THE SECOND GREAT PENSIONS RAID

Evan



THE SECOND GREAT PENSION RAID

Current thinking is to cease to contract-out with effect from the current tax year. The effect of this is that you will then accrue an entitlement to S2P for each year that you remain not contracted-out. The accumulated Protected Rights fund to date, which is the proportion of your personal pension plan that relates to contracting-out, will remain invested on your behalf. But do we need to think again?



When you contract out of the State Pension you individualise your National Insurance Contributions and have these paid into your own pension pot where it remains your money under your control. Contracting in or out is an act of faith. Recent market turmoil may breach this faith. Do you still feel the State can or will be able to provide for you in old age?



Cash Gordon, the architect of the first pension raid has been at it again and redistributing wealth behind the scenes … the wealth of middle England. Is contracting back into the State Pension such a good idea?
The earnings related pension is being done away with and national insurance contributions redistributed on a massive scale to the benefit of low earners but to the detriment of middle earners and middle England. Better then to have your own money in your own pension pot?



For the full story see Steve Bee's excellent commentary:

 "Beeline" http://tinyurl.com/4srlc9

Comment: I would like to acknowledge the source of this data. My very good friend and IFA Commentator, Brian Lentz raised these issues many moons ago and following the excellent article by Steve Bee, I felt compelled to give a voice to these comments.





Regards

SIMON MANSELL

Temple Bar IFA Ltd



Thought for the day: Who guards the guards?


FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION - ARTICLE 10 THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998: This guarantees the right to pass information to other people and to receive information that other people want to give you. It also guarantees the right to hold and express opinions and ideas. Journalists and people who publish newspapers and magazines can use Article 10 to argue there should be no restrictions on what they write about. Artists and writers can use it to defend themselves against people who try to censor their work. Article 10 is a 'qualified' This means that the Government or a public authority may be allowed to restrict or interfere with the right in certain circumstances. The Government or the public authority must show that there was a clear legal basis for the restriction or interference. Its actions must pursue one of the eight aims set out in Article 10, which include: No 1 the prevention of crime; No.2 the protection of morals; No.3 the protection of other people's rights or reputations; No. 4 the protection of confidential information. It also has to show that the interference was 'necessary and proportionate'
(that it was done for a very good reason and went no further than it needed to).

This letter/e-mail is sent in Open Forum and any response may be held in open forum.