'Why David Cameron writing for MoneySavingExpert is not 'biased' blog discussion

jamesd

canterswest wrote: »

http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/opinion/spin-half-truths-and-omissions-david-cameron-talks-pensions/2016403.article

That's got some pretty bad spin and misleading commentary in it:

Claim: "Cameron says he is abolishing the “completely unfair” 55 per cent death tax on pension funds. ... But he introduced the tax in April 2011 when he extended drawdown rights to the over-75s."

More whole truth: that change in 2011 reduced the tax rate to 55% from 70% on the pension plus 12% inheritance tax. Cameron is consistent in seeking to reduce this cost for the over-75s.

Claim: "Cameron also writes: “When you pass away, you will be able to pass your private pension onto your loved ones tax-free.” ... But this does not include most annuities and assumes most people will have money left in their pots at the end of their life. Beneficiaries will also be liable for income tax on any withdrawals they make."

More whole truth: You'd better plan to have money left when you die because you need to plan to not run out of money if you live for many years after death at normal ages. Planning to have nothing left at 88 is bad planning. Which means that at 88 you should expect to still be leaving a substantial inheritance. And of course annuities have no value at death, that's how they work, though the Pensions Minister noted a few days ago on a radio show that he was investigating ways to sell annuities that might deliver this in the next government.

"This is spin."

Yes, the moneymarketing piece is spin.

Claim: "Secondly, Cameron says he is “scrapping compulsory annuities” - but annuities have not been compulsory for the under-75s since 1995 and the over-75s since 2006."

More whole truth: none. That's correct and has been mentioned repeatedly here. People still show up here who don't know it, so it bears repeating.

And same for investing guidance, of course. I'd hope that people who've been investing for decades before retirement would have some clue about investing as a result of sustained investing education, though.

canterswest

https://mobile.twitter.com/MartinSLewis/status/535169669133783040

How often does MSE publish one news story in a day? I'll do a count, check what's average. MSE probably agreed to publish it and leave it as the top post all day.

agarnett

I am old enough to have been in a pension scheme pre SERPs then to find myself in one where my employer had put us in an arrangement that contracted us out of SERPs, and also having being vaguely aware that there was debate many years ago about whether certain ages or genders should or should not be contracted out of SERPs and even for SERPs itself to have become obsolete as a term so that few people know what it was in the first place - YET ... the special insurance company pension policy which accumulated a chunk of my NI contributions as a result of that government initiative still exists to this day, and has significant funds in it.

I am over 55 but have done nothing with any of my pensions yet.

After asking Newcastle for it, I received a government letter a couple of years ago confirming that I had exceeded the maximum number of years necessary for a full state pension.

So what's all the allusion to those who were contracted out of SERPs (by our employers, not out of some free choice) getting less than the £148.80 per week when we reach state pension age?

I am not unusual. There must be hundreds of thousands of us with SERPs policies.

Can someone point to what it means, please (without spin, or caveat)?

globalds

Cameron's idea my !!!!!

Karmacat

"For those having a go, I think perhaps you needed to have done your research first"? Wow. And so we say goodbye forever to the mse site as impartial. You've really lost touch with what your forumites are going through if you can actually write that, Martin. Report what David Cameron says and does by all means, but in letting him (well, his team) write his own article, you've given a voice to the leader of the party thats caused the biggest transfer of wealth from ordinary people to the top 5 - 10% in generations. I read the article - it didn't even need to have his name on it, its just a list of measures, along with saccharine reassurances about dignity that are disgusting to read. A very sad day.

jamesd

Karmacat, it's normal for the wealth of the top 5-10% to increase during the things we've seen over the past five or so years: a stock market and housing price recovery. Those who have more assets tend to be older and own their homes while having significant amounts of money invested to prepare for retirement, so they would gain from both things. They would also have seen a drop in 2008.

Younger people haven't had time or income to invest to accumulate the assets but instead they have the value of their future earnings as part of their wealth. That's just something that isn't normally reported.

Besides those two broad areas there are the people who don't or can't accumulate assets, for whatever reason. Some choosing not to accumulate, some in absolute poverty and unable to afford even the £50 a month that over a working life would accumulate a pension pot of a quarter of a million Pounds (using 2018 auto-enrolment rules).

Wealth comparisons are tricky because when you get to 5% or 10% you're really mostly talking about age and whether someone is ready to retire or not. Even the top 30% ends up being in large part about whether someone lives and owns a home in the SE or not.

agarnett

OK so no-one on MSE was capable of biting on my last post ...

Seems a few people elsewhere have woken up since I made it ...

Contracted out? Watch out for your state pension

Karmacat

agarnett wrote: »

OK so no-one on MSE was capable of biting on my last post ...

I'm sure there are hundreds of people on mse perfectly capable of entering into a discussion with you on SERPS (I'm not one of them, as I never had anything to do with it). But "biting" on it ... you're setting out bait for mse forum members, from the sound of it - I'm not asking you to clarify, but this is the wrong place for any pension discussion, there's a huge part of the forum dedicated to discussing pensions. This thread is about the fact that mse gave David Cameron a platform.

Unsubscribing from this thread now, I don't usually comment on this type of thing anyway, for thoughtful, open discussion you can't beat the threads on dfw and mfw :j

jamesd

agarnett wrote: »

OK so no-one on MSE was capable of biting on my last post

Hardly. It's just old news. We've been discussing it for ages already.

kaya

Yawn, people have woken up to the fact that the Beeb is a political agenda machine so now they are seeking new avenues like twitter, farcebook and eventually popular Internet forums, it's just a marketing exercise which is what people on here should see it for