Is a Pension Worth Having?

lisyloo

just a very small bit of NI

Why a very small bit of NI?
My spouse doesn't pay NI but says it's still a qualifying year for state pension, is he wrong? (we have proper accountants).

PuzzledDave

Unless I am mistaken (and I am no tax expert !), the 0% band is planned to rise over the lower earnings limit for NI next couple of years.

Terron

Isn't the 0% bamd already 11.5k and the NI threshold just over 8k?
But some income doesn't count for NI including, I believe, pensions

lisyloo

Cheers, I probably misheard or misunderstood.

greenglide

My spouse doesn't pay NI but says it's still a qualifying year for state pension, is he wrong? (we have proper accountants)

That is correct. If you earn between the lower earnings limit and the primary threshold it is a qualifying but you pay no NI.

See https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rates-and-allowances-national-insurance-contributions/rates-and-allowances-national-insurance-contributions

bigadaj

BookerTee wrote: »

Most people have managed pensions, most if not all are charging 2-2.5% including hidden charges. I also never said pensions are not worth having.





Most can, property is typically a problem, in fact any tangible assets are usually a problem.




Yes if you held the same managed funds outside a pension wrapper you would have the same costs...



Its difficult to give an accurate answer without seeing the actual figures quoted. I suspect that only the 'quoted' charges come out first.

Why do you think the gov are forcing them to show all charges and why do you think there has been such resistance to do so?!

They have been hiding these cost a looong time, they are very good at it, the whole point is you cant tell!

The strong intimation of your OP and thread title is that pensions aren't worth having, that's what you've been arguing about for several pages. Typical charges on pensions now are around 0.5%, pushing up to and above 1% if you have adviser charges or specialist investing preferences, 1.5% would be the highest I'd expect, can't see almost any current pensions charging 2-2.5%.


In virtually all modern pensions, db at least, then you can hold virtually all mainstream products inside or outside a pension, the costs are virtually the same and vary much more across provider than product (pension, isa, unwrapped etc)



The pension is worth what is on your statement and can be tracked on numerous sites that analyse funds and investment products, you appear to prefer a conspiracy led daily mail style theory than hard facts. If you don't believe your statements then arrange a transfer to a new provider and see what actually gets moved, that's the fund value.


There has been a wider issue about hiding charges by investment providers, this isn't a pension issue, and has slowly progressed through quoting management charges to OCF. At the end of the day returns and values are quoted net, post fees, that's all you need to know really.


If you have a very old and niche product then there might be legacy issues, but 98% of pensions will be as I describe.

cjulien

Which charges do you think pension funds hide versus ISAs? A pension is just a savings account you access at 55+. It is not a conspiracy.

Lee131

Basically 40% tax payers it's a no brainer

20% tax payers maybe look into isa's or regular savings accounts so you've got full access to the money atleast.

cjulien

It is really interesting that people (or BookerTee) are still so sceptical about pensions versus other savings mechanisms run by the same companies. Also the conception (mis) that they are going to have a whopping pension in retirement (even if they are anti pensions?) so they will be paying income tax on it is amusing.

I am happy for such people not to save tax (possibly NI) or enjoy employer contributions. It leaves more for those open pleasant people who are bright enough to get it.

mwf862

4) ....affects....

Come on!!