Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"They" are coming for your pension money !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • "They" are coming for your pension money !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    George Osborne: use your pension as a bank account

    Chancellor tells savers they can withdraw 'as much or as little as they want' from their pension

    Mr Osborne highlighted how people will be able to take small amounts from their pension pots Photo: PA








    By Steven Swinford, and Dan Hyde

    10:36PM BST 13 Oct 2014
    303 Comments


    Workers will be able to use their pension pots like bank accounts from the age of 55 and withdraw thousands of pounds to save, invest or spend as they wish on holidays or other purchases.

    George Osborne, the Chancellor, said that people would be able to take advantage of the Government’s flagship pension reforms to access “as much or as little as they want” from their savings.

    Under the reforms those approaching retirement and pensioners will be able to dip into the retirement funds whenever they want. The first 25 per cent withdrawn will not be taxed, while the rest will be taxed at the individual’s marginal rate.





    The move builds on the pension reforms Mr Osborne announced in his Budget, under which he scrapped rules that force most Britons to use their pension savings to buy an annuity.

    At the time, ministers emphasised that pensioners would be able to draw down the entirety of their pension pots to save, invest in property or even buy a Lamborghini.

    Related Articles



    However, Mr Osborne highlighted on Monday how the pension reforms will give people the ability to take small amounts from their pension pots at a time of their choosing.
    The announcement was made as the Government publishes its landmark pensions reform Bill in the House of Commons today.

    Mr Osborne said: “People who have worked and saved all their lives will be able to access as much or as little of their defined contribution pension as they want from next year and pass on their hard-earned pensions to their families tax free.

    “For some people an annuity will be the right choice whereas others might want to take their whole tax-free lump sum and convert the rest to draw-down. We’ve extended the choices even further by offering people the option of taking a number of smaller lump sums, instead of one single big lump sum.”

    Ros Altmann, the Government’s older people’s tsar, said: “It means people can use their pensions as a bank account. People will be free to access their money freely as they need to, rather than being forced to buy particular products.”

    However, Ms Altmann added that most pension companies do not make it easy for pensioners to withdraw their pensions. She urged them to accept the Government’s pension reforms and give people greater freedoms.

    She said: “Most pension companies are not ensuring that their customers can take money out flexibly. I call on the industry to make sure that people can really benefit from the new pension changes as quickly as possible.’’

    Under the current rules, savers have few options in their retirement. They can use their pension pot to buy an annuity, which provides a fixed income but has been heavily criticised for offering people a poor return on their investment.

    The alternative is to convert their pension pot into a “draw-down” policy, where money is invested in the stock market and pensioners take a regular income. For all but the very wealthiest savers, any withdrawals are capped at around £9,000 a year from each £100,000 in the fund, and subject to onerous fees.

    From next April, the Government will enable workers to keep their pension pots when they retire and take small sums of money whenever they choose, taxed at their marginal rate after the first 25 per cent.

    The Government said that the move would allow pensioners to access their money without the costs associated with a draw-down pension and significantly lower their tax bills over the course of their retirement.

    Earlier this year Steve Webb, the pensions minister, said that he would be “relaxed” if pensioners chose to buy a Lamborghini with their life savings.
    Critics have questioned whether people could end up struggling financially if they spend all their money after retiring.

    Mr Webb, a Liberal Democrat, said that the Government’s state pension meant that elderly people will always have a safety net even if they spend the majority of their savings.

    He said: “One of the reasons we can be more relaxed about how people use their own money — and as a Liberal Democrat I want to give people those sorts of freedoms — is that with the state pension coming in, the state pension takes people above those sorts of means tests. So actually, if people do get a Lamborghini, and end up on the state pension, the state is much less concerned about that, and that is their choice.”

    Mr Osborne announced during the Conservative Party conference earlier this month that hundreds of thousands of pensioners will be able to leave more of their own money to their children under government plans to cut “penal” death taxes on pensions.

  • #2
    Re: "They" are coming for your pension money !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    A Citizens' Wealth Fund would create billions for investment

    By pooling public-sector pensions, we could cut taxes as well as finance major building projects

    It's time to smash all the little pension funds and build one, massive UK-wide one Photo: PA









    By Boris Johnson

    10:00PM BST 05 Oct 2014

    761 Comments


    It is a classic feature of a civilisation in decline that it is afflicted by an unstoppable growth in non-jobs and sinecures, funded by the state and which no one has the guts to curtail. It is the task of Tories to do the curtailing.


    We want to cut taxes, don’t we? We want to cut spending, yes? Well, let me suggest a policy that would not just enable us to save billions a year – more than enough to take a penny off income tax, simply by cutting bureaucracy – but would help us pay to build the homes we need, and finance the roads, railways, power stations and airports that this country is crying out for. It would help us to cover the cost of the vast and growing army of older people; and it would end an absurdity – an ontological explosion in the public sector of a kind that has not been seen since the jobbery and Buggins’-turnery of the later Roman Empire.


    To explain this opportunity, let me ask you a question I recently posed to a senior member of the Government. How many public-sector pension funds do you think there are in the UK? I asked. “I don’t know,” he said. “A few hundred?” Keep going, I said. “A thousand?” he hazarded. I pointed upwards. His eyes rolled. “Ten thousand? You tell me!”

    I told him.

    There are more than 39,000 public-sector pension funds in this country – each with its own trustees, each with its own managers and advisers and accountants. Every quango, every university, every branch of local government has its own pension fund, from British Nuclear Fuels to the Meat and Livestock Commission to the seven – yes, seven! – that were created to manage the pensions of those who were involved in the London 2012 Olympics.

    The waste is extraordinary. Think of all those advisers and investment managers taking their fees – their little jaws wrapped blissfully around the giant polymammous udder of the state. Think of the duplication.

    Related Articles



    But it is worse than that, because this country is missing a huge opportunity, and one that is being exploited by more sensible governments around the world. Other countries have realised that it is mad to keep their pension funds divided into tens of thousands of relatively tiny jam jars of cash. They have smashed the jam jars, pooled the pension funds – and created gigantic sovereign wealth funds which they are using to invest in high-yield assets. The Dutch, the Canadians, the people of Singapore – they are all using pension-fund cash to invest tens of billions in infrastructure and housing, some of it in London.

    We welcome that investment, of course. We are grateful. But is it not absurd that we are not able to call upon British pension funds to perform the same function? If we amalgamated our local authority pension funds, we would have a war chest of £180 billion; and if we added in all the public-sector pension funds, we would be talking hundreds of billions – and suddenly we would be able to direct those vast UK assets to the support of projects that are both socially useful and vital for the economy.

    We will need to spend £100 billion in the next 10 years on power stations, if we are going to keep the lights on. If we pooled our pension fund assets, and created a Citizens’ Wealth Fund, we would be able to get those schemes going – from new roads to new tunnels to hundreds of thousands of new homes for sale or rent (to say nothing of the new four-runway hub airport we need). And these investments would be attractive, because typically they would have a much higher yield – 7 or 8 per cent – compared with the 2 or 3 per cent currently achieved by pension fund managers in bonds or gilts. Roads and tunnels can be tolled; airports have charges; railways have passengers – and so on.


    There would be a decent revenue stream from such investments, which is more than can be said, frankly, for the investments made by British public-sector pension fund managers over the past 20 years. They piled into the banks, and lost colossal sums in the crash of 2008 – eight times more than it cost to bail out RBS. The NHS alone has a black hole of £300 billion in its pension fund, and across the public sector it is hard to see how we will meet our obligations to future pensioners.

    In London, the local authority pension fund is already paying for 80 centenarians – people who have been retired for 40 years. Their numbers will swell inexorably as people live longer and longer; and you may be interested to know that the life-expectancy of the average Londoner has risen by about 18 months just since I have been Mayor. How are we going to pay for all these people?

    Part of the answer is to increase the returns of the pension funds, with bolder and more strategic investments. And if we pooled those funds, we would find big and immediate savings in bureaucracy – perhaps £5 billion a year; enough to pay for an aircraft carrier or something more useful.

    What is the obstacle to this plan? It is the vested interests, of course. For decades now, the public-sector pension fund has been the place where you stick old Doobury, the good egg who is coming up for retirement, the soon-to-be-ex-employee who is looking for another string to his bow. The little pension funds will fight for their independence; they will make all sorts of spurious arguments about the need for “localism” in managing this dosh, when of course the advice is all sub-contracted to the same legion of investment managers, and what they really care about is their fees and their tickets to Wimbledon from the investment managers and their golf-club bragging rights.

    The vested interests must be ruthlessly overridden. It is time for Britain to have its own Citizens’ Wealth Fund, deploying our assets in a useful way, helping us to bolster the pensioners and cut pointless public expenditure at the same time. Away with the later Roman Empire, and forward with 21st-century Britain.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: "They" are coming for your pension money !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: "They" are coming for your pension money !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        I'd use my 401k to pay off my mortgage. The ROI is pretty compelling vs any other cash investment right now.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: "They" are coming for your pension money !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          Yeah, Mega - when the right-wingers over at The Economist say it's a terrible idea that benefits only the rich, you know pensioners are getting the shaft. And where's Labour in all this? Off in the corner capitulating as usual? Or off getting their palms greased by the City of London Rememberancer? After all, is there another "democracy" in the world where banks literally get votes based on how much cash they have on hand?:

          Dead giveaway







          • OUT of the mouths of babes and into financial planners. The latest tax change by the British government was described by Henry Denne, head of private clients at Punter Southall Financial Management, thus




          This very positive change transforms drawdown pensions from being “personal” pensions into family assets that can be very effectively used for inter-generational financial planning.


          Inter-generational financial planning is the key phrase. The £150m spent on this tax change can only be described as a shameless handout to the wealthy at a time of austerity. The announcement came the day before the government announced a post-election freeze on benefit payments that will save £3 billion a year. It is almost as if the Conservatives are trying to live up to the way they are caricatured by the Guardian.


          To put the change in context, one needs to explain the British system. Final salary pension schemes, where workers get a guaranteed income from their employers (which is taxed on receipt) are dying out. More and more people have so-called defined contribution (DC) pensions where they build up a pot. These contributions can be offset against tax, making them very attractive for those on the 40% and 45% top rates; returns on pension funds then accumulate free of tax; and a tax-free lump sum of 25% can be taken at the end. The cost of these various reliefs was estimated by the Pensions Policy Institute at £24 billion in the 2010-11 tax year (it must be higher by now).


          The rationale for all these tax breaks is to encourage people to save for their old age, so they are less dependent on the state (in practice, almost everyone gets a basic state pension but many people rely on additional, means-tested benefits). Traditionally, the quid pro quo for all this was that retirees were forced to convert their pension pot into an annuity (an income for life, taxed at their marginal rate) or some kind of drawdown plan (a more flexible issue of the same idea). This requirement was abolished in the last Budget; the retired can do what they like with their money. If they draw it down, they will pay tax at the marginal rate. But if they leave the money untouched, no tax will be paid. It used to be that any unspent pension pots were subject to a 55% tax charge when transferred to heirs; this is now being abolished. From the government release
          If the individual dies before they reach the age of 75, they will be able to give their remaining defined contribution pension to anyone as a lump sum completely tax free, if it is in a drawdown account or uncrystallised.


          What justification is there for giving tax relief to people so they can pass pension assets on to their heirs? Ignore the guff about this being entirely people's "own money"; the largest proportion will come from employer DC payments and from tax relief. The government's announcement mentions that 320,000 people retire with DC pension pots and could potentially benefit; what it doesn't mention is that most people have very small pots that they are likely to run through before death. The average pension pot at retirement is just £25,000, according to the Pensions Regulator. Andy James, head of retirement planning at Towry, commented in the FT that
          Sadly, the changes to the tax charges on death for pensions will not help those who are still struggling to build up sufficient funds to pay for their retirement


          Indeed, the whole system is skewed towards the wealthy; the PPI says that 70% of all the pension tax benefits accrue to the top two bands of taxpayers. While a skew is inevitable (the rich have more money to save, after all), there does not seem any crying need to increase their tax advantages.


          To be fair, the govermnment has a £40,000 cap on annual contributions and a £1.25m lifetime cap on pension funds. But that still represnts a big tax shelter. Financial advisers like Hargreaves Lansdown are rubbing their hands with glee at the potential for business from the new tax regime. Tom McPhail of HL writes that
          This is likely to encourage investors to take the maximum possible advantage of their pension contribution allowances


          If the government really wants to benefit the majority of DC savers, it should do more to focus on the very poor returns that they receive after all the charges are imposed. A new report from Better Finance for All shows that savers across from Europe have often received negative real returns this century, with the estimate for Britain at -0.7%. The abolition of the requirement to annuitise, greeted by many newspapers as a great leap towards freedom, will probably end up luring many more retirees into buying such high-charging products post-retirement. Annuites offer low returns because interest rates are low (deliberate government policy) and because people are living longer. There is no magic formula for beating annuity rates without taking risk, and many people may take the wrong decision. The most likely to do so are the poor, who will not have access to the same quality advice as the better-off. Yet another way in which government policy has favoured the rich.




          Comment


          • #6
            Re: "They" are coming for your pension money !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            They are like Crack Whores............they know the game is up, now the new game is to strip ANYTHING left. They know its a disaster to come, but frankly they don't care...........they only think of NOW 5 years from now or even 5 months is of no importance.

            Comment

            Working...
            X