Brown kills residential property SIPPs?

dunstonh

Those charges are quite normal with any property sale.

And paying for advice is quite normal too.

Although I don't have any 'drawdown', I understand from my IFA that if I did, I would have to sit down with him every year to decide how much I should draw for which I would have to keep paying fees.
I prefer to make my own decisions, be in charge of my own finances, and avoid ongoing fees.

If you feel comfortable doing that then fine. However, not many will be and the IFA is totally correct by giving that advice and the consumer paying for it.

The amount of snide comments we get, in the pensions forum more than the others, gets rather fustrating. That isnt aimed at you al_yrpal but it explains my response. Its even more fustrating when some of those that highlight the advantages of doing it yourself by not paying "fat" IFA fees often give incorrect or incomplete information or show that they don't really have the knowledge.

Paying for something when you get value for money is not something that should be frowned on. Its only when you dont get value for money that it should concern you.

What nonsense. There is no requirement to have an IFA to do drawdown whatsoever. And these days you can do it extremely easily online in a low cost SIPP paying no annual fee.

The lies some of these people spout are just unbelievable, :mad:

The way you read someone's post and twist it to mean something different is unbelievable. There are no lies in what was stated in that post.

JCL

whiteflag wrote:

Why?

It seems like common sense has prevailed at last.

You could say Brown has been very clever- release draft regulations, give the industry , journalists and the public a year or so to find all the loopholes and then plug them all at the last minute.

Hopefully now pensions will again be regarded as a retirement planning tool rather than a tax dodge for the rich!

He's wasted a lot of time for a lot of people. It was the Treasury that came up with the original proposals and left them open to abuse. To do such a complete u-turn this late on is ridiculous.

The least he could have done is allow an individual's main property to be included in the SIPP.

whiteflag_3

JCL wrote:

He's wasted a lot of time for a lot of people. It was the Treasury that came up with the original proposals and left them open to abuse. To do such a complete u-turn this late on is ridiculous.

The least he could have done is allow an individual's main property to be included in the SIPP.

I agree that alot of time has been wasted, however closing areas that were going to be so blatantly abused doesn't make Brown an idiot.

There are many examples where the government and their agencies lock the gate after the horse has bolted, so while I appreciate your frustration I think this U turn has been on the cards for a long time.

In fact there have been many "wait and see" posts on this site because the rules were not cast in stone.

al_yrpal

dunstonh wrote:

Paying for something when you get value for money is not something that should be frowned on. Its only when you dont get value for money that it should concern you.

I am quite happy to pay appropriate fees for quality advice or services.
I suspect that there are unscrupulous advisors out there who would advise drawdown in order to provide themselves with an ongoing income stream. It's unfortunate for the honest ones that the whole whole profession has been tarred with the same brush, but when you look at the many financial scandals that have surfaced in the last few years one can see how that has happened.
How you regulate these guys out of business I just don't know. Even the banks and insurance companies seem to be 'at it'. Like Lloyds Bank advising my ma in law to keep 40 grand in a current account paying 1.5% interest. I am sure this isn't Lloyds policy, its sheer incomptence. You end up with the feeling that there are too many incompetent and untrustworthy people in financial services.

dunstonh

Even the banks and insurance companies seem to be 'at it'. Like Lloyds Bank advising my ma in law to keep 40 grand in a current account paying 1.5% interest. I am sure this isn't Lloyds policy, its sheer incomptence. You end up with the feeling that there are too many incompetent and untrustworthy people in financial services.

Bank accounts aren't regulated though so anyone can say anything about them. This includes bank staff who havent got a clue. At least on the regulated side there is less chance of that happening and if something goes wrong, there is some comeback possible.

I suspect that there are unscrupulous advisors out there who would advise drawdown in order to provide themselves with an ongoing income stream.

I would suspect a minority though if that is the case. Drawdown is treated as a high risk area and the compliance requirements in dealing with it are very tight to ensure that it is done correctly.

Pal

JCL wrote:

The least he could have done is allow an individual's main property to be included in the SIPP.

Given that there were no tax or practical advantages to investing one's own main property in a SIPP, allowing it is the last thing that he should have done.

In practice SIPPS were only going to be of any use to people who currently have large personal pension funds AND an existing BTL portfolio. They could then move the existing properties into their fund to gain tax advantages.

All Gordon Brown has done is close a potential tax advantaged saving scheme for people who are already wealthy.

Given that these flaws were obvious from the start, the real surprise is that these proposals even got mentioned in the first place.

fairenoughclough

whiteflag wrote:

Para 2 not being cynical

Para 3 you think its naive I made it in hope!


Post something usefull you clown!

Not allowed a bit of banter anymore !

dunstonh

Not allowed a bit of banter anymore !

The pensions forum has been a bit anti IFA over the last few months. Without a smiley at the end of your post, it would indicate that it wasnt meant as banter. To be honest, it did appear as a dig.

As it happens, I agree with whiteflag. They way the information has been leaked at various points does seem to suggest it was a way to plug loopholes before the act came into effect. The current Govt has a history of leaking like this.

Pensions have become a tax tool rather than a savings vehicle and the property side would have expanded that. When i deal with clients now who are looking at retirement planning, I look if they are higher rate taxpayers and.or in receipt of children/working tax credits to see if its better for them to do a pension or an ISA. With investment areas all being the same across the various tax wrappers, its become a case of where to invest your money first and then sticking it in the right tax wrapper second.

deemy2004

LOL... :rotfl:

Gordie brown realised he would lose perhaps two billion a year in tax revenues and did a u turn. It was a daft idea to pay for 40% of the price of second homes for the rich - completely daft if they had gone ahead with it !

Another reason why NOT to put too much cash into a personal pension ! How many new ways to skim money from them or make them less appealing will goverments short of cash come up with ?

EdInvestor

It was a daft idea to pay for 40% of the price of second homes for the rich - completely daft if they had gone ahead with it !

Indeed so.Brown himself was wide open after claiming last week that raising the state pension was unaffordable.

To me the lesson is: never let your investments be determined by tax considerations.