Blame the Banks or The Government?

Glen_Clark

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

i agree with atush that you should take responsibility for your own life

I agree with that, but atush's assertion that cash savers have only themselves to blame is like saying if you got your house burgled its your own fault for not buying a different house!!!

grizzly1911

Glen_Clark wrote: »

exactly and the gist of their sales pitch were the tax advantages you got if you saved in their scheme. But in many cases they were helping themselves to as much as you saved in tax. So the tax savings were just going to fund themselves, not the mug who bought their private pension - he would probably have been better off forgoing the tax savings and leaving his money in a deposit account. No wonder they were annoyed when Brown took that away from them.

The death knell for mortgage endowments was the removal of the tax relief both on premiums and MIRAS. On their own they didn't stack up.

Aside from mortgages I have seen a couple of examples personally where the eventual payout barely covered the premiums paid.

atush

Glen_Clark wrote: »

I agree with that, but atush's assertion that cash savers have only themselves to blame is like saying if you got your house burgled its your own fault for not buying a different house!!!

No, it is more like saying you didn't buy the right locks and security system.

Some people leave an upstairs window open, with a ladder in their yard.

grey_gym_sock

while a good final-salary pension scheme was much better than a defined-contribution scheme, the current defined-contribution schemes are much better than used to be available. lower charges, and more transparent - none of that rubbish where your first few years' contributions were effectively taken 100% in charges (and they tried to disguise that that was happening).

and incidentally, it was gordon brown who introduced stakeholder pensions, which were a big step in reducing costs and increasing transparency (though there are generally other better options now). you see: it's easy to find good things to say about gordon brown if you try!

and if it's correct that removing dividend credits has cost pension funds £175bn, then aren't you glad that the national debt isn't £175bn higher than it would be without that change? you can't have it both ways.

Thrugelmir

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

and if it's correct that removing dividend credits has cost pension funds £175bn, then aren't you glad that the national debt isn't £175bn higher than it would be without that change? you can't have it both ways.

Created a real divide between public sector and private sector though.

Employers contribution in the Civil Service is around 26%...........

Perhaps if it wasn't then the deficit would be a lot lower.

talexuser

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

then aren't you glad that the national debt isn't £175bn higher than it would be without that change? you can't have it both ways.

I'd be gladder without both this level of debt and never having had the "prudent" Gordon Brown.

Glen_Clark

talexuser wrote: »

I'd be gladder without both this level of debt and never having had the "prudent" Gordon Brown.

Onjly problem I have with Gordon Brown going is we got Osborne who is increasing our debt even faster. And his interest free loans on £600k sub prime mortgages hasn't even kicked in yet :eek:

Glen_Clark

atush wrote: »

No, it is more like saying you didn't buy the right locks and security system.

Locks and security system doesn't protect cash from being robbed by inflation.
With hindsight all you could have done is bought a different house - held a different asset

atush

Best I could do with Your flawed analogy, I didn't choose it

Locks and security and closing your window and locking up your ladder DO help with burglary.

lvader

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Onjly problem I have with Gordon Brown going is we got Osborne who is increasing our debt even faster.

You believe that wouldn't be the case under Labour?