Lease cars and lack of pension provision

[sidicks]

zarjaz1991 said:

sidicks said:

zarjaz1991

Can you answer the questions please:

Why don't you invest in cash within a pension and benefit from tax free growth and tax relief at source?
Why don't you invest in fixed income bonds to match your retirement date to guarantee a fixed rate of return tax free and benefit from tax relief at source?

What funds would I do all this with?

The same funds you were going to put under your bed and get a much lower guaranteed returns (which you claimed wasn't possible)?!

zarjaz1991 said:

sidicks said:

What happens if your pension provider goes bust - you never did explain?

I wanted you to explain that. Because you implied it's perfectly safe, but it isn't, is it?

Why don't you think it's safe - you're the one making the bold claims about the pension provider can "steal all or part of it, or go bust and take it with them, at any time"

Are you still standing by that?!

zarjaz1991 said:

sidicks said:

What's complicated about a tax efficient wrapper?

The rules are extremely complicated, as you must surely realise.

The key points are not complicated.

zarjaz1991 said:

sidicks said:

Which pensions were 'raided', as you previously claimed?

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.

So nothing to do with DC pensions, and so irrelevant to the discussion?

[sidicks]

stongle said:

About. 5k pot or pension of 150 a year. Might seem like chicken feed, but if you''re on the breadline in the future wallowing in your stench of piss & biscuits it might buy a couple of pints at Wetherspoons and out the house for a few hours.

Or better your plan smoke it. Hopefully it will kill a few more of the feckless off so my kids aren't having to pay for them.

If we're doing empathy.

Eh, am I missing something?

£80 per year net is £100 per year gross. Plus the same again for the employer's contribution.
Assume that the £10k income increases at 2% p.a. (and hence so do the contributions) and you have a pot of over £26k @ 4% interest after 40 years.

Of course the usual suspects who are so keen to emphasise the significance of a £7 per month contribution, will seek to suggest an annuity payment of 10 times that amount is 'chicken feed'...

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 19th February 21:45

[drainbrain]

stongle said:

drainbrain said:

Sid....PLEASE do the numbers on that £80 a year pension...

(I am literally shaking with mirth. You bloody ARE IDS aren't you?)

About. 5k pot or pension of 150 a year. Might seem like chicken feed, but if you''re on the breadline in the future wallowing in your stench of piss & biscuits it might buy a couple of pints at Wetherspoons and out the house for a few hours.

Or better your plan smoke it. Hopefully it will kill a few more of the feckless off so my kids aren't having to pay for them.

If we're doing empathy.

lol....£150 a year!!!! Which will, of course, impact on your benefits £1 for £1......Forget the pints and fags. You'll be paying it to the landlord!! No worries, at least Sid'll be around to help you out!

[stongle]

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.

Now its you being a wally. Final salary or defined benefits are largely dead and gone for millennials. Raiding is irrelevant, bit like getting scurvy on a cruise. Employer schemes, could be raided but defined contributions outsourced cannot. Likewise emploer contributions are locked in. Plenty of information on the FCA site on redress measures and protections.

All pensions are investments, hence carry risk. Now you can make retirement investments outside a pension wrapper; but you'd get no tax relief and your investment risks are largely the same. The point you keep missing is a pension is a tax wrapper, and nothing more. Of course governments can tinker with rules but retrospective tax grabs are a sure fire way to get binned.

[stongle]

sidicks said:

Eh, am I missing something?

£80 per year net is £100 per year gross. Plus the same again for the employer's contribution.
Assume that the £10k income increases at 2% p.a. (and hence so do the contributions) and you have a pot of over £26k @ 4% interest after 40 years.

I ignored employer contributions and minimal growth (govt funds as nobody here understands risk anyway), nor was wage inflation factored.

[TSCfree]

desolate said:

didactic

Oooh learn't something today

[drainbrain]

sidicks said:

Eh, am I missing something?

£80 per year net is £100 per year gross. Plus the same again for the employer's contribution.
Assume that the £10k income increases at 2% p.a. (and hence so do the contributions) and you have a pot of over £30k @ 5% interest after 40 years.

....and even after that vastly over-egged calculation, what'll inflation do to that between now and 2057?........What'll £23 a week buy in 2057 do you think? A tipped single and a can of soupy?

O Sid, you ARE a funny guy. Y'know for a lifetime lesson in empathy you SHOULD try that thing IDS tried. Living amongst the poor for a couple of weeks.

Saving money is a FANTASY for many many people. There's a fair number in really desperate need. Suggesting to someone way below the poverty line that they should save via a pension because it's a really tax efficient wrapper will get you a blank stare at best or a slap at worst.

[sidicks]

stongle said:

I ignored employer contributions and minimal growth (govt funds as nobody here understands risk anyway), nor was wage inflation factored.

In any case, drainbrain was going to reply with a silly, sarcastic response, no matter what the answer was!

[stongle]

drainbrain said:

lol....£150 a year!!!! Which will, of course, impact on your benefits £1 for £1......Forget the pints and fags. You'll be paying it to the landlord!! No worries, at least Sid'll be around to help you out!

You'll need to write that in English, can you point me to the law on pensions reducing benefits please?

[sidicks]

drainbrain said:

....and even after that vastly over-egged calculation, what'll inflation do to that between now and 2057?........What'll £23 a week buy in 2057 do you think? A tipped single and a can of soupy?

O Sid, you ARE a funny guy. Y'know for a lifetime lesson in empathy you SHOULD try that thing IDS tried. Living amongst the poor for a couple of weeks.

Saving money is a FANTASY for many many people. There's a fair number in really desperate need.

Suggesting to someone way below the poverty line that they should save via a pension because it's a really tax efficient wrapper will get you a blank stare at best or a slap at worst.

I've suggested no such thing. But you stick with your lack of understanding if it helps you.

[CarlosFandango11]

stongle said:

sidicks said:

Eh, am I missing something?

£80 per year net is £100 per year gross. Plus the same again for the employer's contribution.
Assume that the £10k income increases at 2% p.a. (and hence so do the contributions) and you have a pot of over £26k @ 4% interest after 40 years.

I ignored employer contributions and minimal growth (govt funds as nobody here understands risk anyway), nor was wage inflation factored.

Hardly anywhere here understands pensions.

[anonymous-user]

CarlosFandango11 said:

Hardly anywhere here understands pensions.

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

[sidicks]

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

Yes, definitely. There's definitely no other possible logical explanation...

Or maybe c) some people just don't want to listen.

[craigjm]

sidicks said:

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

Yes, definitely. There's definitely no other possible logical explanation...

Or maybe c) some people just don't want to listen.

I would say that it is a combination of all three

[stongle]

sidicks said:

In any case, drainbrain was going to reply with a silly, sarcastic response, no matter what the answer was!

Of course, he's already off on another tangent. It's beyond me that someone whom proclaims to be a guru on alternative retirement investments can't fathom that the investment risks have sweet FA to do with the tax wrapper. whether the tax wrapper has risks is fairly mute here, even stuffing the money under the mattress might appear clever until your kids burn the house down (or for groaks clients some Ned pours petrol through the letterbox and torches your gaff).

[CarlosFandango11]

desolate said:

CarlosFandango11 said:

Hardly anywhere here understands pensions.

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

Neither are the case

There's plenty explained on this thread and others. But some people on this thread choose to ignore and make up rubbish.

It's easy enough to do your own research, but it doesn't seem like many people make the effort.

[anonymous-user]

sidicks said:

Yes, definitely. There's definitely no other possible logical explanation...

Or maybe c) some people just don't want to listen.

Some people fall in to c) yes.

However many, many millions contribute to pensions and have no real understanding of what they are doing.

That is because the financial services industry is in general, incapable of, or not interested in, using language that many people can understand and that the people who need the advice the most are least able to afford it.

And that's before we get on to talking about the high proportion of charlatans and thieves.

[sidicks]

desolate said:

Some people fall in to c) yes.

However many, many millions contribute to pensions and have no real understanding of what they are doing.

Speak for yourself?!

What do you need to understand? What don't you understand?

desolate said:

That is because the financial services industry is in general, incapable of, or not interested in, using language that many people can understand and that the people who need the advice the most are least able to afford it.

And that's before we get on to talking about the high proportion of charlatans and thieves.

You just can't help yourself, can you. So dull.

Edited by sidicks on Sunday 19th February 22:10

[drainbrain]

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 !!!

...or just the plain old boring smalltime down home version, like this....

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/crime/ex-crime-l...

Edited by drainbrain on Sunday 19th February 22:27

[zarjaz1991]

stongle said:

Now its you being a wally. Final salary or defined benefits are largely dead and gone for millennials. Raiding is irrelevant, bit like getting scurvy on a cruise. Employer schemes, could be raided but defined contributions outsourced cannot. Likewise emploer contributions are locked in. Plenty of information on the FCA site on redress measures and protections.

All pensions are investments, hence carry risk. Now you can make retirement investments outside a pension wrapper; but you'd get no tax relief and your investment risks are largely the same. The point you keep missing is a pension is a tax wrapper, and nothing more. Of course governments can tinker with rules but retrospective tax grabs are a sure fire way to get binned.

So, the fact the government of the day raided one type of pension has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on whether a future government might decide to something similar when there's a big pot of money lying around in a different type of pension?

You really believe that?