Trapped in Employers Pension?

atush

Skyhigh wrote: »

Yes and I agree, but I'm working on the assumption that the net might not be there when I retire. If it is, that's a bonus.
(ageing population, glut of ageing baby boomers, more coming out than going in, longer life expectancy and thus healthcare costs jumping up, etc, etc, blah, negative outlook for 2057)

Even the usa has a state pension. And some say it is more generous? You can even take it early at 62 with a reduction.

While you consider it a bonus fine. But for anyone with an idea about politics, there will NEVER be a repeal of state pension. Outside of a world wide apocalypse/failed state scenario. The main risk is increasing age of attaining (re the recent change) and perhaps increase in Nics.

IMHO, the recent rise is due to the fact that after the election they cant get rid of the triple lock. I think they should have, and then said we wont do this (ie the recent raise in time scale) if we can get rid of triple lock.

Just look at the USA, where a rabid repealer wants to get rid of universal healthcare insurance an can't do so. Because too many people who vote republican are alive today because of it. And too many politicians are afraid what will happen to them next election if they do.

Not_Me_Officer

xylophone wrote: »

Let us suppose that you want to contribute £100 a month from your salary to your SIPP.

You actually pay the provider only £80 - the provider will claim 20% tax relief on your behalf.

Am i the only person who says that i want to pay in £100 a month so therefore i pay in £100 a month. The tax relief is just a bonus really.

Everything i read on pensions regards this seems to gear towards paying in the £80 as per your example if you want to pay in £100.

I'm currently paying in £200pm to mine to see how i go. Tax relief on top is just a bonus to me.

greenglide

IMHO, the recent rise is due to the fact that after the election they cant get rid of the triple lock. I think they should have, and then said we wont do this (ie the recent raise in time scale) if we can get rid of triple lock.

So are you actually suggesting removing the 2.50% making it a double lock? That is what most people are assuming.

With CPI above 2.50% this is purely academic and will continue to be unless CPI falls and remains below 2.50%. That seems unlikely in the current climate.

Skyhigh

AlanP wrote: »

I realise that this is hypothetical as the employer wants to stick with the scheme they set up and won't contribute to a different one but how can you plan to trade infrequently when there is a regular monthly contribution going in?

With only 1 fund it would be 12 trades per year minimum surely?

It's the SIPP with InteractiveInvestor I'm referring to - which would be a private pension I'd have to actively pay into.

This means I could pay in as much and as often as I wanted.

So, theoretically I could pay in every quarter = 4 trades per year required to buy (assuming single fund/stock each time).