Totally wrong info just given on the Money show

zagfles

Grumpy_chap said:

zagfles said:

There was no need to even mention AA carry forwards, it won't affect 99% of the population. What he did say will have caused confusion, as the strong implication was that someone on £20k can carry forwards from previous years and contribute more than earnings (and yes theoretically it's legal but rarely a good idea, and most providers don't allow it). 

He could have just said that pension contributions are limited to earnings, with additional restrictions on high earners who want to make big contributions. 

The big exception, of course, if SS schemes permitting high pension contributions even for people with low incomes.

How exactly? You can't SS below min wage, so someone on a low income would hardly be able to SS anything. 

AlwaysLearnin

I guess Grumpy_chap might mean £80k salary sacrificing down to £20k, for example?

I watched the programme earlier, and thought I saw a glimmer of panic in the experts eyes, as I think she might have realised, but the pace was such that they moved on too quickly for correction/clarification. 

Really, he said 'enough money' rather than 'enough income' (although acknowledge that would be highly unlikely in the scenario they were discussing...), and, although I understand the sentiment here, I not sure it would cause masses of (/any?) people on £20k per year to suddenly log on and try to stick £10'sk into their pension off the back of it, without some form of check/ratification, surely...

Altior

His rapid fire style isn't to crowbar everything in, in my opinion. It's intended to portray a vast knowledge, on tap. It's very effective and served him incredibly well. 

There was a recent C5 show dedicated to credit cards recently, over a whole hour save for ad breaks. I took an interest as a big stoozer, never stop learning. There was nothing of interest, however they did cover stoozing by name! Rightly said it was for those who would put themselves in the expert bracket. Anyhow they made a massive clanger on the presentation, with a big section talking about how important an individual's credit SCORE was. Like, what? Even the alleged expert commentators they had on were agreeing...

Albermarle

artyboy said:

Cobbler_tone said:

I'd spin it another way. If you can't believe the odd thing that ML says, just think of how much misinformation you have to pick through on message boards and the internet. I guess not as bad if you read incorrect information that you are not physically capable of doing.
I always research using google and multiple sources to try and establish the 'truth'...it is out there!

The problem though is that he's become a bit of a financial messiah to the masses - many many people hang off every word as if it's gospel truth. Just look at some of the FB comments he gets, saying how he's the only person telling the truth, should be PM, what would they do without him etc etc...

Again in the interests of fairness, it's not really his fault - there's a real shortage of serious consumer journalism out there. Martin himself made the point in an awards acceptance speech that he'd really like some competition. The BBC has reduced Watchdog to a slot on the One Show, when really as a public body it should be driving this sort of thing (ok, there's Scam Interceptors, but don't get me started on that twaddle).

The upshot though is that accuracy really does become paramount when people will accept what you say as 'the truth'.

With great power comes great responsibility...

A few weeks ago I was watching the programme with family. I pointed out something he said was cobblers, but they all just laughed at me . How could I ( a mere mortal) know more than the God of personal finance !

MeteredOut

I don't particularly like the style of the show - too much self-congratulating with the tweets from the public, and too many cringe moments with the bad singing and corny voices. But, that's a "me problem" and I do look forward to watching it.

However, for more complex topics such as as pensions, he really needs to either keep it high level, or leave the talking to those that know the finer details of what they're talking about.

eastcorkram

Surprised that there's not more people on here, complaining about his advice to take the 25% tfls. Especially given how some here seem to be strongly against this, unless there's an important immediate need for it. 

Mind, some here seem to be against ever taking anything out! 

artyboy

eastcorkram said:

Surprised that there's not more people on here, complaining about his advice to take the 25% tfls. Especially given how some here seem to be strongly against this, unless there's an important immediate need for it. 

Mind, some here seem to be against ever taking anything out! 

Rachel Reeves changed all that, for me at least...

Cobbler_tone

Poor Martin. You lot will be pushing for him to be cancelled next. 
He is the voice of the financial nation. For every one (maybe there is one) person who is about to be disappointed by trying to backfill their pension allowances, he must have helped 10,000 others. I wonder how many additional people now pay their credit cards "IN FULL"...this is the basic level of understanding that the majority of viewers have. 
He provides a valuable service IMO.

Pollycat

Cobbler_tone said:

Poor Martin. You lot will be pushing for him to be cancelled next. 
He is the voice of the financial nation. For every one (maybe there is one) person who is about to be disappointed by trying to backfill their pension allowances, he must have helped 10,000 others. I wonder how many additional people now pay their credit cards "IN FULL"...this is the basic level of understanding that the majority of viewers have. 
He provides a valuable service IMO.

Then perhaps he should revise his presentation to a more basic level at a slower pace than try to cram everything in...

SVaz

Wrong information is wrong however stupid the target audience.  

Dumbing things down helps nobody and is unbelievably annoying.