Labour stretches lead over Tories
Discussion
Gargamel said:
The Tory led coalition ended the annuity requirement about a year ago
I know but they hadn't when I took the decision the industry was a scam. Can you still get the 25% tax free? No way that is going to last IMO. Unfortunately the UK private pension pot is just too juicy a target for the politicians. They will bleed it dry.fblm said:
I know but they hadn't when I took the decision the industry was a scam. Can you still get the 25% tax free? No way that is going to last IMO. Unfortunately the UK private pension pot is just too juicy a target for the politicians. They will bleed it dry.
I still get tax relief at 40% on my pension. However I think whoever wins that is going to come to an end. fblm said:
crankedup said:
You don't need to be an expert to understand that...
unfunded public sector pension schemes are unfunded? I would certainly agree that you are no expert yet you continually berate sidicks, who is, whilst showing a pathetic level of understanding of the industry, or even the word unfunded. Frankly I dont know why he bothers. Personally I took the view that the entire industry was a complete scam over 10 years ago and stopped paying in anything over the minimum matching %. Even SIPP's are overcharged. The US 401k system is far better, you can opt to have it managed like the UK or transfer to your brokerage account and just manage your own money for free, and you certainly dont have to then get your face ripped off at the end with a stupid annuity.
However, I do not accept that my basic premise is that the industry has been and still is overcharging customers, he says no, I say yes. It raises lots of side issues but the basic statement remains and that is customers are being overcharged. In fairness Sidkips did at one stage admit that some minor problems may exist in the charges for services areas.
As I have now posted a link for those further interested in the truth, and accuracy of the industry practices / charges / services then click onto the link and learn, that includes you.
Rovinghawk said:
crankedup said:
Your wrong actually, I care about....... fairness in Society, as well as bottom line.
How is this fairness either defined or measured?situational feeling or sense of one or more group(s) of people living / working / playing within an often perceived set of unwritten or written 'rules'. These 'rules' are dependant upon the activity (ies)'. being undertaken, for example fairness in rugby will have a different set of rules to that of lawn tennis. Groups may comprise of however many people deemed necessary that make up 'a group' to live / work or play together. The 'rules' of fairness are obviously a simple guidance to work places / social activities / social balance. An individual may believe that their own set of rules for perceived fairness is vastly outweighed by a large group of other people who hold different values and 'rules' for the same activities. In this instance the individual could be condemned by others for 'not playing by the rules'.
crankedup said:
basic premise is that the industry has been and still is overcharging customers, he says no, I say yes.
Given the performance of the industry, certainly of the many funds I had available to me over my career I agree with you. Whilst undoubtedly conforming to the minimum legal requirement to publish charges and fees, somewhere, that doesn't mean such information is easy accessable or understood or complete. For the majority an annual letter saying how little you can look forward to in retirement is about all they know about their pensions. Someone has to pay for the multi million pound bonuses of fund managers and hundreds of employees paid to match an index. You could teach a junior trader to do that in a week. Looking back at the long term performance of the miriad pensions I have (totalling little hence my indifference) simply buying the index, had that been permitted, would have certainly outperformed.A couple of years ago I had a conversation with a neighbour who is a 'star' UK pension fund manager with many accolades for his performance, he had recently been promoted and very handsomely rewarded for beating his index, despite losing something like 15%... Now I understand the contraints of his mandate but regardless I do not want my money invested in an industry that considers losing my money a win in any way.
crankedup said:
their own set of rules for perceived fairness is vastly outweighed by a large group of other people who hold different values and 'rules' for the same activities. In this instance the individual could be condemned by others for 'not playing by the rules'.
Thank you for answering.The problem IMO with this response is that there is no set of rules for taxation/politics/whatever.
Instead we have different groups with different opinions. Generally the opinion is that the other groups should take a greater share of the burden so as to relieve pressure on their own group.
Based on that, I would suggest that 'fairness' is purely in the eye of the beholder.
fblm said:
crankedup said:
basic premise is that the industry has been and still is overcharging customers, he says no, I say yes.
Given the performance of the industry, certainly of the many funds I had available to me over my career I agree with you. Whilst undoubtedly conforming to the minimum legal requirement to publish charges and fees, somewhere, that doesn't mean such information is easy accessable or understood or complete. For the majority an annual letter saying how little you can look forward to in retirement is about all they know about their pensions. Someone has to pay for the multi million pound bonuses of fund managers and hundreds of employees paid to match an index. You could teach a junior trader to do that in a week. Looking back at the long term performance of the miriad pensions I have (totalling little hence my indifference) simply buying the index, had that been permitted, would have certainly outperformed.A couple of years ago I had a conversation with a neighbour who is a 'star' UK pension fund manager with many accolades for his performance, he had recently been promoted and very handsomely rewarded for beating his index, despite losing something like 15%... Now I understand the contraints of his mandate but regardless I do not want my money invested in an industry that considers losing my money a win in any way.
crankedup said:
Oh go on then, I will have a nibble :
situational feeling or sense of one or more group(s) of people living / working / playing within an often perceived set of unwritten or written 'rules'. These 'rules' are dependant upon the activity (ies)'. being undertaken, for example fairness in rugby will have a different set of rules to that of lawn tennis. Groups may comprise of however many people deemed necessary that make up 'a group' to live / work or play together. The 'rules' of fairness are obviously a simple guidance to work places / social activities / social balance. An individual may believe that their own set of rules for perceived fairness is vastly outweighed by a large group of other people who hold different values and 'rules' for the same activities. In this instance the individual could be condemned by others for 'not playing by the rules'.
It's interesting you use a sport analogy. I cycle under the same rules as Bradley Wiggins but can get no where near his success. Should I watch in awe at what he achieves and use that as motivation to do better myself or should I expect the state to handicap him down to my level?situational feeling or sense of one or more group(s) of people living / working / playing within an often perceived set of unwritten or written 'rules'. These 'rules' are dependant upon the activity (ies)'. being undertaken, for example fairness in rugby will have a different set of rules to that of lawn tennis. Groups may comprise of however many people deemed necessary that make up 'a group' to live / work or play together. The 'rules' of fairness are obviously a simple guidance to work places / social activities / social balance. An individual may believe that their own set of rules for perceived fairness is vastly outweighed by a large group of other people who hold different values and 'rules' for the same activities. In this instance the individual could be condemned by others for 'not playing by the rules'.
Is 'fair' allowing someone to excel within a known set of rules even if that creates a huge gap between the best and worst performers, or is 'fair' handicapping the highest achievers so the gap is smaller?
fblm said:
I know but they hadn't when I took the decision the industry was a scam. Can you still get the 25% tax free? No way that is going to last IMO. Unfortunately the UK private pension pot is just too juicy a target for the politicians. They will bleed it dry.
Not sure that is true.Cameron has decided that money going into pensions, which in many cases is not taxed, will not be taxed when the person dies.
Derek Smith said:
fblm said:
I know but they hadn't when I took the decision the industry was a scam. Can you still get the 25% tax free? No way that is going to last IMO. Unfortunately the UK private pension pot is just too juicy a target for the politicians. They will bleed it dry.
Not sure that is true.Cameron has decided that money going into pensions, which in many cases is not taxed, will not be taxed when the person dies.
crankedup said:
Am I berating him? I don't think so, I merely raise the point that the industry is being investigated for alleged overcharging of customers. Amongst a small group of posters disagreement ensues, lets keep this real, Sidkips may be an expert in his field of work but this in itself is not his license to deny such activities exist. Yes I have flown by-wire and dropped the odd clanger, to which Sidkips has willingly put me right. Have you spotted anywhere that I have wittingly disagreed with his replies to me. No you won't find any of my disagreement with him on the issues that he may pull me up on, I know he is a expert and I am not in this field of work.
However, I do not accept that my basic premise is that the industry has been and still is overcharging customers, he says no, I say yes. It raises lots of side issues but the basic statement remains and that is customers are being overcharged. In fairness Sidkips did at one stage admit that some minor problems may exist in the charges for services areas.
As I have now posted a link for those further interested in the truth, and accuracy of the industry practices / charges / services then click onto the link and learn, that includes you.
I've answered this already (and it would help if you could spell my name correctly just once....):However, I do not accept that my basic premise is that the industry has been and still is overcharging customers, he says no, I say yes. It raises lots of side issues but the basic statement remains and that is customers are being overcharged. In fairness Sidkips did at one stage admit that some minor problems may exist in the charges for services areas.
As I have now posted a link for those further interested in the truth, and accuracy of the industry practices / charges / services then click onto the link and learn, that includes you.
His main claim is that:
"Typically, more than half of active UK stock market managers fail to beat the FTSE 100, despite charging significantly more than so-called ‘passive’ tracker funds which blindly follow the market. "
The whole point of choosing an active manager is that they are deliberately choosing to invest away from the market benchmark. As well as the possibility that the decisions made are the 'wrong' ones (or the 'right' ones, that don't come good in the relevant timescale) extra costs are involved in implementing those transactions plus of course higher fees for those active views.
Personally I don't believe in paying for alpha on equities, generally most people would be better off with passive exposure (in my view active management should be reserved for credit and hedge funds) but if they read the prospectus about the strategy then they'd understand the risks / rewards that they've chosen.
In terms of capping aggregate fees, the 0.75% has to cover initial setup costs, ongoing admin, and then increasing cost of regualtory compliance - I do find it ironic that those who are the most vociferous about the need to 'regulate the City' are the same ones who protest about paying the cost of that regulation....
For your average £50 per month pension, that means in the first year there is £4.50 in fees to cover all the expenses. Plenty of members make lower contributions with lower fee income, whereas much of the costs are fixed.
As ever, people are always in favour of cross subsidies when it benefits them, and against it when they are providing the subsisdy...!
alock said:
Is 'fair' allowing someone to excel within a known set of rules even if that creates a huge gap between the best and worst performers, or is 'fair' handicapping the highest achievers so the gap is smaller?
When I was a little kid, my mother explained to me that "It's not fair" is what losers say when a system (or set of rules) isn't to their benefit.Rovinghawk said:
alock said:
Is 'fair' allowing someone to excel within a known set of rules even if that creates a huge gap between the best and worst performers, or is 'fair' handicapping the highest achievers so the gap is smaller?
When I was a little kid, my mother explained to me that "It's not fair" is what losers say when a system (or set of rules) isn't to their benefit.Did she hold her thumb and forefinger up to her forehead in an "L" shape as she dispensed this sermon?
Derek Smith said:
Cameron has decided that money going into pensions, which in many cases is not taxed, will not be taxed when the person dies.
By the time I reach 50, making the wild assumption that it doesn't move again, Cameron will have long since been put to pasture in the Lords so whatever Cameron says is irrelevant. The only thing we know for sure is that between now and our retirements politicians of all flavours will be eyeing that massive pot of money with their fvcking claws out. Derek Smith said:
Not sure that is true.
Cameron has decided that money going into pensions, which in many cases is not taxed, will not be taxed when the person dies.
Not really close to the truth.Cameron has decided that money going into pensions, which in many cases is not taxed, will not be taxed when the person dies.
More accurately:
Cameron has decided that whilst pensions in receipt are taxed at the standard income tax rates, under certain circumstances funds saved in a pension fund but not drawn down can be passed to a dependant without a tax charge.
Or words to that effect.
Digga said:
I think the salient point is that, even for a numerate individual, it is actually impossible to fully decipher all of the charges a fund has accrued within any given period. The fact that performance is moribund is really a symptom of how much is taken out in fees and charges.
Indeed. Ever go to the bank wanting some foreign currency to be told there is 'no commission' only to receive a s
t exchange rate 5% below market? When you allocate some of your fund to a foreign index tracker, or 'global' bond fund the published fees are reasonable right? 
If there is a legal/not technically illegal way of scamming you they are at it, they arn't a charity. The only thing you can do is look at the NAV each year and calcuate your own returns. Of course this doesn't give you any recourse but at least you know you're getting fleeced and will retire in poverty. Rovinghawk said:
crankedup said:
their own set of rules for perceived fairness is vastly outweighed by a large group of other people who hold different values and 'rules' for the same activities. In this instance the individual could be condemned by others for 'not playing by the rules'.
Thank you for answering.The problem IMO with this response is that there is no set of rules for taxation/politics/whatever.
Instead we have different groups with different opinions. Generally the opinion is that the other groups should take a greater share of the burden so as to relieve pressure on their own group.
Based on that, I would suggest that 'fairness' is purely in the eye of the beholder.
Now we look at Hong Kong for a definition of 'fairness' in politics, complicated fairness lark, very complicated.
crankedup said:
Really! I believe the question of 'fairness' is fairly well understood and acted upon by the vast majority of the population most of the time.
A perfect example is the purely punitive 50% tax rate mentioned before- some consider it fair, some don't.It's in the eye of the beholder.
alock said:
crankedup said:
Oh go on then, I will have a nibble :
situational feeling or sense of one or more group(s) of people living / working / playing within an often perceived set of unwritten or written 'rules'. These 'rules' are dependant upon the activity (ies)'. being undertaken, for example fairness in rugby will have a different set of rules to that of lawn tennis. Groups may comprise of however many people deemed necessary that make up 'a group' to live / work or play together. The 'rules' of fairness are obviously a simple guidance to work places / social activities / social balance. An individual may believe that their own set of rules for perceived fairness is vastly outweighed by a large group of other people who hold different values and 'rules' for the same activities. In this instance the individual could be condemned by others for 'not playing by the rules'.
It's interesting you use a sport analogy. I cycle under the same rules as Bradley Wiggins but can get no where near his success. Should I watch in awe at what he achieves and use that as motivation to do better myself or should I expect the state to handicap him down to my level?situational feeling or sense of one or more group(s) of people living / working / playing within an often perceived set of unwritten or written 'rules'. These 'rules' are dependant upon the activity (ies)'. being undertaken, for example fairness in rugby will have a different set of rules to that of lawn tennis. Groups may comprise of however many people deemed necessary that make up 'a group' to live / work or play together. The 'rules' of fairness are obviously a simple guidance to work places / social activities / social balance. An individual may believe that their own set of rules for perceived fairness is vastly outweighed by a large group of other people who hold different values and 'rules' for the same activities. In this instance the individual could be condemned by others for 'not playing by the rules'.
Is 'fair' allowing someone to excel within a known set of rules even if that creates a huge gap between the best and worst performers, or is 'fair' handicapping the highest achievers so the gap is smaller?
The rules are still the same with no regard to which division is being played or competed within.
But of course your question, which is a good one, revolves around politics and around politics it is when fairness becomes acceptable, or not, to the widest and/or most influential group imo. Hence General Elections. I cannot see any other method of judgement then that used in our democracy.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff