The Great Private Pension Scam

[Guest pelmetman]

knight of the road - 2012-04-13 3:12 PM

 

After reading all these mind boggling posts on high finance i'm glad that I am just a common ol workin man of modest means.

The very thought of having to engage high powered lawyers, tax accountants and financial advisers in order to protect my millions would be daunting and give me cause for sleepless nights.

 

My thoughts exactly Malcolm ;-)

[Guest pelmetman]

Just had this come through............I reckon the way things are going today's kids will get their first job at 50 and have to work til their 90................ :D

 

Friday 13th April 2012

The International Monetary Fund has warned that the UK's ageing population could create an economic nightmare for the country.

 

Britain's pensions costs could hit a staggering £750billion, according to the IMF.

 

Even a marginally quicker than expected rise in life expectancy could hit Western economies hard.

 

"The time to act is now," the IMF said after its researchers discovered that the increase of life expectancy had been consistently underestimated by governments.

 

In general, those lifespans have been unestimated by around three years - and this could make a critical difference to public finances.

 

According to the IMF, using the "not unreasonable" assumption that the cost of this additional pensions exposure would fall on taxpayers, UK public debt would increase from 76% GDP to 135%.

 

State and public sector exposure would increase - and it would also have to take on the additional burden of having to rescue failed private sector schemes, which are equally unprepared for a rise in life expectancy, the IMF warned.

 

Official statistics show that approximately a third of babies born in 2012 will live to 100 or more.

 

The IMF is urging governments to deal with the pension crisis before it is too late - with higher retirement ages, lower payouts and bigger contributions considered the key options.

 

The IMF report said: "To the extent that governments are not acknowledging longevity risk (and few in fact do), fiscal balance sheets become more vulnerable. If not adequately addressed soon, it could potentially further threaten fiscal sustainability."

[Dave225]

I have not even read half of this, frankly life is too short. As there is nothing of value coming out may i suggest the topic gets 'binned' and maybe it can be ressurected later on with hopefully some sensible comments.

[CliveH]

knight of the road - 2012-04-13 3:12 PM

 

After reading all these mind boggling posts on high finance i'm glad that I am just a common ol workin man of modest means.

The very thought of having to engage high powered lawyers, tax accountants and financial advisers in order to protect my millions would be daunting and give me cause for sleepless nights.

 

The reason why our clients retain us Malcolm is so they CAN sleep at night! - not only do we know what we are talking about B-) - and it is clear from the many posts above that misinformation is rife! but once we make a recommendation - we are responsible for it and indeed held accountable for it. We follow HMRC rules on tax rates and how to express and use them because - frankly - to do anything else would be folly. But for those that want to - they can - but they should be prepared to be challenged and the error flagged up.

 

The FSA rules are quite specific - which is why when an unauthorised individual(s) talk spherical objects it is easy to quote reality and put them right.

 

This is rarely a problem in day to day life - The problem comes where the ego of an individual is greater than their knowledge and emotional age.

 

[Guest Tracker]

This is nothing new Dave!

 

I attended a pensions training seminar when I worked for the Pru as a pensions adviser and was told exactly the same thing - in 1980.

 

Successive governments have had 30 years to address this, both in respect of Sate Pensions and Public Sector pensions and they have all wimped out and lacked the balls to take on the 'let's bury our heads in the sand and hope it goes away' attitude from the unions and the 'I've paid in peanuts of my own so I'm entitled to my over generous pension paid for by everyone else' attitude from public sector workers.

 

These chickens will come home to roost but fortunately probably not in my lifetime - hopefully!!

 

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

Tracker - 2012-04-13 5:42 PM

.....................Successive governments have had 30 years to address this, both in respect of Sate Pensions and Public Sector pensions .........................

.........................and instead they have spent all the time arguing over whether VAT at 20% amounts to 17%, or 16.666%, of the retail price! Both are, of course, correct - the former merely being the latter rounded to 0 decimal places. Somewhere down the line, the whole point of the string, i.e. pensions, was thrown from the playpen.

 

It isn't accuracy to however decimal places that needs debate (the figures in any case change from time to time), it is the principle. Over three pages of painfully nit-picking argument, and not a few insulting asides, I cannot see where that all important principle has been addressed to any useful effect.

 

And before anyone comes back and pleads yet again that it is really 16.666% - it isn't the bloody VAT that is important, it is how best to gain legal advantage from a £1,000 gratuity, after tax! :-) Principle, remember, chaps, not hypotheses to three decimal places. :-)

 

I'm now seriously considering sacking both Clive and Francis for wasting valuable time on "Knacker Lacquer", instead of devoting their efforts to the issue at hand. Would never have happened in my day! :-D

[francisgraham]

Brian Kirby - 2012-04-13 7:54 PM

Tracker - 2012-04-13 5:42 PM.....................Successive governments have had 30 years to address this, both in respect of Sate Pensions and Public Sector pensions .........................

.........................and instead they have spent all the time arguing over whether VAT at 20% amounts to 17%, or 16.666%, of the retail price! Both are, of course, correct - the former merely being the latter rounded to 0 decimal places. Somewhere down the line, the whole point of the string, i.e. pensions, was thrown from the playpen.It isn't accuracy to however decimal places that needs debate (the figures in any case change from time to time), it is the principle. Over three pages of painfully nit-picking argument, and not a few insulting asides, I cannot see where that all important principle has been addressed to any useful effect.And before anyone comes back and pleads yet again that it is really 16.666% - it isn't the bloody VAT that is important, it is how best to gain legal advantage from a £1,000 gratuity, after tax! :-) Principle, remember, chaps, not hypotheses to three decimal places. :-)I'm now seriously considering sacking both Clive and Francis for wasting valuable time on "Knacker Lacquer", instead of devoting their efforts to the issue at hand. Would never have happened in my day! :-D

Quite clearly you haven't read the posts properly or you'd know that the approximation that I quoted of 'about 17%' was never the question and the fact that I didn't give it to its two decimal places was not in anyway where I differed with CliveH. 

I said that VAT on everything but the most basic items represents about 17% of the retail price. This was part of a post by me, which attempted to show that, even after the government has taken almost half of the bonus that an employer has to spare, it still continues to extract money at a very high rate.

I used the 17% figure, as how else can one demonstrate what percentage of the retail price the VAT is? If you say that VAT is 20% on the net price it means nothing to most people!

If I say that the VAT on a TV costing £100 retail  is 17%, most people would work out that it's about £17. But again, if you say that the VAT is 20% on the net price, few would know what it is!

Regrettably, my simple, and I would have thought very easily understandable statement, wasn't understood by everyone!

I presume though that you understand it?

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2012-04-13 7:54 PM

 

I'm now seriously considering sacking both Clive and Francis for wasting valuable time on "Knacker Lacquer", instead of devoting their efforts to the issue at hand. Would never have happened in my day! :-D

 

Knacker Lacquer Brian?..................I'm shocked that should know such a term 8-).........

 

As we used to say in the Navy ;-)

 

Max Factor Knacker Lacquer..............add's luster to your cluster :D

 

Ooop's :$...............OT again (lol) (lol)

[Brian Kirby]

francisgraham - 2012-04-13 8:33 PM...................Regrettably, my simple, and I would have thought very easily understandable statement, wasn't understood by everyone! I presume though that you understand it?

Indeed I do Francis, but as to relevance? That is my point.

 

And no, I haven't read all the posts, your or anyone else's. Because, quite simply, they are for the great part totally irrelevant to the issue at hand, and relevant only to personal point scoring which, I'm afraid, I find boorish, somewhat arrogant, and discourteous to everyone else.

[francisgraham]

Brian Kirby - 2012-04-13 11:17 PM  And no, I haven't read all the posts, your or anyone else's. Because, quite simply, they are for the great part totally irrelevant to the issue at hand, and relevant only to personal point scoring which, I'm afraid, I find boorish, somewhat arrogant, and discourteous to everyone else.

In which case you should refrain from commenting and suggesting that the debate was about something that it clearly wasn't.

Both I and Robinhood had said that we would refrain from further discussion with CliveH on this subject and for you jump in after that, and further stoke the flames, is beyond boorish and arrogant. What was the point apart from stirring things even more?

And as for the issue at hand, it became the issue at hand! Perhaps you haven't noticed that threads, like conversation, occasionally go off at a tangent?

But what is really arrogant is that this post is from a man famed for his interminable nit-picking posts that are half as long as 'War and Peace'.

If you don't like a thread, keep away from it. Do not stir it or resurrect it simply to impress your views on everyone else.  That's arrogant.

[Guest Tracker]

Brian Kirby - 2012-04-13 11:17 PM

I haven't read all the posts, your or anyone else's. Because, quite simply, they are for the great part totally irrelevant to the issue at hand, and relevant only to personal point scoring which, I'm afraid, I find boorish, somewhat arrogant, and discourteous to everyone else.

 

Absolutely right Brian which is why I don't read them all either - and neither, I suspect, do the majority of members??

[francisgraham]

Tracker - 2012-04-14 10:02 AMAbsolutely right Brian which is why I don't read them all either - and neither, I suspect, do the majority of members??

And that is absolutely your right! There are currently three threads extant in Motorhome Matters. I read them with some amusement for some time as the same arguments appeared to be repeated, and Mr Kirby featured quite a bit.

What I did not do was wade in, as some did, with a post saying something along the lines of: "For God's sake people, give it a rest. Some of us aren't interested."

That would have been discourteous and arrogant. The fact that threads go on for so long is proof in itself that some people, even if it's just three or four, still have something to say and find it interesting enough to continue.

Who is Brian Kirby to decide that a thread has passed its sell by date? Is he a moderator? Is it his forum?

The answer is very simple. If a thread bores you, then do what you say you did and don't read it. This is a forum where members are allowed to debate, however long and tedious that may be to those who are not participating and no one has the right to dictate to others when a thread should end, let alone resurrect it, when a more careful reading would have have made it very clear that the main participants had already decided that the time had come to call a halt.

I and Robinhood have said that we've finished. CliveH hasn't come back either. The only problem is Matron Kirby who has relit the fuse.

[Guest Tracker]

francisgraham - 2012-04-14 10:33 AM

The only problem is Matron Kirby who has relit the fuse.

 

Depends on your point of view FG?

 

Some would argue that it is perhaps mainly yourself who is paranoid about proving their point and refuse to let it drop after several threats to do just that, and that others are merely responding?

 

As I say - it all depends on your point of view dunnit!!

 

Perhaps there should be a contest between you, Clive and Brian to see who can write the longest posting without actually saying anything fresh or useful?

 

 

[francisgraham]

I have nothing fresh and useful to say, except perhaps - there are no right and wrong ways, just different. ;-) 

[Guest Tracker]

Absolutely!!

[pagey]

at the end of the day who cares

[CliveH]

Brian Kirby - 2012-04-13 7:54 PM

 

Tracker - 2012-04-13 5:42 PM

.....................Successive governments have had 30 years to address this, both in respect of Sate Pensions and Public Sector pensions .........................

.........................and instead they have spent all the time arguing over whether VAT at 20% amounts to 17%, or 16.666%, of the retail price! Both are, of course, correct - the former merely being the latter rounded to 0 decimal places. Somewhere down the line, the whole point of the string, i.e. pensions, was thrown from the playpen.

 

It isn't accuracy to however decimal places that needs debate (the figures in any case change from time to time), it is the principle. Over three pages of painfully nit-picking argument, and not a few insulting asides, I cannot see where that all important principle has been addressed to any useful effect.

 

And before anyone comes back and pleads yet again that it is really 16.666% - it isn't the bloody VAT that is important, it is how best to gain legal advantage from a £1,000 gratuity, after tax! :-) Principle, remember, chaps, not hypotheses to three decimal places. :-)

 

I'm now seriously considering sacking both Clive and Francis for wasting valuable time on "Knacker Lacquer", instead of devoting their efforts to the issue at hand. Would never have happened in my day! :-D

 

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you Brian (The Lacquer takes a while to dry properly (lol) )

 

As for what you say:-

 

"And before anyone comes back and pleads yet again that it is really 16.666% - it isn't the bloody VAT that is important, it is how best to gain legal advantage from a £1,000 gratuity, after tax! :-) Principle, remember, chaps, not hypotheses to three decimal places. :-)

 

I could not agree more - if you look at my earlier post on page 1 - The basics were set out fairly comprehensively I would suggest. - I also provided a couple of links to HMRC sites that cover the specifics re SA and its use as a pension enhancement. I set out the disadvantages as well as the advantages.

 

I also touched on P11D benefits and how SS can be used here (and indeed the issue of how these impact with the UEL to provide a "sweetspot" to coin a golfing term) but salary sacrifice is not just used for pensions.

 

This HMRC link provides a great deal of info on how SS can benefit the employee AND the employer in areas as varied as the purchase of bicycles to canteen benefits – it also considers the knock on effect on things like Maternity leave.

 

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/employers/sml-salary-sacrifice.pdf

 

I would suggest that the description of SS in this HMRC link is about as definitive as it can get and touches on how if non cash benefits are used as the benefit, these benefits can be taxed via P11D. Which makes that “sweetspot” on a pension SS all the sweeter.

 

I have mentioned it earlier but feel it is worth mentioning again – we are working an several such schemes, with pension contributions in the main, so as to reduce some employee salaries so that they will retain Child Benefit.

 

This has been described as pouring honey on that already existing sweetspot for those who could lose CB because their salary is just over the cut-off point proposed by Osborne.

 

So it is an ill wind for the Chancellor in that his proposal to have a cut off for CB has spurred many to consider an alteration to their Terms and Conditions such that they KEEP the Child Benefit AND pay less tax and NIC individually AS WELL AS the employer paying less NIC as well!

 

So perhaps the real “elephant in the room” is the dubious ability of our Chancellor of the Exchequer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CliveH]

Typo - 4th para - SA should read SS (Salary Sacrifice)

 

The 37th bottle of Rioja seems to have given me the DT's :-D

[Guest Tracker]

CliveH - 2012-04-15 6:23 AM

So perhaps the real “elephant in the room” is the dubious ability of our Chancellor of the Exchequer.

 

Can't argue with that Clive!

 

And we thought Gordon Brown was bad and way out of touch with reality - not that we want him back of course!

 

I am not a political type so I don't know for sure but is it the Chancellor who is out of touch with the real world or maybe could it be his highly over paid civil service, guaranteed pension, empire building, power crazy, union member, ivory tower dwelling 'advisers' who are so obviously clueless?

 

That might at least explain the amazing and ongoing continuity of budget ineptness!

[Robinhood]

Well, Rich,

 

.....an interesting story re: Civil Service continuity (or lack thereof) in yesterday's Torygraph, with an oblique reference to Gideon being "out of touch" (admittedly, quoting a Shadow Cabinet spokesman).

 

I note that, despite the "featherbedded" status of senior Civil Servants, "Many of the (ex-) senior civil servants will have gone into lucrative jobs in the private sector".

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9203416/A-quarter-of-senior-civil-servants-quit-Whitehall-under-Coalition.html

 

......I don't believe a lot of what I read in ANY newspaper, so I don't put it forward as the truth, simply an interesting read given your comments above. ;-)

[CliveH]

I would suggest he is out of touch having never been in the position of dealing with the reality that most of us deal with on a day to day basis. Gordon was the same but he gained favour with his voters by artificially manipulating public sector job increases in areas where the Labour vote was potentially stronger.

 

The Coalition has had as part of its agenda to reduce this "gerrymandering" and the article covers this. I found the information interesting at the end re exactly where the "loses" have taken place. Pretty much across the board tho' some interesting "spikes".

 

That said re the reduction of Gordon’s "Jobs for the Boys" is in my view - welcome.

 

However, it still does not alter the fact that Politicians of any "colour" seem incapable of joined up thinking such that they can predict the knock-on effect of their actions.

 

[Brian Kirby]

CliveH - 2012-04-15 6:23 AM

........................... http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/employers/sml-salary-sacrifice.pdf

 

I would suggest that the description of SS in this HMRC link is about as definitive as it can get and touches on how if non cash benefits are used as the benefit, these benefits can be taxed via P11D. Which makes that “sweetspot” on a pension SS all the sweeter......................................

Is it significant that the link appears to address Salary Sacrifice (presumed your "SS"?) only during Maternity Leave? Or is it that the explanation is equally valid for other circumstances, but is better set out there? (See, I did rear it! :-))

 

General apologies for my earlier intemperate outburst, I'm afraid frustration, and a general lack of patience (for which I am regularly admonished!), got the better of judgement.

[Brian Kirby]

Robinhood - 2012-04-15 12:55 PM

...........................I note that, despite the "featherbedded" status of senior Civil Servants, "Many of the (ex-) senior civil servants will have gone into lucrative jobs in the private sector". .....................

Some may, of course, merely have retired, or retired early. However, at their salaries, and with their pension expectations, one would imagine a job offer as a local dustman wouldn't have tempted too may of them to quit.

 

So yes, I would imagine most will have gone for better prospects and no worse pay and conditions. Otherwise, why jump before the redundancy terms are dangled? They may be those same civil servants some love to revile, but surely even their most ardent detractors don't expect them to be entirely daft, do they?

[Robinhood]

Brian Kirby - 2012-04-15 7:19 PM

 

Robinhood - 2012-04-15 12:55 PM

...........................I note that, despite the "featherbedded" status of senior Civil Servants, "Many of the (ex-) senior civil servants will have gone into lucrative jobs in the private sector". .....................

Some may, of course, merely have retired, or retired early. However, at their salaries, and with their pension expectations, one would imagine a job offer as a local dustman wouldn't have tempted too may of them to quit.

 

So yes, I would imagine most will have gone for better prospects and no worse pay and conditions. Otherwise, why jump before the redundancy terms are dangled? They may be those same civil servants some love to revile, but surely even their most ardent detractors don't expect them to be entirely daft, do they?

 

 

....the point I was trying to make, (and I think your response compounds it) is that despite the oft-expressed view on here that the public sector is overpaid, over-bonused, over-pensioned and underqualified, (and thus virtually unemployable in the private sector) it would seem that the Telegraph (who at one time you might have thought would wholly subscribe to those concepts) believes that it has been simple for them to jump ship to something "better". ;-)

[flicka]

Brian Kirby - 2012-04-15 7:19 PM

 

Robinhood - 2012-04-15 12:55 PM

...........................I note that, despite the "featherbedded" status of senior Civil Servants, "Many of the (ex-) senior civil servants will have gone into lucrative jobs in the private sector". .....................

Some may, of course, merely have retired, or retired early. However, at their salaries, and with their pension expectations, one would imagine a job offer as a local dustman wouldn't have tempted too may of them to quit.

 

So yes, I would imagine most will have gone for better prospects and no worse pay and conditions. Otherwise, why jump before the redundancy terms are dangled? They may be those same civil servants some love to revile, but surely even their most ardent detractors don't expect them to be entirely daft, do they?

 

Or, more likely, got out whilst the going's good & the s**t really hits the fan :-(