Budget

N1AK

ColdIron wrote: »

Of course it's their own money, the fact that it benefited from tax relief just means HMRC didn't take any of my money from me. If I put £1,000 of money I earned into my pension which bit of that is not mine?

It's generally not a sign of a strong argument if you have to quibble over minutiae to make it. The government gives tax relief to pension contributions in return for restrictions on how the contributor can access the money. No money that is currently in pension pots was contributed by anyone with an expectation that they would be able to withdraw it as a single lump sum.

An argument can be made that greater freedom over how people can use a pension pot but it's nonsense to do so on the false premise that the government has no right to tell people how to spend 'their money'.

N1AK

Archi_Bald wrote: »

I grant you that there will always be some who will fall flat on their faces but that is no reason at all that the vast majority should be restricted on how they deploy their pension funds.

Why not? Should people be able to use their pension pot at 30 years old for a deposit, or a round the world ticket? Besides which, there's no evidence to suggest that the 'vast majority' will use their pension pot poorly and also considerable reason to think that may not be the case.

People who have pension pots would, if they were rational and informed, almost always take an annuity offered by someone other than the company they amassed their pension with but 60% don't.

Archi_Bald

N1AK wrote: »

Why not?

Because there is a limit to how much people should be nannied, and be forced to purchase expensive financial products.

Though I appreciate there will always be people who think it was a bad move. I think they should just mind their own business and let the rest of us get on with our lives, whether we choose to live them with annuities or some other way of drawing income from our retirement provisions.

ColdIron

N1AK wrote: »

Should people be able to use their pension pot at 30 years old for a deposit, or a round the world ticket?

They can't do that now and will not be able to after the pension changes. Now who's quibbling over minutiae to make their point?

gadgetmind

In the US, people can borrow against their 401k for specific things, and why not?

gadgetmind

N1AK wrote: »

An argument can be made that greater freedom over how people can use a pension pot but it's nonsense to do so on the false premise that the government has no right to tell people how to spend 'their money'.

What was it George said about the "cold hand of state" on people's pension plans?

N1AK

ColdIron wrote: »

They can't do that now and will not be able to after the pension changes. Now who's quibbling over minutiae to make their point?

Saw a question and still couldn't work out that the traditional response is an answer I see

It's amazing how the same people who argue that pensions shouldn't be restricted due to the principle that people should be allowed to do what they want with 'their money' suddenly abandon that view when asked about age restrictions. Or is it simply that they can't grasp the question in the first place...

N1AK

gadgetmind wrote: »

In the US, people can borrow against their 401k for specific things, and why not?

It's a fair question. However, something working in another country doesn't in itself make it a good idea for another. The citizens of the US are willing to accept a different level of support for those without the ability to support themselves than the citizens of the UK. When the wider society makes the decision to pick up the pieces for all it can make sense to limit people's ability to get into a position where they need support in the first place.

A likely side effect of the added freedom is that more people will need additional support from the state. That additional support will have to be paid for by other people, who are more responsible with their money, leaving them with less.

ColdIron

N1AK wrote: »

Saw a question and still couldn't work out that the traditional response is an answer I see

I don't think the question was directed at me but since we're on the subject of not answering questions, how about you answering my original question to you in #47 that you avoided in your response #62. It is traditional you know

If I put £1,000 of money I earned into my pension which bit of that is not mine?

It's amazing how the same people who argue that pensions shouldn't be restricted due to the principle that people should be allowed to do what they want with 'their money' suddenly abandon that view when asked about age restrictions.

Care to point out to me where I abandoned that view?

Over to you

Linton

Archi_Bald wrote: »

Because there is a limit to how much people should be nannied, and be forced to purchase expensive financial products.

Though I appreciate there will always be people who think it was a bad move. I think they should just mind their own business and let the rest of us get on with our lives, whether we choose to live them with annuities or some other way of drawing income from our retirement provisions.

Surely in giving the right to avoid tax the government is entitled, dare I say duty bound, to ensure that the money is used effectively for a socially desirable purpose. If you dont want restrictions save out of taxed income.