The Wilsons are going under.

lostinrates

HammerSmashedFace wrote: »

Is that a good thing ? I can honestly say that I would sooner be me, even if I was eating out of bins than be Fergus Wilson. Looking in from the outside their punsishment is being the people they are.

I still don't understand this idea that money is everything, if you're a nasty, selfish, unintelligent etc... no amount of money can redeem you.

Just imagine though, if you were you and that rich. Now, you only need to be as tall as JohnnyBravo and we're getting pretty close to the absolutely perfect man.

Harry_Powell

PasturesNew wrote: »

If you collected rent from 900 houses for two months and shoved it into a pension .... and it then takes a couple of years to go fully t1ts up ... can the authorities grab the money back out of the fund?

900 x 2 x £600 = £1million.

Pensions are secure from bankruptcy, expect where money has obviously been salted away to hide it from the official receiver and creditors.

Thrugelmir

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Pensions are secure from bankruptcy, expect where money has obviously been salted away to hide it from the official receiver and creditors.

Unfortunately not.

Any part of your pension that is claimed by your trustee will be collected by him when you reach the retirement age under your pension arrangements, even if this is after your discharge from bankruptcy.

Harry_Powell

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Unfortunately not.

Your information is old. Pensions are now protected against bankruptcy, apart from the exclusion I have already provided.

http://www.pensionsadvisoryservice.org.uk/personal_and_stakeholder_pensions/bankruptcy

The Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 protects all pensions arising from tax-approved pension schemes against being part of a bankrupt's estate, for anyone made bankrupt after 29 May 2000. So, the Trustee In Bankruptcy (TIB) cannot control the pension to pay off creditors.

The TIB can apply to the Court, however, to receive a pension in payment for a period, under an Income Payments Order. But the Enterprise Act 2002 has reduced the automatic discharge period for people made bankrupt after 1 April 2004 to one year, so it is anticipated that a TIB will have little time to apply for an Income Payments Order. Also, the bankrupt can make an out-of-court agreement with the TIB to pay over a part of the pension for a specified period.

However, the discharge period can be extended if the bankrupt fails to comply with the obligations of the bankruptcy order. This can happen if the bankrupt for example had made what are deemed to be "excessive" contributions to a pension policy before bankruptcy.

Basically they're saying that a pension fund or 'pot' cannot be touched by the official receiver if you're bankrupted. If you are actually a pensioner when you're made bankrupt, the official receiver can apply to have some of the income from your pension taken from you, but only for 1 year until you're discharged and even then it can take so long to apply for this that unless you're in receipt of a large pension it isn't worth the OR's while.

As I stated in my earlier post, if you deliberately try to hide money in your penson to avoid the OR, then he can apply to have the discharge period extended.

In a nutshell. As long as you play fair, your pension is safe from bankruptcy.

Thrugelmir

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Your information is old. Pensions are now protected against bankruptcy, apart from the exclusion I have already provided.

http://www.pensionsadvisoryservice.org.uk/personal_and_stakeholder_pensions/bankruptcy

The Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 protects all pensions arising from tax-approved pension schemes against being part of a bankrupt's estate, for anyone made bankrupt after 29 May 2000. So, the Trustee In Bankruptcy (TIB) cannot control the pension to pay off creditors.

The TIB can apply to the Court, however, to receive a pension in payment for a period, under an Income Payments Order. But the Enterprise Act 2002 has reduced the automatic discharge period for people made bankrupt after 1 April 2004 to one year, so it is anticipated that a TIB will have little time to apply for an Income Payments Order. Also, the bankrupt can make an out-of-court agreement with the TIB to pay over a part of the pension for a specified period.

However, the discharge period can be extended if the bankrupt fails to comply with the obligations of the bankruptcy order. This can happen if the bankrupt for example had made what are deemed to be "excessive" contributions to a pension policy before bankruptcy.

Basically they're saying that a pension fund or 'pot' cannot be touched by the official receiver if you're bankrupted. If you are actually a pensioner when you're made bankrupt, the official receiver can apply to have some of the income from your pension taken from you, but only for 1 year until you're discharged and even then it can take so long to apply for this that unless you're in receipt of a large pension it isn't worth the OR's while.

As I stated in my earlier post, if you deliberately try to hide money in your penson to avoid the OR, then he can apply to have the discharge period extended.

In a nutshell. As long as you play fair, your pension is safe from bankruptcy.

Thanks interesting post. It was the direction of excessive contributions that I was coming from.

Harry_Powell

It's another plus point of putting retirement savings into a pension plan rather than ISAs or property, though I still think that a balanced portfolio of all three is the best way to go.

chucky

PayDay wrote: »

Repeat after me. Debt is not wealth.

repeat after me - Payday doesn;t understand or like it when someone else has more money than them. fact.

HammerSmashedFace wrote: »

Is that a good thing ? I can honestly say that I would sooner be me, even if I was eating out of bins than be Fergus Wilson. Looking in from the outside their punsishment is being the people they are.

I still don't understand this idea that money is everything, if you're a nasty, selfish, unintelligent etc... no amount of money can redeem you.

no idea where my post said it was good or bad - i was stating a fact that for all the peoples hatred of them on here most of those would like to have their wealth not their lifestyle, not their morals and not even their dress sense but they would like their money.

Harry_Powell

chucky wrote: »

no idea where my post said it was good or bad - i was stating a fact that for all the peoples hatred of them on here most of those would like to have their wealth not their lifestyle, not their morals and not even their dress sense but they would like their money.

I wouldn't even want their wealth. Money is overrated IMHO.

Lol, I almost kept a straight face while typing that!

Mr.Brown_4

chucky wrote: »

...but they would like their money.

My point is that I don't actually believe they have any money. Huge debt and a lot of houses yes. Who knows if one balances the other.

The point is that visible trappings of wealth such as large house, new car, fancy holidays - don't necessarily mean anything. In the last ten years those symbols could as equally mean large debt as large wealth.

chucky

Mr.Brown wrote: »

My point is that I don't actually believe they have any money. Huge debt and a lot of houses yes. Who knows if one balances the other.

The point is that visible trappings of wealth such as large house, new car, fancy holidays - don't necessarily mean anything. In the last ten years those symbols could as equally mean large debt as large wealth.

you're point is perfectly valid but doesn't really apply to these two chancers.

they have a business that generates a lot of cash regularly from rent that they receive from many properties - this cash will have been used to sort themselves out very nicely in the event they lost the business. if they didn't do that they're muppets.