ISAs v Pensions: The Official Retirement Debate

fairleads

gadgetmind wrote: »

True, but only one avoids huge amounts of income tax, a nasty bodge of NI, and benefits from employer contributions on the way in.

We have pensions and ISAs. I know roughly what income we'll be getting from each, and what the taxation situation will be.

If it were possible, I'd be putting more into both, but particularly pensions.

The words cost, time and quality spring to mind.

fairleads

atush wrote: »

And anyone who diesn't have either is unwise.
.

Based on how many years of retirement experience?

fairleads

atush wrote: »

I think we should have a new thread. Instead of Pension VS ISAs, it should be Pension + ISAs.
.

The words heat and kitchen spring to mind - after all I'm still comfortable with the original format.

EternallyGrateful

fairleads wrote: »

The words heat and kitchen spring to mind - after all I'm still comfortable with the original format.

There are lots of words that may spring to mind but from what I've read of this thread the general consensus appears to be that a mix of savings and investments is a sensible approach to take. Clearly there are a few dissenters from that view but that is precisely why the thread should not have the title it does.
The title suggests that you have to have one or the other to the exclusion of all else. That is obviosuly not the case - I personally have six different ways of saving for my retirement with a number of different companies. It may not suit you but it suits me.
"The Official Retirement Planning Debate" sounds good to me and isn't a drastic change to the title as it is now.

jem16

fairleads wrote: »

And neither is the first 340K of ours.

That doesn't make sense. If the surviving spouse still has control of the ISA pot, IHT would not have entered into it anyway.

Plus the surviving spouse still has control over our pot and sans 55% tax.

As to the 55% tax - don't take a lump sum and simply continue with drawdown.

fairleads

jem16 wrote: »

That doesn't make sense. If the surviving spouse still has control of the ISA pot, IHT would not have entered into it anyway. Precisely
As to the 55% tax - don't take a lump sum and simply continue with drawdown.

And continue paying tax on that income

jem16

fairleads wrote: »

Precisely

Why mention it then? Probably because you didn't know/think about it.

However IHT is still a consideration at 2nd death.

And continue paying tax on that income

Only if it exceeds their personal allowance, which if set up to avoid with the use of alternative methods, won't.

fairleads

EternallyGrateful wrote: »

Clearly there are a few dissenters from that view but that is precisely why the thread should not have the title it does.

On the contrary, that surely is the purpose of the debate, to invite differing views. After all, what benefit is it to a newbie if we all quote from the same page.

fairleads

jem16 wrote: »

However IHT is still a consideration at 2nd death.

Not really, the cash will be spent on care.





Only if it exceeds their personal allowance, which if set up to avoid with the use of alternative methods, won't.

So you're talking about retiring on peanuts. Highly possible i suppose if your advice is taken to heart.

jem16

fairleads wrote: »

So you're talking about retiring on peanuts.

Why would that be? The sensible retirement planner has access to pensions, ISAs, unwrapped investments etc, etc.