Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Bandwagon jumping, Howard.
Stakeholder Pensions are already price capped so cheap pensions are available to anyone.
Next year the RDR changes will introduce 'client agreed remuneration' as well which will help with transparency. I am all in favour of anything that makes charges more transparent, it would actually make my job a lot easier....
When that price cap was introduced the 'take up' of pensions dropped dramatically incidentally. To cap 'non-stakeholder' costs would be unworkable and threatens to further damage pensions. Costs, as I said, are not everything and I certainly would not 'go cheap' for my own pension.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Filibuster away to your hearts content...as usual...the bandwagon is rolling along
and something `unsavory ` is always floating to the top with the dross....
Quote from Pensions Minister says it all....
``Hidden fees can wipe tens of thousands of pounds off a pension and switching schemes can cost a fifth of the value of the fund.
"I would like to see the leading companies look again at their 'back book' of old pension policies," Mr Webb wrote.
"They should ask themselves if the`` battered reputation of their industry`` would not be greatly enhanced if they were to revisit these schemes and offer scheme members fairer terms.``"
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Reg - I suggest that you re-read what I have already said. I have pointed out that the survey must have included old pensions that are no longer marketed, the 'back-book' Webb refers to. In that Webb has a good point.
I have also pointed out that the so called 'hidden fees' highlighted by the survey includes stamp duty, imposed by the government. All such fees are included in the Stakeholder Pension charge cap as laid down by your own government and that is why passive or 'pseudo passive' funds tend to be where stakeholders invest in the main part. Passive v active is a debate in itself, I often utilise strategies that include both.
I have tried to explain the facts but as always you conveniently ignore them because they get in the way of a chance for petty digs and point scoring.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
boots have got them on offer at the moment,buy 1 and get 1 half price.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
Exchequer Secretary David Gauke announced yesterday that..........
``Tax Advisers who use tax avoidance schemes that push the Law to it`s limits
will be named and shamed``..........someone may need to keep looking over his
shoulder...........our government means business....but there might be a ``U``turn...
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Advisers who are in the business of dreaming up new and complex tax avoidance (legal) schemes are required by law to inform HMRC of such schemes.
I will only use those that are well established, tried and tested as I have seen many overly 'aggressive' and complex schemes come apart.
Everyone has a right to take whatever legal steps there are to protect their private property from thieves and that includes the legal theft of tax.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
some interesting views from all sides
it appears that advice is being given of people that may lose out
and others that dispute this
but at theend of the day many cant afford to lose out
and correct advice(that is impartial)should be given
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS