ISAs v Pensions: The Official Retirement Debate

Oblivion

kembes wrote: »

Saw a great site the other day

www.ukretirementplanning.com

it gave some really useful information on retirement planning. It helped us understand the subject a lot better.

Do you mean you didn't understand the subject before you set up your website?

SPAM reported.

Here's a website you'll find even more useful ...

http://www.slimming.co.uk/


Dave.

slopemaster

EdInvestor wrote: »

What's realistic for a couple?I'd say a retirement income of 20k each, 40k total, would do nicely

Yeah ... only its more than some earn BEFORE retiring...

knuckledragger

Sorry if I missed this during the thread, I checked the first three pages and couldn't see reference to it- I think one of the overlooked issues in the ISA v Pension debate is that you can start a pension from birth. That's many years tax efficient saving before you could even open an ISA...

LongTermLurker

knuckledragger wrote: »

Sorry if I missed this during the thread, I checked the first three pages and couldn't see reference to it- I think one of the overlooked issues in the ISA v Pension debate is that you can start a pension from birth. That's many years tax efficient saving before you could even open an ISA...

But then you're looking at a benefit for someone else, (or is it freeloading, from the recipient's point of view?) which is a different requirement - don't know about you, but my income wasn't right good when I was born; a bottle of milk if I was good and the prospect of progressing onto rusks if I stuck the job out

You're very right though - sorry for making a joke of it.

knuckledragger

LongTermLurker,
definitely no offence taken!:D
I was thinking specifically about the thread topic. If you put away cash into a pension for your kids from birth then by the time they first start work, their pots would be substantial. Giving them the flexibility to give up/reduce work from age 55 (from 2010) would be something no-one would sniff at. True, you would be coming to the end of your stint, but it would be nice to see the smile on their face when they realise that they really don't need to work themselves into the ground until well into their sixties or further. I'm sure the state pension will be gone for our kids.

Paul_Herring

Giving them the flexibility to give up/reduce work from age 55 (from 2010) would be something no-one would sniff at.

I don't call not being able to get hold of the cash earlier for things like buying a house 'flexible.'

I'm sure the state pension will be gone for our kids.

I'm not sure whether it'll be there for me, let alone the next generation.

jamesd

You use the 25% tax free cash to pay off some of the house. It's a decent idea to get an extra 18+ years of compound growth for the recipient while they grow to become 18.

knuckledragger

Paul_Herring wrote: »

I don't call not being able to get hold of the cash earlier for things like buying a house 'flexible.'

I'm not sure whether it'll be there for me, let alone the next generation.

I reiterate the thread topic- The Official Retirement Debate.
Not many people want to BUY a house when they retire, it's more likely to be about selling/downsizing.

jamesd,
the 18 years compound growth should be substantial over that period financial disasters permitting!

pKaTz

jamesd,
the 18 years compound growth should be substantial over that period financial disasters permitting!

couldn't a child trust fund be seen as a saving vehicle which could be used by an 18 year old at maturity to put into a pension?
If only they were around when i was younger...

dunstonh

couldn't a child trust fund be seen as a saving vehicle which could be used by an 18 year old at maturity to put into a pension?

Yes. However, you would be relying on the 18 year choosing to put it into the pension or not. That is the problem with a CTF.