TFLS in stages?

jem16

zagfles wrote: »

:rotfl:
You'll likely learn a lot more from forums and websites like this and Motley Fool, Monevator etc that you would "eyeball to eyeball" with any advisor or agent, tied or not!

That depends on the adviser. Find a good adviser and learn a lot with him/her - find a bad adviser learn very little. It also depends on whether or not you want to learn and will ask questions to make sure you understand.

zagfles

jem16 wrote: »

The biggest advantage to phased drawdown is that uncrystallised funds have different tax treatment on death than crystallised funds.

With uncrystallised funds the whole lot is payable tax-free on death.

Assuming you're under 75.

With crystallised funds there is a possible 55% tax depending on who the fund is to be paid to and how it is to be paid.

Yes, though worth pointing out that the remaining crystallised pot can be used by a dependant (spouse etc) to provide an income (drawdown/annuity) taxed as normal income tax rates (possibly zero if within the personal allowance).

zagfles

jem16 wrote: »

That depends on the adviser. Find a good adviser and learn a lot with him/her - find a bad adviser learn very little. It also depends on whether or not you want to learn and will ask questions to make sure you understand.

Absolutely. Same applies to forums and websites, difference is you aren't reliant on just one individual, who you may not find out is bad till it's too late. Finding out about the rules/reasons for doing stuff forums are excellent - the PP here learnt more from this thread than from her advisor by the sounds of it.

jem16

zagfles wrote: »

Absolutely. Same applies to forums and websites, difference is you aren't reliant on just one individual, who you may not find out is bad till it's too late.

Totally agree - the more knowledge the better. However I wouldn't rule out an adviser for learning.

the PP here learnt more from this thread than from her advisor by the sounds of it.

if you're referring to SallyG then that's always going to be the problem with using a tied adviser. Most just present the options leaving you to find out what's best.

zagfles

jem16 wrote: »

if you're referring to SallyG then that's always going to be the problem with using a tied adviser. Most just present the options leaving you to find out what's best.

Well you're more likely to learn that way than being told what you should do!

jem16

zagfles wrote: »

Well you're more likely to learn that way than being told what you should do!

Not if you don't understand and simply take the easy option as SallyG did.

With an IFA you would then be able to ask the questions as to why something is being recommended over something else - questions I doubt any tied adviser would be able or even willing to answer.

zagfles

jem16 wrote: »

Not if you don't understand and simply take the easy option as SallyG did.

With an IFA you would then be able to ask the questions as to why something is being recommended over something else - questions I doubt any tied adviser would be able or even willing to answer.

Really? That surely depends on the agent/IFA. I've read rubbish written by IFAs on here, and I've read useful accurate info from non IFAs. For anything important I tend not to trust any advice or information from a single source.

jem16

zagfles wrote: »

Really? That surely depends on the agent/IFA.

Which leads us back to my original comment that it depends on the adviser. However tied agents are often less knowledgeable than IFAs or whole of market advisers simply because they only deal with their own limited products.

grey_gym_sock

dunstonh wrote: »

But then you would be paying tax on all the income and not have a tax free amount. Plus, you would have increased the taxation on death. And you would have taken the money out of a tax free wrapper to put into a taxable one (if above ISA allowance amount). Most people have bonds in their portfolio and gain from those being in the pension or ISA.

well, if you have run out of ISA allowance, you are better off putting your bonds (and any REITs) in ISAs (where you save the basic rate tax), and the dividend-paying shares unwrapped (where an ISA wouldn't save any basic rate tax). if you do that, then many ppl (i.e. basic rate tax payers who don't use their whole CGT allowance) will pay no more tax on their "taxable" investments than on "tax free" ISA/pension.

for higher rate tax payers, or CGT-payers, it does make a difference.

the point about more tax on death if you fully crystallize is perfectly valid. though, as has been mentioned, it only makes a difference if you die under 75, or, if you pass your crystallized pension to a spouse who survives you, if they then die under 75. this is all becoming less a frequent occurrence, as life expectancy rises, but it's still a risk. if you care about how much your heirs will get.