ISAs v Pensions: The Official Retirement Debate

EternallyGrateful

fairleads wrote: »

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.

I was not suggesting for a moment that we all quoted from the same page. The debate, as I have seen it in this thread, is a debate about retirement planning which covers all types of investment, all the different tax implications, and pointers for any newbie who is concerned about how they prepare for their future. The title "ISA v Pensions" is misleading.

fairleads

EternallyGrateful wrote: »

The title "ISA v Pensions" is misleading.

Not for me it isn't EG

fairleads

jem16 wrote: »

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

Once again we move the goal posts with yet another off thread comment.

EternallyGrateful

fairleads wrote: »

Not for me it isn't EG

But you are not a newbie.
Based on what I've seen of your posts the title would far better be "Post Something and Have Fairleads Take the Opposing View"

jem16

fairleads wrote: »

Once again we move the goal posts with yet another off thread comment.

Anyone who has read this thread will have easily seen that this thread has evolved far beyond its original title.

Sensible retirement planning is about using pensions AND Isas and a whole lot more if necessary. Anyone following all one or another is opeining themselves up to a poorer retirement.

fairleads

jem16 wrote: »

Anyone who has read this thread will have easily seen that this thread has evolved far beyond its original title.

Sensible retirement planning is about using pensions AND Isas and a whole lot more if necessary. Anyone following all one or another is opeining themselves up to a poorer retirement.

It didn't just evolve, it was led off thread by those with ulterior motives. Sensible retirement planning is not based on spurious info and math such as yours, but on logic born from experience.

fairleads

EternallyGrateful wrote: »

But you are not a newbie.
Based on what I've seen of your posts the title would far better be "Post Something and Have Fairleads Take the Opposing View"

So what is wrong with that? After all this is a debate, and my comments are based on fact.
So put that spade back in the shed where it belongs.

jem16

fairleads wrote: »

It didn't just evolve, it was led off thread by those with ulterior motives.

So what motives would those be?

Sensible retirement planning is not based on spurious info and math such as yours,

Yours may well be but mine is based on fact.

but on logic born from experience.

As your circumstances (and therefore experience) are unlikely to be the exact same as anyone else, it is illogical to think that everyone would follow exactly the same path.

fairleads

jem16 wrote: »

As your circumstances (and therefore experience) are unlikely to be the exact same as anyone else, it is illogical to think that everyone would follow exactly the same path.

Not so, we all want security in retirement. The main difference is that i avoided tax where it matters and, I might add, this nonsense - link provided.
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/banking/2011/07/warning-over-charges-that-wipe-millions-off-pension-pots

jem16

fairleads wrote: »

Not so, we all want security in retirement. The main difference is that i avoided tax where it matters.

And despite your blinkered approach, there is more than one way to achieve this.

I might add, this nonsense - link provided.
http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/banking/2011/07/warning-over-charges-that-wipe-millions-off-pension-pots

You're correct - the article was nonsense.

http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/1034871.article?cmpid=MME05&cmptype=newsletter&email=true