Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
Page 1
  • kidmugsy
    • #2
    • 9th Oct 12, 10:25 PM
    • #2
    • 9th Oct 12, 10:25 PM
    I'm going to study "THE CHEAPEST FIRMS" section with great interest.
  • mania112
    • #3
    • 10th Oct 12, 9:30 AM
    • #3
    • 10th Oct 12, 9:30 AM
    I'm going to study "THE CHEAPEST FIRMS" section with great interest.
    Originally posted by kidmugsy
    It's not right, they're not the cheapest.

    Buying a PP via Cavendish offers an AMC of 0.70% (Aviva directly is 1.00%) - according to the link.

    Our firm have negotiated an AMC of 0.25% for Aviva's platform (which is essentially the same as a PP, in fact platforms are supposedly better than a PP because they offer more features).

    The fact that cavendish don't charge commission is irrelevant. That's an additional/different service.

    I'm not trying to self-promote - we don't like to do too many start-up's, just trying to prove a point.
  • sossij
    • #4
    • 10th Oct 12, 10:21 AM
    • #4
    • 10th Oct 12, 10:21 AM
    I earn 45,000 before tax p.a. My current contribution is 8% and my employer,s is 5%

    According to the pension calculator:

    "Costs & contributions

    What contribution costs you/month:300
    What's added to pension (contribution + tax relief): 462.67
    Employer contribution: 187.50
    Your savings

    Monthly: A reduction of 300 from your pay packet adds 650 to your pension
    Annually: A reduction of 3600 from your pay packet adds 7800 to your pension"


    The monthly contribution I see going into my pension is 487.50 i.e. 300 (me) + 187.50 (employer). The widget states that "A reduction of 300 from your pay packet adds 650 to your pension"... but not 487.50.

    As the 45,000 is my salary "before tax" and both contributions are taken before tax... how is 650 figure arrived at? And more worryingly why isn't it going into my pension each month?
  • bilbo51
    • #5
    • 10th Oct 12, 10:25 AM
    • #5
    • 10th Oct 12, 10:25 AM
    I earn 45,000 before tax p.a. My current contribution is 8% and my employer,s is 5%

    According to the pension calculator:

    "Costs & contributions

    What contribution costs you/month:300
    What's added to pension (contribution + tax relief): 462.67
    Employer contribution: 187.50
    Your savings

    Monthly: A reduction of 300 from your pay packet adds 650 to your pension
    Annually: A reduction of 3600 from your pay packet adds 7800 to your pension"


    The monthly contribution I see going into my pension is 487.50 i.e. 300 (me) + 187.50 (employer). The widget states that "A reduction of 300 from your pay packet adds 650 to your pension"... but not 487.50.

    As the 45,000 is my salary "before tax" and both contributions are taken before tax... how is 650 figure arrived at? And more worryingly why isn't it going into my pension each month?
    Originally posted by sossij
    Your 300 has already got tax relief included as it's taken from your pre-tax salary. The calculator contribution figure is post tax - ie what it costs you out of your take home pay - called your "pay packet" above.
    Last edited by bilbo51; 10-10-2012 at 10:28 AM.
  • sossij
    • #6
    • 10th Oct 12, 10:42 AM
    • #6
    • 10th Oct 12, 10:42 AM
    Your 300 has already got tax relief included as it's taken from your pre-tax salary. The calculator contribution figure is post tax - ie what it costs you out of your take home pay - called your "pay packet" above.
    Originally posted by bilbo51
    Hi Bilbo,

    Many thanks for your quick reply.

    Sorry for being thick...

    Yes I understand that the 300 will have tax relief on it as it is deducted from my pre-tax salary. To this I add my Employers contribution of 187.50.. which gives me 487.50, which is what I see going into my Pension each month. Yet the widget clearly states:

    "Monthly: A reduction of 300 from your pay packet adds 650 to your pension"

    I do not see this 650 "added" into my pension each month... where does this 650 figure come from?

    Many thanks
  • bilbo51
    • #7
    • 10th Oct 12, 10:51 AM
    • #7
    • 10th Oct 12, 10:51 AM
    Hi Bilbo,

    Many thanks for your quick reply.

    Sorry for being thick...

    Yes I understand that the 300 will have tax relief on it as it is deducted from my pre-tax salary. To this I add my Employers contribution of 187.50.. which gives me 487.50, which is what I see going into my Pension each month. Yet the widget clearly states:

    "Monthly: A reduction of 300 from your pay packet adds 650 to your pension"

    I do not see this 650 "added" into my pension each month... where does this 650 figure come from?

    Many thanks
    Originally posted by sossij
    Your contributions are correct and you don't need to worry. You are contributing 300 and your employer is contributing 187.50. The 300 already includes the "taxman's contribution". ie you are getting tax relief at whatever your marginal rate is because you aren't paying tax on the 300.

    As to whether the calculator is correct or not, I can't comment. When I try to use it it asks me just to use numbers (ie no commas in amounts etc) even when I'm just using numbers. I think it's a bit buggy.

    EDIT: They seem to have fixed the numbers only issue. I can't see how they get the 462.67. Your marginal tax rate would have to be 54% to achieve this!!!!!

    Now I know it's buggy.
    Last edited by bilbo51; 10-10-2012 at 11:04 AM.
  • sossij
    • #8
    • 10th Oct 12, 10:59 AM
    • #8
    • 10th Oct 12, 10:59 AM
    Your contributions are correct and you don't need to worry. You are contributing 300 and your employer is contributing 187.50. The 300 already includes the "taxman's contribution". ie you are getting tax relief at whatever your marginal rate is because you aren't paying tax on the 300.

    As to whether the calculator is correct or not, I can't comment. When I try to use it it asks me just to use numbers (ie no commas in amounts etc) even when I'm just using numbers. I think it's a bit buggy.
    Originally posted by bilbo51
    Thanks again Bilbo, yes I'm just using numbers too

    What appears to be going on is that the widget is adding tax relief twice:

    "What contribution costs you/month:300
    What's added to pension (contribution + tax relief): 462.67
    Employer contribution: 187.50"

    As you state the 300 already has tax relief on it, to which they add another "tax relief" from somewhere to get 462.67 and then add the employer contribution of 187.50. That is 462.67 + 187.50 = 650.17.

    This is the only way I can get to the 650 figure.. which I believe is wrong as the original 300 already has tax relief on it.

    Can anyone from MSE confirm the above?
    Last edited by sossij; 10-10-2012 at 11:09 AM.
  • dunstonh
    • #9
    • 10th Oct 12, 11:19 AM
    • #9
    • 10th Oct 12, 11:19 AM
    I have to agree. The cheapest pensions section is wrong. It should say they are they are the cheapest pensions from companies that MSE promotes.
    I am a Financial Adviser. Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. Different people have different needs and what is right for one person may not be for another. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from a Financial Adviser local to you.
  • fairleads
    Thanks again Bilbo, yes I'm just using numbers too

    What appears to be going on is that the widget is adding tax relief twice:

    "What contribution costs you/month:300
    What's added to pension (contribution + tax relief): 462.67
    Employer contribution: 187.50"

    As you state the 300 already has tax relief on it, to which they add another "tax relief" from somewhere to get 462.67 and then add the employer contribution of 187.50. That is 462.67 + 187.50 = 650.17.

    This is the only way I can get to the 650 figure.. which I believe is wrong as the original 300 already has tax relief on it.

    Can anyone from MSE confirm the above?
    Originally posted by sossij
    The clue to using the calculator and obtaining the correct result is in the terminology.
    i.e. your 300 contribution costs you 180, ( hr taxpayer) which is the figure to be used in the calculator. Enter 4.8% as your contribution and then check the result.
    Last edited by fairleads; 10-10-2012 at 12:20 PM. Reason: addition
  • sossij
    The clue to using the calculator and obtaining the correct result is in the terminology.
    i.e. your 300 contribution costs you 180, ( hr taxpayer) which is the figure to be used in the calculator.
    Originally posted by fairleads
    So why does the first text edit box clearly ask you to enter your pre-tax annual salary?

    The subsequent calculations are incorrect.
  • ej8113
    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 !
  • fairleads
    So why does the first text edit box clearly ask you to enter your pre-tax annual salary?

    The subsequent calculations are incorrect.
    Originally posted by sossij
    A) Because it uses the gross amount to work out your marginal tax rate.
    B) they appear correct to me

    ps. Why no input from our regular multi posters?
  • dunstonh
    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.
    I am a Financial Adviser. Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. Different people have different needs and what is right for one person may not be for another. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from a Financial Adviser local to you.
  • sossij
    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 !
    Originally posted by ej8113
    Because the governemnt of the day (especially this one) don't want to help the common person, they represent the rentier class. Sadly we are cattle to be milked to keep their kind in clover.
  • sossij
    A) Because it uses the gross amount to work out your marginal tax rate.
    B) they appear correct to me

    ps. Why no input from our regular multi posters?
    Originally posted by fairleads
    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.

    B) Please can you show your working?

    Thanks
  • sossij
    The clue to using the calculator and obtaining the correct result is in the terminology.
    i.e. your 300 contribution costs you 180, ( hr taxpayer) which is the figure to be used in the calculator. Enter 4.8% as your contribution and then check the result.
    Originally posted by fairleads
    Hi, sorry just saw your edit. Many thanks for the update

    Why do I need to enter 4.8% of gross salary as my contribution? My contribution is 8%, my employer's contribution is 5%

    Its not a very good calculator if you have to pre-calculale your inputs. It should state that you have to do that first, otherwise it is at best misleading or simply wrong.
  • Zent
    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.
  • dunstonh
    Pension contributions, and any interest earned,are NOT tax-free. They are TAX-DEFERRED.
    That is not correct. It ignores tax free growth, tax free lump sum and personal allowance on retirement.

    Secondly, inflation will eat away caustically atany savings you put away, including pension contributions. Inflationcan exceed the interest rate you earn.
    Whilst inflation is one of the risks, that applies to any tax wrapper and is mostly aimed at savings rather than investments.

    Thirdly, the stock market can drop dramatically,affecting investments in pension funds.
    Which is why most people investing dont go 100% into the stockmarket. Plus, the volatility can work for you whilst you are years away from retirement and drops can be a good thing.

    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 is a flawed calculation as it takes future money terms and presents them in todays terms which is pointless. However, the same would apply to any tax wrapper and indeed savings (which tend to have a higher implicit net interest margin higher than charges on investment funds). Some newspapers embarrassingly went with that previously and it is just lazy journalism to create a headline
    I am a Financial Adviser. Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. Different people have different needs and what is right for one person may not be for another. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from a Financial Adviser local to you.
  • Aegis
    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.
    Originally posted by Zent
    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.
    Last edited by Aegis; 10-10-2012 at 10:30 PM.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser
    Anything I say on the forum is for discussion purposes only and should not be construed as personal financial advice. It is vitally important to do your own research before acting on information gathered from any users on this forum.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim's to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,155Posts Today

7,332Users online

Martin's Twitter