The_Pixi wrote: »
1% of £28.000 = £280.00 added by government
I currently put £100 a month aside getting £25 on top, total added to pension £100 x 12 = 1200 + £25 x12 (£300) = £1500
So £20 more added by the government
The proposal is that the contributions should be a % of salary not actual contribution, 1% by the government + 4% by me and 3% by the employer totalling 8% of the salary total.
I wanted to know if I still also get 20% relief on my part if I put more than 4% in, which I am doing now, or if the new scheme was capping the government contribution to just 1% of my slalary.
jem16 wrote: »
Yes it is.
You are currently putting aside 5.36% of your gross salary.
Of course it is as 5.36% is more than 5%. Tax relief on that extra 0.36% is 0.072%. 0.072% of £28,000 is approximately £20.
Contributions and tax relief are always worked out on gross figures.
£28,000 at 5% is £1400. Tax relief on that is £280 meaning you contribute £1120.
£28,000 at 4% is £1120. £28,000 at 1% is £280 so total again is £1400 into the pension.
Perhaps read this which explains it.http://www.nestpensions.org.uk/schemeweb/NestWeb/public/NESTforSavers/contents/contribute-to-nest.html
Limit is apparently £4,400 in one tax year. This is the gross payment.
Again explained here.http://www.nestpensions.org.uk/schemeweb/NestWeb/public/NESTforSavers/contents/contributing-more.html
To be honest if you want to contribute more you would be better doing it outside of NEST.
Seronera wrote: »
Insurance companies must be sitting on surpluses of billions from annuity purchase.
Seronera wrote: »
.... On death there should be a residual fund value that can be gifted into the pension schemes of other family or the next generation. This is the only way that fund values are ever likely to accumulate to figures that provide a decent pension.
Linton wrote: »
If everyone was able to pass on the residual amount on their death the insurance aspect would disappear and you would have to save assuming that you were going to live to say 100 just on the off-chance you may.
MSE_Guy wrote: »
This is the discussion thread for the following MSE News Story:
Read the full story:Pensions auto-enrolment delay 'a mistake'
gadgetmind wrote: »
We don't need to modify annuities such that they allow some/all capital to be passed onto dependants as we have the drawdown option for that, or at least we do until HMG change the rules again.
100% has crippled drawdown and 75% or even 50% would kill it instantly. There is no good reason why this should be done, but there wasn't really a good reason for HMG to drop it to 100% IMO.
tartanterra wrote: »
Whilst this will undoubtedly be a burden on business, that's an argument that can always be trundled out.
Times change, what people expect in retirement has changed, as has life expectancy.
Whatever the arguments against NEST, it is always better to do something rather than nothing. It's a fact that not enough future provision is being made for retirement and whilst NEST may not be the total solution, it is a start, and that's why it should be implemented without further delay.
The status quo is no longer viable. This has been a poor decision by the government.
Can you help this Forumite track some down?
For benefits recipients
Via MSE Blagged code