Starting from the beginning!

grey_gym_sock

atush wrote: »

You are just as preposterous ignoring half the pension/isa debate.

Just the other day we had someone here bemoaning he had made ZERO private pension provision in favor of 100% ISAs. and now faces redundancy and will have to spend most of that ISA provision as he cannot receive means tested benefits until he does so.

did you read my post? i mentioned that very issue (loss of entitlement of benefits).

atush

Yes which is why your reply to me made no sense at all to me as you agree that loss is quantifiable.

Why does everyone think pensions and ISAs are an either or thing? Why not exploit each for what it gives you?

grey_gym_sock

i wasn't suggesting it's either/or. i was pointing out some positive and negative factors for both of them. i wasn't trying to give a simple answer about which is better, because there isn't a simple answer.

yes, it's often a good idea to use both ISAs and pensions. but most ppl aren't hitting the maximum annual contributions for both, so sometimes there's a choice. and there can be good reasons to skip 1 of them altogether at least in some years.

Any

atush wrote: »

Yes which is why your reply to me made no sense at all to me as you agree that loss is quantifiable.

Why does everyone think pensions and ISAs are an either or thing? Why not exploit each for what it gives you?

Have I missed something? I haven't seen everyone suggesting that the OP shouldn't go for a pension at all?

Most people suggested that the second pension should be reconsidered for now. The OP originaly suggested that they want employer provided pension AND one on top. At the age of 22 (assumed aged by another poster, due to Uni level), when they don't even know what is available out there.

And OP definitely needs to understand more products before they commit their money to something that might be locked up for the next 40 years!

calypso_rhapsody

Well Megan - looks as if you triggered a good debate about pensions v stocks and shares ISAs as long term investment vehicles. (BTW sorry i confused you with S&S!)

I think however that most of us are agreed that
a) you should take any pension offered by your employer especially if they make good contributions to it - that is effectively extra pay
b) prioritising shorter term savings for emergency, car, deposit etc makes sense.

In the meantime you can learn more about stocks and shares and the debate by monitoring sites like this and doing some reading (search on here for advice about good books for first time investors).

Re principal private residence - PPR - relief on property - the rules as i said are complicated. If you have lived in a property for some time as your main home then when you sell it a proportion of the gain is tax free. For most people who live in one house that means that it is completely tax free ... Otherwise the rules should be checked but essentially it is time-apportioned and the last x years (i think 3 but check) are tax free. But you do need to have really lived in the property.

megan01

calypso_rhapsody wrote: »

Well Megan - looks as if you triggered a good debate about pensions v stocks and shares ISAs as long term investment vehicles. (BTW sorry i confused you with S&S!)

I think however that most of us are agreed that
a) you should take any pension offered by your employer especially if they make good contributions to it - that is effectively extra pay
b) prioritising shorter term savings for emergency, car, deposit etc makes sense.

In the meantime you can learn more about stocks and shares and the debate by monitoring sites like this and doing some reading (search on here for advice about good books for first time investors).

Re principal private residence - PPR - relief on property - the rules as i said are complicated. If you have lived in a property for some time as your main home then when you sell it a proportion of the gain is tax free. For most people who live in one house that means that it is completely tax free ... Otherwise the rules should be checked but essentially it is time-apportioned and the last x years (i think 3 but check) are tax free. But you do need to have really lived in the property.

Thankyou so much for your reply, very helpful There are certainly lots of things I need to look into!

Voyager2002

Megan: at this stage of your life, saving is much less important than developing the skills and work experience that will enable you to earn a good living for the next few decades. Since your family situation will restrict where you can live and so limit the jobs for which you can apply, it is doubly important that you have a good idea of the skills you wish to develop, and if necessary identify ways to develop them outside the workplace. That might mean study by distance learning or getting unpaid work experience. Budget for costs like these, and if necessary be willing to invest in yourself even if that means raiding your savings.