tony de wonderful

Money is literally created out of thin air. What do you think QE is, or where do you think any credit comes from?

Dingdongler

Yup, you are fooked mate

shytorque

I have to say it sounds much more attractive to take it out in lump sums (avoiding paying large tax) and be able to do as you want with it, rather than hand it all over to an annuity and then have it swallowed up when you die ,leaving my family with nothing for all my hard work!!

cster

Wow - really?
I didn't know any of that, because I am a complete f***ing moron.
Do you have any other interesting economic observations that you could share with the rest of us?
We'd all be ever so grateful.

hodgy0_2

I think TDW is asking if you agree that the "welfare demographic" are not the only strata of society to benefit from free money - literally grown from trees

cookstar

iTrader: (6)

I just can't get my head around the £30k figure, nobody I know has or will have a pot anything like that, I was having this conversation just today with a family member who plans to buy at least three BTLs with his drawn down. Figures weren't mentioned but where he's looking to buy your looking at probably £150-200k to get that started.

I'm on a final salary scheme so won't affect me, (not sure whether I'm happy about that or not )

Dingdongler

Statistically speaking I wonder whether 'the average' as TDW puts it is a particularly useful measure in this instance.

There will be plenty of people with pots far in excess of £30,000.

I agree with you in that a lot of that money will head towards BTL.

Labour have agreed with the pension changes out of fear of alienating a large voting demographic. However if in power they would without doubt introduce a tax on it to once again raid the pensions of hard working responsible individuals. How else would they fund the work shy and social engineering?

tony de wonderful

Responsibility went out of the window after the banking crisis; borrowers were rewarded and savers punished. That continues now. Those same 'responsible' people will only make it worse by inflated housing if they get all their pension pot as a lump sum. If property crashes they will be first to demand another bailout.

Dingdongler

But now the savers are being rewarded, but you say they can't be trusted with their own money.

cster

I am only interested in the subject of the thread and in particular the point you raised about the potential for this policy to be a "disaster".

The point that the change will generally only involve those who are fiscally responsible as opposed to those who rely on "Society" for handouts is I think a fair point and one that had not otherwise been raised on the thread.

I of course am extremely interested to hear more of Mr TDW's cod socio-economic theorising that he has picked up on his social working degree course at the ******* university (formerly Neasdon Kingdom of Leather on the North Circular Rd), and perhaps he could do us the honour of starting up another thread rather than uttering his irrelevant points of view on this one.

I'd so love to read it and I think a lot of other S/Ners would too

john banks

cster for Prime Minister.

EddScott

The FOS decisions on complaints has increasingly taken away any responsibility on behalf of the customer.

There will be people who run into financial difficulties because of the new rules.

hodgy0_2

"wealthy" (fiscally responsible ) pensioners are the primary targets and victims of financial fraud

cster

Not much point trying to target people with no money I guess.

hodgy0_2

yes - and they are more successful too

cster

I am not quite sure what you are trying to say here.

hodgy0_2

pretty simple - but I will repeat anyway

yes - and they are more successful too

paulr

1. The same rules apply in Australia, people dont blow it all there, but often pay off debts. Thier average pot is 180k AS$. Ours is £30k.
2. Expect the 40% tax relief to dissapear soon.
3. Osbourne is still a rubbish chancellor.

cster

Who are "they"? -
The victims of the fraud (usually the wealthy) or the perpetrators of it (usually the taxman when it comes to pension raiding)?
Your statement lacks clarity, so whilst I am sure it is all very clever, it is also ambiguous.

Chip

EFA

johnwiz

iTrader: (26)

Am I right in thinking that as of April next year I can cash in my private pension at age 57?
I know bugger all about pensions but I drew out 25 per cent last year & now its changed to a SIPP. Apologies if it's already mentioned in thread , I did have a quick look, honest Cheers ,John
PS I'm avoiding making any socio-political comments as I don't want to contribute to the hostile feeling in the last few posts.
Plus I'm a selfish lazy bugger & I just can't be arsed
The old adage "never discuss religion or politics " springs to mind
Right, time for bed (old git !)

tony de wonderful

What's responsible about driving up property prices and rents?

Dingdongler

Who says this will happen? People might do any number of things with THEIR money.

So you believe people shouldn't have control of their own money? Just in case they drive up the price of something that you personally have to purchase??

You've always complained that savers have not been rewarded. Now that they have been you should be joining me in congratulating George and Dave

tony de wonderful

Spare me your bourgeois morality, it is so idealistic it is untrue, your conceptions of markets and (sovereign) individuals I mean.

I think we both know that substantial amounts we be ploughed into BTL for the same reason as many 'investors' are 'investing' in BTL - it offers higher rates of return than other investments for less risk.

'Holy market' aside, would this be a good thing for the government to enable? It's obviously malinvestement on a social scale.

Dingdongler

So it is idealistic to think that individuals should have control over their own money rather than the state or institutions???

So who should decide what they can do with their money? You?

tony de wonderful

You're trading upon a old fashioned libertarian philosophy which sees the individual as a sovereign subject in nature, and things like property and money as natural objects which can be owned prior to the state and society. The state is then seen as an alien institution imposing itself upon a natural world of free-individuals who engage in contractual relationship. Needless to say this is a complete fiction, with money and property being just as 'alien' to 'nature' as any state, and you will never find this fully formed sovereign individual in a natural state ever.

So when you say people should be able to do what they want with their 'own money' it is somewhat tautological as a plea. Capitalism's institutions of money and property are social institutions and their private ownership is only one truth or one aspect of them, which is contingent.

So I find it very hard to see what you call 'freedom' to actually be 'freedom' since we never get a choice about the rules of the game.