mansion tax

[Hol]

PorkInsider said:

Hol said:

Much better to spunk any spare cash away down the pub, or on cars, holidays and entertainment equipment that you can't really afford, rather than thinking ahead to your retirement.

After all, the guy next to you who earns the same but puts some away in his pension instead will always be there to to pay your way.


If you run out of money too fast, you can always claim bankruptcy to write off your dept and keep all the stuff as well.
After all, it's a victimless crime.

Depressing, isn't it...

You could almost do one of those twin brother/sister commercials.

One brother lives like a weekend millionaire and spends all his money, requiring the state to support him in retirement.
The other brother saves for a rainy day and ends up losing most of what he saves to cover his brothers welfare.

[DonkeyApple]

PorkInsider said:

Reading through this thread, one thing that has become very apparent is that there really are people out there who support envy taxes.

I honestly thought that punishing people for being successful was only a vote winner in the retarded, moronic little minds of the 'woe is me' ex-miners still droning on about Thatcher, and the feckless work-shy who see any increase in tax on others as a potential 'pay' rise for them.

It seems that wealth jealousy actually knows no bounds and is alive and kicking on PH.

Shocking.

Yup. Plenty think this envy thing is only at the lowest level but as I said right at the beginning of the thread revival and as confirmed by the poll that was posted and confirmed by posts in this very thread, it is a huge vote winner because envy and hate of those more fortunate is manifest throughout the entire spectrum of society and absolutely not restricted to just the less fortunate.

There will be as many higher rate tax payers who will favour sticking it to the supposed 'rich' as there will be on housing estates. It's even conceivable that the percentage is higher as there is far more bitterness, envy and fear amongst the neighbours of the suburban Jones' than in any other group.

Welcome to 'MeMeMe' Britain and the glorious children of the L'Oriel Generation. I want it now and I see nothing wrong in expecting others to pay for it.

[DonkeyApple]

DonkeyApple said:

edh said:

DonkeyApple said:

edh said:

DonkeyApple said:

Yup. The £2m headline grabbing figure is purely to grab the votes of the very people who are the actual target of the tax.

Once in place it will be used to punish anyone who isn't on benefits.

Ah so pensioners will be OK then

I should have said 'reliant' on benefits. Pensioners are totally screwed as they are the largest demographic in these mansions.

Largest demographic? really?

a. many will be comfortably off on large occupational pensions - my heart bleeds...
b. provision to roll up the debt will be there for the "poor widow in a mansion"

And many won't. Ever tried to move home at 80?

House prices are only high because of deliberate State deregulation of lending. Why punish someone who bought a modest family home 30 years ago before we became a debt and spend society?

By far the largest number of people in £1m+ homes will be pensioners and as we all well know very many have had their pensions decimated. Not everyone worked for the State and got given final salary schemes.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/life/property/article4219312.ece

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Ah, the Pensions Fund industry, yet another part of the massive finance group and the latest to be brought under a looking glass. Early findings indicate massive overcharging of fund management, serves the industry workers well but less so the clients. When the industry is ordered to lower the servicing charges we just might see more pensioners with worthwhile pensions and able to afford the 'mansion tax'. (had to mention 'mansion tax', didn't want to corrupt the thread)

Probably best for you not to venture into another area you probably know little about...!

Ah yes the old 'you no nothing so therefore don't comment'. The idea of debate is just that, debate.
My daughter is a pensions fund manger responsible for vast sums of money in the form of strategy planning. We do not discuss her work as it is, frankly' boring. However, the family connection stories certainly support the accusations. I repeat what I have previously said regards the overcharging by the pensions fund companies ensuring staff are extremely well paid at the clients expense. Unless you know different in which case I look forward to reading your reply.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Ah yes the old 'you no nothing so therefore don't comment'. The idea of debate is just that, debate.
My daughter is a pensions fund manger responsible for vast sums of money in the form of strategy planning. We do not discuss her work as it is, frankly' boring. However, the family connection stories certainly support the accusations. I repeat what I have previously said regards the overcharging by the pensions fund companies ensuring staff are extremely well paid at the clients expense. Unless you know different in which case I look forward to reading your reply.

So if you don't discuss her work, then your 'family connection' is entirely irrelevant!

Fees are detailed on the fund documentation.

Are you claiming that fund managers are collecting higher fees than are being signed up to?

[crankedup]

Sir Humphrey said:

crankedup said:

Ah, the Pensions Fund industry, yet another part of the massive finance group and the latest to be brought under a looking glass. Early findings indicate massive overcharging of fund management, serves the industry workers well but less so the clients. When the industry is ordered to lower the servicing charges we just might see more pensioners with worthwhile pensions and able to afford the 'mansion tax'. (had to mention 'mansion tax', didn't want to corrupt the thread)

Define "overcharging".
Is it £50 an hour? Is it £2500 an hour? If people think they are being ripped off by their advisers can they not choose to go elsewhere? If they are happy with the advice and the price they pay for it why should anyone tell them they cannot have that?

Its not for me to define overcharging within the industry, that is currently the charge that is being investigated. If it is deemed that unfair overcharging is indeed factual then this will be dealt with by the financial authorities.
I do not believe it is individual financial advisers who are being investigated, the management charges levied by the corporate companies responsible for the financial well-being of peoples money is apparently where the perceived problem is.

[crankedup]

DonkeyApple said:

crankedup said:

sidicks said:

edh said:

he's a "retard" is he? or just doesn't agree with you? - seems you just want to insult anyone who's not in your club

Why don't we get tax relief on all forms of savings? or none?

He demonstrably does not know what he is talking about in a number of areas - this being a prime example.

He deliberately produces misleading figures to hoodwink those that dont know any better - you appear to be his ideal disciple...

Do you really not understand the difference between pensions and other forms of savings??

Ah, the Pensions Fund industry, yet another part of the massive finance group and the latest to be brought under a looking glass. Early findings indicate massive overcharging of fund management, serves the industry workers well but less so the clients. When the industry is ordered to lower the servicing charges we just might see more pensioners with worthwhile pensions and able to afford the 'mansion tax'. (had to mention 'mansion tax', didn't want to corrupt the thread)

What was I saying over two years ago re the pensions industry?

Indeed, I take my hat off to you, fair play.

As an aside I recall management fees in various unit trust funds I held being 2% but at the time didn't have much choice but to pay. In fairness the funds did quite well so felt the fee was worth paying. Now that is a totally different scenario to pensions funds in as much as I was only in for medium term investment and could pull at any time.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Its not for me to define overcharging within the industry, that is currently the charge that is being investigated. If it is deemed that unfair overcharging is indeed factual then this will be dealt with by the financial authorities.
I do not believe it is individual financial advisers who are being investigated, the management charges levied by the corporate companies responsible for the financial well-being of peoples money is apparently where the perceived problem is.

If you charge the fee that you told the customer you would be charging then that is not 'overcharging'.

It seems that there is a claim that some funds are charging for active management but actually undertaking a passive strategy. Of course sometimes there are minimal opportunities and so being positioned close to benchmark is a conscious and sensible position to take.

Further, there were plenty of stories in 2013 criticizing active managers for 'excessive trading'...

[DonkeyApple]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Ah yes the old 'you no nothing so therefore don't comment'. The idea of debate is just that, debate.
My daughter is a pensions fund manger responsible for vast sums of money in the form of strategy planning. We do not discuss her work as it is, frankly' boring. However, the family connection stories certainly support the accusations. I repeat what I have previously said regards the overcharging by the pensions fund companies ensuring staff are extremely well paid at the clients expense. Unless you know different in which case I look forward to reading your reply.

So if you don't discuss her work, then your 'family connection' is entirely irrelevant!

Fees are detailed on the fund documentation.

Are you claiming that fund managers are collecting higher fees than are being signed up to?

The only fees which are published are the ones they are forced to publish by the regulator.

I would look at execution costs, the LSE is £1/shape for non members, so what is that huge execution premium that is being added and where is it going?

And then we can look at benchmarking and the regulation around that and peer group comparisons. How can funds publish higher relative performance than they are achieving?

And then we can have a look at pension managers? Where do they come from? Are they perchance the inbred second sons or the cream of the investment world?

Why do management firms promote star traders?

Oh, and why do people who would never be liable for tax get sold tax wrappers with annual fees that there is no need for?

The pension fund industry is an archaic blight on my industry and should be given a kicking. It's two decades behind the rest of us.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Indeed, I take my hat off to you, fair play.

As an aside I recall management fees in various unit trust funds I held being 2% but at the time didn't have much choice but to pay.

Was that a fund management fee or was that the total fee to cover administration, recoup of initial set-up costs and other costs, as well as fund management?

Why didn't you 'have a choice'?

Are you suggesting that 2% was the fee that all managers were charging and there were no alternatives?

crankedup said:

In fairness the funds did quite well so felt the fee was worth paying. Now that is a totally different scenario to pensions funds in as much as I was only in for medium term investment and could pull at any time.

There is a huge range of investment choices for pension funds (ironically, due to capped charges, some attractive funds are now being excluded from the choice as the provider simply cannot afford to offer them within the capped fee).

Switching between funds is normally free or at minimal cost.

[Murph7355]

crankedup said:

Indeed, I take my hat off to you, fair play.

As an aside I recall management fees in various unit trust funds I held being 2% but at the time didn't have much choice but to pay. In fairness the funds did quite well so felt the fee was worth paying. Now that is a totally different scenario to pensions funds in as much as I was only in for medium term investment and could pull at any time.

It's no different at all. You know the service you want, you read the small print, you research the costs and you make your choice.

If the govt start to interfere it will bugger things up far worse than they are at present. If they insist on caps to charges, do you think people investing in pensions will be better off overall?

Take your own example. If charges for unit trusts were capped at 0.2%,do you think the people who did well for you would have been available to you?

Haven't the give already dabbled with restrictions on how IFAs and others charge?

You do come up with ill thought out idealist mumbo sometimes... And then pass it off as just wanting debate. You're an absolute godsend to the Millibands, Cleggs and Cables of this world. React to high level statements without any thought about the consequences

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Ah yes the old 'you no nothing so therefore don't comment'. The idea of debate is just that, debate.
My daughter is a pensions fund manger responsible for vast sums of money in the form of strategy planning. We do not discuss her work as it is, frankly' boring. However, the family connection stories certainly support the accusations. I repeat what I have previously said regards the overcharging by the pensions fund companies ensuring staff are extremely well paid at the clients expense. Unless you know different in which case I look forward to reading your reply.

So if you don't discuss her work, then your 'family connection' is entirely irrelevant!

Fees are detailed on the fund documentation.

Are you claiming that fund managers are collecting higher fees than are being signed up to?

My mistake, some 'work' is discussed like her pay and bonus payments and various perks for her teams and such like. I don't see those issues as her work but the rewards of the work. Sorry I should have been much clearer from the outset.
Yes I do know that fees can be readily found within various documents, but that fact is not going to make the fees a 'fair and reasonable charge'. When the holder of such funds decides the fees are unsustainable or to rich for us individuals then that is personal choice. When people are paying into a pensions fund from a wage packet then choice of movement becomes more restricted, although entirely possible of course. But the ongoing investigation, quite rightly imo, is focusing on industry practice relating to charges. The reality is, as you well know, that people pay into a fund from wage packets in the hope that the pension fund will meet expectation, full stop, without realising how much of their money is used for the management of same. Like you suggest I know little of what I am talking about therefore I would rely upon the honesty and integrity of those companies that would be investing my cash. To this day I do not really know what the total cost of the fees were over a thirty year plan.

I'm not 'claiming' anything, I am merely pointing out the fact that this part of the industry is currently under investigation for alleged overcharging, thought that much was clear.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

My mistake, some 'work' is discussed like her pay and bonus payments and various perks for her teams and such like. I don't see those issues as her work but the rewards of the work. Sorry I should have been much clearer from the outset.

So you don't discuss fund charges which are relevant to the discussion.

If she isn't a fund manager, why is this relevant?

crankedup said:

Yes I do know that fees can be readily found within various documents, but that fact is not going to make the fees a 'fair and reasonable charge'.

If you tell someone before they invest with you what the fees are and they choose to invest then how can you argue those fees are not 'fair and reasonable'??

crankedup said:

When the holder of such funds decides the fees are unsustainable or to rich for us individuals then that is personal choice.

???

crankedup said:

When people are paying into a pensions fund from a wage packet then choice of movement becomes more restricted, although entirely possible of course. But the ongoing investigation, quite rightly imo, is focusing on industry practice relating to charges. The reality is, as you well know, that people pay into a fund from wage packets in the hope that the pension fund will meet expectation, full stop, without realising how much of their money is used for the management of same.

They can of course pay for advice to help them....

Are their expectations 'reasonable'..

crankedup said:

Like you suggest I know little of what I am talking about therefore I would rely upon the honesty and integrity of those companies that would be investing my cash. To this day I do not really know what the total cost of the fees were over a thirty year plan.

Add up the costs shown for each year....

Charging exactly what they told you they'd charge (in the document provided before you invested) seems to demonstrate honesty and integrity...

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

Its not for me to define overcharging within the industry, that is currently the charge that is being investigated. If it is deemed that unfair overcharging is indeed factual then this will be dealt with by the financial authorities.
I do not believe it is individual financial advisers who are being investigated, the management charges levied by the corporate companies responsible for the financial well-being of peoples money is apparently where the perceived problem is.

If you charge the fee that you told the customer you would be charging then that is not 'overcharging'.

It seems that there is a claim that some funds are charging for active management but actually undertaking a passive strategy. Of course sometimes there are minimal opportunities and so being positioned close to benchmark is a conscious and sensible position to take.

Further, there were plenty of stories in 2013 criticizing active managers for 'excessive trading'...

Yes most investors would be content with benchmark performance but that benchmark must be measured against performances of other investment activity. Again its a matter of trust between the client and company involved. My sense is that this trust has possibly been breached over a period of years thanks to the continued bad news stories from other financial investment sectors?
I disagree with your assertion that 'if you told a client the fee that is not overcharging'. My reasoning is that if you take a example from the past :
Company 'A' supplies ten tons of concrete for 500 pounds.
Company 'B' ditto
Company 'C' "
The competitions authorities investigated and found collusion between the companies in order to maximise tier profits. In a nutshell overcharging in a closed industry. I'm not suggesting the pensions industry is doing the same but clearly things are amiss. That will be revealed in due course. But its the same pattern emerging throughout the entire financial sector, wrongdoing and malpractice.

Thank you for posting your own knowledge on the subject that I raised, as I mentioned that is what forum debates are for, not 'putting down' other posters.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Yes most investors would be content with benchmark performance but that benchmark must be measured against performances of other investment activity.

The benchmarks are explicitly stated and relate to the appropriate index for the asset class that the customer has chosen to invest in...

crankedup said:

Again its a matter of trust between the client and company involved. My sense is that this trust has possibly been breached over a period of years thanks to the continued bad news stories from other financial investment sectors?
I disagree with your assertion that 'if you told a client the fee that is not overcharging'. My reasoning is that if you take a example from the past :
Company 'A' supplies ten tons of concrete for 500 pounds.
Company 'B' ditto
Company 'C' "
The competitions authorities investigated and found collusion between the companies in order to maximise tier profits. In a nutshell overcharging in a closed industry.

I'm not suggesting the pensions industry is doing the same but clearly things are amiss. That will be revealed in due course. But its the same pattern emerging throughout the entire financial sector, wrongdoing and malpractice.

'clearly'..?

crankedup said:

Thank you for posting your own knowledge on the subject that I raised, as I mentioned that is what forum debates are for, not 'putting down' other posters.

As per other threads, when people raise sensible questions and seek to improve their understanding, then I'm happy to help and try and be constructive. Frequently however, when in my opinion it starts with vague claims and accusations by people that don't have a clue, they get a more aggressive response...

Edited by sidicks on Saturday 27th September 13:37

[edh]

Rovinghawk said:

edh said:

I don't think its straightforward just to net the two off.

And I don't think it's honest to omit the one that doesn't suit you when putting forward costings.

I think you are looking at 2 different things

1. Reliefs on current pension contributions - against a promise of some future income spread over many years in the future. 40% relief for higher rate earners, much of which which will be paid out tax free or at a much lower rate. I haven't seen any projections for this income

2. Tax paid on current personal pensions - where relief was given many years ago.

If I was in the treasury, scrutinising budgets line by line for savings, and I found an entry that was equivalent to nearly 8% of government income, (or 50% of the deficit, or half the eduction budget, or a third of the health budget) I'd be very keen to understand whether we really needed to be doing it. Promises of jam tomorrow wouldn't wash.

People keep on about "tough choices" - well here's one. Our budget deficit is here now, not to fix in ten or twenty years time.

[edh]

DonkeyApple said:

DonkeyApple said:

edh said:

DonkeyApple said:

edh said:

DonkeyApple said:

Yup. The £2m headline grabbing figure is purely to grab the votes of the very people who are the actual target of the tax.

Once in place it will be used to punish anyone who isn't on benefits.

Ah so pensioners will be OK then

I should have said 'reliant' on benefits. Pensioners are totally screwed as they are the largest demographic in these mansions.

Largest demographic? really?

a. many will be comfortably off on large occupational pensions - my heart bleeds...
b. provision to roll up the debt will be there for the "poor widow in a mansion"

And many won't. Ever tried to move home at 80?

House prices are only high because of deliberate State deregulation of lending. Why punish someone who bought a modest family home 30 years ago before we became a debt and spend society?

By far the largest number of people in £1m+ homes will be pensioners and as we all well know very many have had their pensions decimated. Not everyone worked for the State and got given final salary schemes.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/life/property/article4219312.ece

paywall...

but why would they have to move? There is a huge amount of capital in the house that would pay the rolled up taxes on death (or sale)

Final salary schemes were still common in private sector companies 20-30 years ago, not just the preserve of "featherbedded" state employees

[sidicks]

edh said:

Final salary schemes were still common in private sector companies 20-30 years ago,not just the preserve of "featherbedded" state employees

I think you miss the point - the key issue is highlighted in bold to help you...

[edh]

sidicks said:

edh said:

Final salary schemes were still common in private sector companies 20-30 years ago,not just the preserve of "featherbedded" state employees

I think you miss the point - the key issue is highlighted in bold to help you...

er... "Mrs Morgan (84) and her husband, aged 88"

A point made about people 80+, people likely to be caught by the mansion tax - supported by the times article. I guess they reached pension age "20-30 years ago,". (highlighted in bold to help you )

[sidicks]

edh said:

er... "Mrs Morgan (84) and her husband, aged 88"

A point made about people 80+, people likely to be caught by the mansion tax - supported by the times article. I guess they reached pension age "20-30 years ago,". (highlighted in bold to help you )

Ah, I see, I misunderstood the point you were making.