Pension need to knows Official MSE Guide Discussion

Pensions - great idea but what about if I cannot afford to buy a home of my own and I am stuck with being a renter all my life? All that saving into a pension will just be to pay a landlord rent until I die "pointless" I'll still be eating baked beans and frightened to put the heating on yet saved a fortune into a pension. Even a modest rent in retirement paid until death would require a pension pot of £168,000 - better the government started removing all the inflation from the economy like massively over-priced housing, too high rents, council tax, energy costs, travel (petrol) car insurance ect ... also strikes me if the government starting reducing the inflation they'd automatically be paying a lot less in income support, child benefit, tax credits, housing benefit, council tax benefit of which the vast majority of payments are to subsidise incomes employers either can't pay or won't pay - too much propaganda covering up government incompetence !

Pensions - great idea but what about if I cannot afford to buy a home of my own and I am stuck with being a renter all my life?

Owning a home is not a right. Renting is an alternative. Neither should affect your retirement planning.

All that saving into a pension will just be to pay a landlord rent until I die "pointless"

The alternative not having the pension income to pay the rent and the landlord evicting you.

I'll still be eating baked beans and frightened to put the heating on yet saved a fortune into a pension.

What is your definition of a fortune?

better the government started removing all the inflation from the economy like massively over-priced housing, too high rents, council tax, energy costs, travel (petrol) car insurance ect

Most of which are outside of the control of the Govt. However, they are reducing benefits for people who choose to be poor. Hoipeully returning to the more affordable position that the govt helps those who cannot help themselves. Not those that choose not to help themselves.

fairleads wrote: »

A) Because it uses the gross amount to work out your marginal tax rate.
they appear correct to me

ps. Why no input from our regular multi posters?

A) it may well do but it applies the tax relief again after already taking into account the tax free contribution - this seems incorrect, see my example at 10:59.

Please can you show your working?

Thanks

For a moneysavingexpert article, this worries me.It appears to have too much input from those in the pensions industrywith a vested interest.

Just four examples: -

Pension contributions, and any interest earned,are NOT tax-free. They are TAX-DEFERRED. When you get back yoursavings, and any accrued interest, as an annuity, you will be taxedon them then. If you fall into the Age Allowance band, you will endup paying more tax than if you had been taxed on your incomeoriginally. Similarly, in earlier years, if you are paying income taxat only 20%, and by the time you retire, your income falls into ahigher tax band, then you will pay more tax.

Secondly, inflation will eat away caustically atany savings you put away, including pension contributions. Inflationcan exceed the interest rate you earn.

Thirdly, the stock market can drop dramatically,affecting investments in pension funds.

Fourthly, the fees charged by those in the pensionindustry will massively reduce any amount you put away in earlyyears. Some companies charge an ANNUAL fee of up to 1.5% of your"pot". So savings contributed at say 25 years of age,subject to 40+ years at 1.5%pa, will have 60% of their value deductedby the provider, in round terms.

Just do a spread sheet taking into account wage(And therefore contribution) inflation, fund management fees,purchasing inflation (As applied to what you will be purchasing inretirement, which will be rather higher than either the RPI or CPIfigures), taxation deferred now, taxation paid when you draw yourpension,



and the con will become obvious.

I would have thought moneysavingexpert would have done this calculation, for 1. Those on the Minimum Wage. 2. Those on the national average wage. 3. Those likely to hit the Age Allowance limit.

Zent wrote: »

For a moneysavingexpert article, this worries me.It appears to have too much input from those in the pensions industrywith a vested interest.

Just four examples: -

Pension contributions, and any interest earned,are NOT tax-free. They are TAX-DEFERRED. When you get back yoursavings, and any accrued interest, as an annuity, you will be taxedon them then. If you fall into the Age Allowance band, you will endup paying more tax than if you had been taxed on your incomeoriginally. Similarly, in earlier years, if you are paying income taxat only 20%, and by the time you retire, your income falls into ahigher tax band, then you will pay more tax.

Of course, with the age allowance disappearing, that's no longer an issue.

As to the tax rates, there are very few people looking to pay higher rate tax in retirement, and those individuals should certainly consider all of their options, however in all likelihood someone earning that much in retirement will be at least a higher rate taxpayer for most of their working life.

Once you factor in the very high probability of paying an equal or lower rate of tax in retirement, you then need to account for the PCLS, which gives up to 25% of the fund as a tax free lump sum at commencement. This sum, coupled with the largely tax exempt growth of assets held within the policy, is where the real tax efficiency of this type of investment comes from.

Secondly, inflation will eat away caustically atany savings you put away, including pension contributions. Inflationcan exceed the interest rate you earn.

Inflation affects everything, so this isn't really a relevant comment for pensions.

Thirdly, the stock market can drop dramatically,affecting investments in pension funds.

Again, not a phenomenon limited to pensions, so not really relevant when assessing the worth of the pension tax wrapper.

Fourthly, the fees charged by those in the pensionindustry will massively reduce any amount you put away in earlyyears. Some companies charge an ANNUAL fee of up to 1.5% of your"pot". So savings contributed at say 25 years of age,subject to 40+ years at 1.5%pa, will have 60% of their value deductedby the provider, in round terms.

That's not how you calculate deductions, and "their value" is totally meaningless without stating whether you mean the contributed value (in real or nominal terms), the maturity value (same distinction), etc.

Ultimately what matters at the end of the day is how much you get in your pot and what the difference in projected value would be compared with something outside a pension.

For example, if you assume 7% growth rates net of all charges but the pension cost (quite high, but not unachievable over the long run) and compare that pension to a cleaner investment with a difference of, say, 0.5% (i.e. net growth rates of 6.5% and 7%), then £1,000 will turn into £14,974 outside the pension and £12,416 inside the pension, a 17% reduction.

Incidentally, a pension wrapper can be had for much less than 0.5%, and most investments can go into it on the same terms as you would hold them outside the wrapper, so this is quite an extreme example.

As it happens, many modern platforms offer identical terms for pensions, ISAs and general investment accounts, so the difference between pension and non-pension investments with such providers is zero.

Just do a spread sheet taking into account wage(And therefore contribution) inflation, fund management fees,purchasing inflation (As applied to what you will be purchasing inretirement, which will be rather higher than either the RPI or CPIfigures), taxation deferred now, taxation paid when you draw yourpension,



and the con will become obvious.

Do please explain the con, if you believe there is one.