? If a bank told me the cost of switching my current account to a different bank might cost more than the £1400 in it, that would rightly be seen as a scam and highly sharp practice, if not actually illegal. So why is it ok for the pensions industry to do it?
zarjaz1991 said:
So, let's try this one.
I'm in a job for a year. I am in a 'workplace pension' so myself and my employer contribute, let's say, £60 a month each. Roughly. So that's 12 x £120 so £1400. Approximately.
I'm then made redundant - no fault of my own - and I get a new job with a similar scheme, but through a different provider. I don't want to leave £1400 stuck in the old scheme so I ask to transfer it.
I am warned in advance that the administration costs to transfer the fund might exceed the value of the fund.
How is that not a scam? If a bank told me the cost of switching my current account to a different bank might cost more than the £1400 in it, that would rightly be seen as a scam and highly sharp practice, if not actually illegal. So why is it ok for the pensions industry to do it?
What costs were incurred in setting up the policy?I'm in a job for a year. I am in a 'workplace pension' so myself and my employer contribute, let's say, £60 a month each. Roughly. So that's 12 x £120 so £1400. Approximately.
I'm then made redundant - no fault of my own - and I get a new job with a similar scheme, but through a different provider. I don't want to leave £1400 stuck in the old scheme so I ask to transfer it.
I am warned in advance that the administration costs to transfer the fund might exceed the value of the fund.
How is that not a scam? If a bank told me the cost of switching my current account to a different bank might cost more than the £1400 in it, that would rightly be seen as a scam and highly sharp practice, if not actually illegal. So why is it ok for the pensions industry to do it?
What assets did you invest in?
What has been the performance of those assets?
sidicks said:
You're priceless!
It seems you understand very little but try and pretend that's not the dad!
Remind me how pensions companies can 'steal your fund'...?!
Do you not realise the extent of the mistrust of the financial sector in the past few years? It seems you understand very little but try and pretend that's not the dad!
Remind me how pensions companies can 'steal your fund'...?!
Get out and talk to some real people and ask them what they think of it all. It could be an eye opener for you as you seem to think everyone views them as paragons of virtue or something. Here's a clue - that's, um, not exactly the case.
desolate said:
TFP said:
desolate said:
And that's before we get on to talking about the high proportion of charlatans and thieves.
Where is your evidence for this ? I know drainbrain (groak )used to be a pension salesman.
He doesn't tend to mention that any more these days though. Ploughed all his loot in to slot machines and slums.
Do you want an argument about what "high proportion" means?
sidicks said:
What costs were incurred in setting up the policy?
There is generally an admin charge that's front loaded, at least there was on my real-life one. I can't remember the specifics but on top of the annual 'management fee', there is an increased percentage taken over the first few years I believe.So they take part of your money, then take the lot!
Again, it's more industry obfuscation. Why can't they just tell you, upfront, what the charges are, instead of vague percentages and complicated formulas?
I know the reason, and I bet you do too.
TFP said:
I know drainbrain (groak )used to be a pension salesman.
He doesn't tend to mention that any more these days though. Ploughed all his loot in to slot machines and slums.
Nope. Worse. FAR FAR worse. Owner of an "Independent Financial Advisers and Lloyds of London Correspondents" firm.He doesn't tend to mention that any more these days though. Ploughed all his loot in to slot machines and slums.
Pre-Fimbra days. Me? Mortgages. Had a pension guy. Out and out crook. Actually had a couple of them. Both out and out crooks.
But not even 1% as brazen as the crooks at Royal Life where I did my 2 week training course in their revolving door lair in Liverpool!! Hey after that I was "in a first class position to offer excellent financial advice" lol! The main part of the course was learning that and similar nonsense and standing up on a table saying it to the rest of the class.!! (O that's cheered me up!)
You seriously don't want to hear stories from those days. Mind you, a particularly funny one was the day I mis-sold myself a policy!
Q: When is a Life Assurance policy not really a Life Assurance policy?
A: When it's a Royal Life policy!!!
Edited by drainbrain on Sunday 19th February 22:41
zarjaz1991 said:
Do you not realise the extent of the mistrust of the financial sector in the past few years?
I certainly do understand. Some of it is justified but most isn't.zarjaz1991 said:
Get out and talk to some real people and ask them what they think of it all. It could be an eye opener for you as you seem to think everyone views them as paragons of virtue or something. Here's a clue - that's, um, not exactly the case.
I've said no such thing.What is certainly true is that many 'real people' are very poorly informed and what they believe to be true is more often that not, anything but.
You're a prime example.
zarjaz1991 said:
sidicks said:
What costs were incurred in setting up the policy?
There is generally an admin charge that's front loaded, at least there was on my real-life one. I can't remember the specifics but on top of the annual 'management fee', there is an increased percentage taken over the first few years I believe.So they take part of your money, then take the lot!
I don't understand the charges on my pension. they must be terrible though. My head hurts.
zarjaz1991 said:
There is generally an admin charge that's front loaded, at least there was on my real-life one. I can't remember the specifics but on top of the annual 'management fee', there is an increased percentage taken over the first few years I believe.
So they take part of your money, then take the lot!
Again, it's more industry obfuscation. Why can't they just tell you, upfront, what the charges are, instead of vague percentages and complicated formulas?
I know the reason, and I bet you do too.
It's in the documentation you were given when you took out the policy - maybe you can't read it, didn't read it, or just didn't understand it?So they take part of your money, then take the lot!
Again, it's more industry obfuscation. Why can't they just tell you, upfront, what the charges are, instead of vague percentages and complicated formulas?
I know the reason, and I bet you do too.
sidicks said:
I've said no such thing.
What is certainly true is that many 'real people' are very poorly informed and what they believe to be true is more often that not, anything but.
You're a prime example.
And the 'real people' are treated with disdain, told they are stupid if they don't agree to hand over their cash anyhow in ignorance of what they're doing, and then when they explain they don't understand, they are either (a) told they are stupid (again) or (b) told that if they want to understand why they should pay a fortune to financial companies, they need to pay a fortune to a financial company for some advice on giving fortunes to financial companies.What is certainly true is that many 'real people' are very poorly informed and what they believe to be true is more often that not, anything but.
You're a prime example.
is it *really* just me who thinks this stinks?
sidicks said:
zarjaz1991 said:
So, let's try this one.
I'm in a job for a year. I am in a 'workplace pension' so myself and my employer contribute, let's say, £60 a month each. Roughly. So that's 12 x £120 so £1400. Approximately.
I'm then made redundant - no fault of my own - and I get a new job with a similar scheme, but through a different provider. I don't want to leave £1400 stuck in the old scheme so I ask to transfer it.
I am warned in advance that the administration costs to transfer the fund might exceed the value of the fund.
How is that not a scam? If a bank told me the cost of switching my current account to a different bank might cost more than the £1400 in it, that would rightly be seen as a scam and highly sharp practice, if not actually illegal. So why is it ok for the pensions industry to do it?
What costs were incurred in setting up the policy?I'm in a job for a year. I am in a 'workplace pension' so myself and my employer contribute, let's say, £60 a month each. Roughly. So that's 12 x £120 so £1400. Approximately.
I'm then made redundant - no fault of my own - and I get a new job with a similar scheme, but through a different provider. I don't want to leave £1400 stuck in the old scheme so I ask to transfer it.
I am warned in advance that the administration costs to transfer the fund might exceed the value of the fund.
How is that not a scam? If a bank told me the cost of switching my current account to a different bank might cost more than the £1400 in it, that would rightly be seen as a scam and highly sharp practice, if not actually illegal. So why is it ok for the pensions industry to do it?
What assets did you invest in?
What has been the performance of those assets?
sidicks said:
It's in the documentation you were given when you took out the policy - maybe you can't read it, didn't read it, or just didn't understand it?
It is literally dozens and dozens of pages written in financial institution jargon and printed in a tiny typeface. No sane person could understand a word of it.It might as well give the pension provider ownership of my grandmother! Indeed, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it does.
HarryW said:
Tbf what was asked was a question posed from a simple everyday position those at the lower end of the economy find themselves. How much is left for the contributor?
Stakeholder schemes have a maximum charge of 1.5% per annum for the first 10 years and 1% per annum thereafter, I think.Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff