MSE News: 'Murky' pension practices to be tackled

dunstonh

You are making a misleading claim.
The 'choice' on offer amounts to little more than 27,000 shops selling the same shades of grey.

Sorry, your response does not suggest I am misleading. It does indicate you dont understand though.

There is no need to go off on a tangent about the tax free side to pensions and ISA's.

That is not a tangent. The tax relief on contributions would not exist without the tie in. The amount you are able to put in would also be significantly reduced if there was no tie in. You cant pick and choose what you do and dont want. It is a package.

The tax free aspect of ISA's is to encourage people to save or invest. Nobody is asked to repay any tax when taking out cash.

However the amount you can invest is limited because of the accessibility.

Tax free aspect of pensions is, likewise, to entice people to put by for retirement.

Exactly. A pension is strangely enough, to provide a pension. Yet you seem to want a pension to be a savings account.

Having reached pensionable age, why do you object to people getting their hands on their pot. Is it not theirs?

it is nothing to do with me. It is to prevent people blowing their funds and then claiming benefits.

The total cash drawdown option denies the usual vultures automatic rights to mint it with OPM. Withdraw that automatic right of the vultures to swoop on the pot, and minds would be focused on giving better value to get the pensioners business.

Not sure what that actually means. Do you want to rephrase it so we can understand what you are saying?

MFW_ASAP

Same old tired, hackneyed anti-pensions arguments, based on ignorance and prejudice. As people keep saying (and the anti-pension mob keep ignoring), if you don't feel a pension (or any other financial product) is the right one for you then don't use it.

Christ, it's not rocket science.

DiggerUK

dunstonh wrote: »

.......Exactly. A pension is strangely enough, to provide a pension. Yet you seem to want a pension to be a savings account......

.......It is to prevent people blowing their funds and then claiming benefits.

Why should a pension be deemed the only way to fund retirement. That is my argument, if a retiree wants to put some of their pension pot in a pension that should be an option they can choose. They could consider many other choices if their pot came directly under their control. As things stand they are denied that choice to their detriment.

"blowing their funds" is a throwaway insult. Most who come into large lump sums act responsibly, as can be seen when posters ask what they should do with windfalls and inheritances.
Strange how so many who normally bemoan the 'nanny state' should say exactly the same.
..._

MFW_ASAP

DiggerUK wrote: »

Why should a pension be deemed the only way to fund retirement.

It's not. End of argument.

Fund it via the rental from Buy to Let properties either in this country or overseas (or both)
Fund it via ISAs
Fund it by Shares, bonds or other investment held outside ISAs and Pensions.
Have lots of kids and expect them to keep you
Start a business and employ other people to run it for you
Buy commercial properties and use the rents from them to fund your retirement

I even heard of a guy who bought a Gold Sovereign every month or so when he was working and put it into his safe. When he retired, he cashed in a Sovereign whenever he needed some money.

Why not do that or the other things listed (or things I haven't thought of) if you don't like pensions?

DiggerUK

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

.......I even heard of a guy who bought a Gold Sovereign every month or so when he was working and put it into his safe. When he retired, he cashed in a Sovereign whenever he needed some money. Why not do that if you don't like pensions?

I've never thought of that, don't know if it is for me.
But it would be a choice that a retiree could consider for some of their money if they had control of what is now a pension pot, and I argue should be changed to a fund for retirement, with many of the current restrictions lifted at maturity.
..._

MFW_ASAP

DiggerUK wrote: »

I've never thought of that, don't know if it is for me.
But it would be a choice that a retiree could consider for some of their money if they had control of what is now a pension pot, and I argue should be changed to a fund for retirement, with many of the current restrictions lifted at maturity.
..._

Well they won't get control of their pension pot because that's not how they are designed. They are designed for people like me who want the securities that have been put in place. For people like you, who want a less controlled product, there are less controlled products available to use as a retirement vehicle. As I said, "It's not Rocket Science".

You seem to have researched pensions and decided they are not for you. Perhaps your efforts would now be better rewarded by looking for an alternative than spending time rubbishing a product that doesn't fit the bill (for you)?

DiggerUK

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

Well they won't get control of their pension pot because that's not how they are designed........
You seem to have researched pensions and decided they are not for you.........

I know that's not how private pensions are designed. I am arguing for changes to a system of pensions that is slowly falling apart and will soon not be fit for purpose.

Watch the social security/benefits bill go through the roof if nothing is done to revise how we are to live in old age.

I am glad to say I have a defined benefit, and a local government final salary pension; both index linked. But they are both facing extinction.
It is the tired, hackneyed, old arguments to keep things as they are that is the problem, not the likes of me looking for a way forward.

Got any information on how I can buy a gold sovereign or two.
..._

MFW_ASAP

DiggerUK wrote: »

I know that's not how private pensions are designed. I am arguing for changes to a system of pensions that is slowly falling apart and will soon not be fit for purpose.

In your opinion. The issues you seem to have with pensions tell me that it's not the right product for you, and probably never was. Sorry, but More fool you if you have paid significant amounts into a pension before realising the restrictions and choosing a more appropriate product for your aims.

DiggerUK

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

.......More fool you if you have paid significant amounts into a pension before realising the restrictions and choosing a more appropriate product for your aims.

Erghhhh, you should read my last post again, and pay attention this time.
..._

MFW_ASAP

DiggerUK wrote: »

Erghhhh, you should read my last post again, and pay attention this time.
..._

I read it fine. You have invested (significantly or not, I have no idea which) in a product that has restrictions on how and when you can access that money. You either knew about these restrictions when you joined the pension scheme and invested anyway, or you invested and have only just learned about them. As I said, more fool you for either choosing a product that does not meet your needs or for not researching that product before investing and finding it doesn't meet your needs.