Whats your private pension fund worth?

draiochtanois · 05-10-2016 2:20pm

This post has been deleted.

MeatTwoVeg · 05-10-2016 2:25pm

draiochtanois wrote:

This post has been deleted.

It sounded impressive until it later emerged he was working giving handjobs in a layby off the N18 for an annual salary of 3 stale Jaffa cakes.

draiochtanois · 05-10-2016 2:28pm

This post has been deleted.

NapoleonInRags · 05-10-2016 2:34pm

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Jaffa cakes are not biscuits, they're cakes.

When cakes go stale they get hard, when biscuits go stale they get soft.

When jaffa cakes go stake they get hard.

QED - jaffa cakes are cakes

draiochtanois · 05-10-2016 2:52pm

This post has been deleted.

faceman · 05-10-2016 3:02pm

draiochtanois wrote: »

Tax efficiency is only an advantage if the investment returns are adequate.

Tax relief is given at the marginal rate of tax so

If you don't pay income tax 0 benefit

And the tax efficiency is mostly that you are deferring paying tax rather than completely avoiding it.

Essentially you haven't a clue

And the "I disagree with caveats" is a moronic use of language akin to saying that someone is slightly pregnant ...

I bow to your clearly superior intellect and friendly language.

Essentially you're not very nice, with caveats.

BailMeOut · 06-10-2016 2:48pm

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

for most people the tax they pay on withdrawing their pension at an older age is a LOT less than the rate they would pay when working.

An interesting anecdote for anyone who does not appreciate how generous the tax benefits are and in my situation at the end of 2015 I owed approx €2000 to revenue. Rather than paying this €2k I payed €5k from savings account into my PRSA and the net result was that I did not owe revenue anything anymore.

If you do not have a pension then please start one and preferably one that is self managed. There is nothing like managing your own retirement to educate yourself in the markets and the economy. It is not rocket science and everyone can afford some amount of savings. A tiny regular amount saved and invested correctly starting when you are very young will grown in a very nice nest egg when you retire.

BrokenArrows · 06-10-2016 3:33pm

BailMeOut wrote: »

If you do not have a pension then please start one and preferably one that is self managed. There is nothing like managing your own retirement to educate yourself in the markets and the economy. It is not rocket science and everyone can afford some amount of savings. A tiny regular amount saved and invested correctly starting when you are very young will grown in a very nice nest egg when you retire.

Totally agree. Everyone can save something.

Even if you were able to put away a tiny amount of €30 a month over a 30 year period with a 5% fund return would get you 25k fund. Its better than nothing.
And when you retire you can take 25% of it tax free. Wouldnt you like to get a over 6k on the day you retire. A nice holiday to celebrate.

2RockMountain · 06-10-2016 8:48pm

deathtocaptcha wrote: »

Pensions are by in large a scam. If you're under 40, you've got 30 years of work ahead of you minimum.

The retirement age will keep increasing due to the fact we've got an aging population that (a) reduces workforce (b) means cost of looking after that aging population increases. Keeping people working longer saves the taxpayer money.

By the time you're 70, you should be debt free and have considerable savings. That combined with state pension should be more than enough to live on as you'd have no rent / mortgage, medical card, travel card, various allowances for heat, phone etc...

A pension would be nice but I'd view it as an investment that could go badly wrong and one that you've no control over. Not a guaranteed jackpot at the end of your working life which is what most people see it as.

If you put the same amount of cash in to a high interest savings account (highest available each year) as you do a pension, you'd have instant access to it and full control over it throughout your life. And you wouldn't be that worse off at the end of it all...

Please, please, please spend 30 minutes with someone you trust who knows about this stuff who can explain to you why you are so far of the mark on this. You're cutting off your nose to spite your face. Putting money in a pension does NOT mean losing control. Yes, it does mean tying up your money until retirement. Most funds actually allow 'retirement' anytime after 50, regardless of whether you are actually working or retired. Putting money in a 'highest available interest savings account' means losing money most years to inflation.

06-10-2016 9:46pm

seamus wrote: »

At the end of the day it depends on what kind of income you want when you've retired. A lot of people make the mistake of assuming they will need a generous income when they retire. They don't, in reality. You'll have no mortgage, no childcare. Just one or two adults and a home to maintain.

So the actual income required to live a comfortable life is really quite small, in comparison to what you may be earning now.

Just want to reiterate this and to add to it, because remember that income taxes and PRSI rates are substantially lower for pensioners than they are for the rest of us.

I have no intention of taking up golf when I turn 68, or whatever the pension age will be when I am eligible to retire. I'll probably start farming. I suspect a lot of people will want to stay working, perhaps undertaking a career path they wished they'd pursued earlier.

I am very skeptical about the whole notion of retirement. I wish I had a bigger pension, but life is not all about the bottom line. There are so many experiences I want right now, I prefer to allocate most of my income to spending it on those experiences. I could get run-over by the 46A on the way to work tomorrow.

I'm not saying 'don't invest in a pension', not at all. I'm saying, don't feel bad if you choose to allocate your income to other projects that make your life irrepressibly fun & worth living. There's a lot to be said for libertinism.

08-10-2016 11:23pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Just want to reiterate this and to add to it, because remember that income taxes and PRSI rates are substantially lower for pensioners than they are for the rest of us. .............

PAYE rates are the same, pensioners generally pay less as their income is less

09-10-2016 5:18pm

Augeo wrote: »

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Just want to reiterate this and to add to it, because remember that income taxes and PRSI rates are substantially lower for pensioners than they are for the rest of us.

PAYE rates are the same, pensioners generally pay less as their income is less

Perhaps I should have said effective rates. Pensioners pay income tax at the same headline rate, but have more income exemptions than workers do.

Here is an example. Imagine two married couples. One retired (but perhaps working part time, or living off investments), the other couple is in their thirties.

The younger couple pay €7,200 income tax alone on their household income. A married couple over the age of 65 pay zero income tax. In fact, the elderly couple even get an additional age-related tax credit, on top of the above exemption.

USC is now classified as an income tax, and there are similar exemptions there. A young married couple on the above wage pays €1,273 USC per annum, the elderly pay €840 only. That's the only tax contribution they pay at all.

Our hypothetical elderly couple pay no PRSI on their income, the young couple pay €1,440 per year.

So yes, they are paying the same rates, but much smaller effective rates, if they pay any at all.

Voting matters.

billyhead · 09-10-2016 5:48pm

Whats the general onion on AVC plans. Are they a gimmick or an advisable way to invest money?

myshirt · 09-10-2016 5:51pm

Anyone have a SIPP?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 09-10-2016 5:52pm

billyhead wrote: »

Whats the general onion on AVC plans. Are they a gimmick or an advisable way to invest money?

To be honest, they are something to speak about with an independent advisor. It depends on what your basic pension entitlements are and if you are short of years to maximise that pension. They can be a great boost to a pension for some and wasted contributions for others. I know people, now retired, in both camps.

billyhead · 09-10-2016 7:40pm

Rory Victorious Sandalwood wrote: »

To be honest, they are something to speak about with an independent advisor. It depends on what your basic pension entitlements are and if you are short of years to maximise that pension. They can be a great boost to a pension for some and wasted contributions for others. I know people, now retired, in both camps.

Thanks Sramee. My position is that I am a civil servant that started paying into an AVC plan at 21. Now 35 and pay about €100 a month into it. I was sold the plan at 21 due to the tax incentives by a sweet talking pensions advisor

2RockMountain · 09-10-2016 9:21pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Perhaps I should have said effective rates. Pensioners pay income tax at the same headline rate, but have more income exemptions than workers do.

The tax deferral allows you to spread the same income over your working and non-working life, so you get full benefits of all allowances in your non-working years, resulting in a significant net tax saving.

As well as the investment growth.

billyhead wrote: »

Thanks Sramee. My position is that I am a civil servant that started paying into an AVC plan at 21. Now 35 and pay about €100 a month into it. I was sold the plan at 21 due to the tax incentives by a sweet talking pensions advisor

Impossible question - but what income level do you expect to be at when you retire? There is a risk that you will be over-pensioned, if you have a full 40 years CS service plus your AVCs. You might lose some tax benefits as a result. You are under no obligation to continue to pay the €100 per month. You could choose to stop paying at any time, and leave the money already saved in place to grow until you retire.

You'd probably need to take professional advice to be sure of your best option either way.

sbsquarepants · 10-10-2016 8:12am

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I'm not saying 'don't invest in a pension', not at all. I'm saying, don't feel bad if you choose to allocate your income to other projects that make your life irrepressibly fun & worth living. There's a lot to be said for libertinism.

I have to say this is good advice.

It's nice to secure your future and all that, but right now it's still a hypothetical future.
What's real and certain is the present, it's stupid to sacrifice that for a future that may or may not pan out the way you hope - if it even comes at all.

Save every penny for a gilt edged pension and have a heart attack on your 66 birthday - you've basically wasted your life. Live your life well when you're young(ish) but have to spend years 66 to 96 living modestly - you've done very well indeed!

2RockMountain · 10-10-2016 4:51pm

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Live your life well when you're young(ish) but have to spend years 66 to 96 living modestly - you've done very well indeed!

Check out what it will take to stay warm, fed and healthy for 15 years with basic income.

homemadecider · 10-10-2016 5:20pm

I pay in 6% and my employer pays in 12%. Their contribution will go up to 15% when I turn 40.

draiochtanois · 10-10-2016 5:28pm

This post has been deleted.

2RockMountain · 10-10-2016 6:48pm

homemadecider wrote: »

Their contribution will go up to 15% when I turn 40.

I wonder if this is legal? Would it not be in breach of anti-discrimination legislation to pay people differently depending on their age?

homemadecider · 10-10-2016 9:46pm

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Financial sector.

dresden8 · 10-10-2016 11:40pm

We live in a low interest world. Investments are worth fnck unless you throw them away in the stock market where the insiders always win.

pauliebdub · 11-10-2016 12:14am

About 6k, 15℅ employer contributions, I don't put anything in myself.

alb · 11-10-2016 7:12pm

As a cryptocurrency enthusiast it's interesting to see some of the fears many people in this thread are expressing:
- counter-party risk for pensions, meaning private financial institutions may lose it.
- government failing to fulfill promises on state or public sector pensions in the future, resulting in them being less than anticipated
- government stealing portions of private pensions with levies
- inflation due to increase in monetary supply if one chooses to keep cash in a bank a/c or under the mattress

I'm not sure if more regular people are starting to notice the above risks or if it's just that this thread represents a higher number of zerohedge readers or tin foil hat wearers but it wouldn't surprise me if faith in pensions, and the existing financial system in general is declining.

How many will at least partially diversify into alternatives that address the 4 fears I mentioned above and provide greater control to the individual such as physical gold or bitcoin?

Deise Vu · 12-10-2016 10:01am

Given the amount of money involved to provide any kind of decent pension some outside the box thinking is going to be required so I came up with the following plan and I wonder if AH agrees it will fly:

I have two kids who will want to go to the University that we don’t have down here in the South East. This was recently costed at €11K per annum but I think that figure would barely cover accommodation and the registration fee, never mind food, clothes, books, travel etc so I am budgeting for €60K per child per degree. The thoughts of spending €120K on free education set me thinking that if, instead of burning all my savings, why don’t I get my employer to cut my wages by about €50K and put this in my pension instead and I will live on the basic salary I would have left (I am the only member of my own pension scheme so we can manipulate the employer / employee / avc split). This will reduce my take-home pay by about €25K per annum which is not a whole lot more than the cost of one kid at University and less than when they are overlapping.

I will then get an extra €300-400K into my pension, the kids will get a genuinely free education plus a full SUSI grant and I can spend the €120K on myself if required. Even if I burned through the entire €120K, which I doubt, I would have done that anyway and not had an extra €350K or so in my pension. I then have a few years left to reverse the process and ensure I have 3 good years pay for the purposes of lump sums and to avoid overfunding.

As an added bonus the Govt will be out the cost of my kids’ education and about €30K per annum in employee / employer taxes, money that they can’t squander elsewhere. Therefore I will also be helping to ameliorate the next financial crash.

Is that genius or what?

draiochtanois · 12-10-2016 10:04am

This post has been deleted.

BrokenArrows · 12-10-2016 10:25am

alb wrote: »

...

I'm not sure if more regular people are starting to notice the above risks or if it's just that this thread represents a higher number of zerohedge readers or tin foil hat wearers but it wouldn't surprise me if faith in pensions, and the existing financial system in general is declining.

...

Its probably a combination of everything.

But i think there is ignorance about how investments work in general. A lot of people would see a pension investment as a fund you just pump money into until you retire and hope for the best and they have zero knowledge about what their fund is investing in.

The generation after a huge market crash will always be scared by the stories of the previous generation about how they were "wiped out".

Anyone with a private pension fund should be doing at least the below:

1. Know exactly what your fund is investing in.
Some funds are very general funds investing in a wide variety of investments and others specialise eg. Property Funds or Gold Funds.

2. Determine what economic factors may effect your current fund.
If your pension was a Property Fund and the economy was showing signs of a property bubble then you might want to change your fund.

3. Determine your appetite for risk.
You can invest in risky funds which try and make huge gains but risk losing a lot or all of your money or you can invest in something very safe and get a regular 3% return or something in the middle. Make a conscious decision about your risk and dont start complaining that the pension fund screwed you if things go wrong in a high risk scenario.
The closer you are to retirement you should be putting your fund into a very safe investment so you dont get "wiped out".

4. Regularly review the value and performance of the fund
At least once a month you should be checking in on the value of your fund. Reevaluate the investments that the fund involves and do some research on whether or not your money would be better off in a different fund.
Just because your fund was a good choice last month, it doesnt mean it will continue to be a good choice in the future.

5. Dont be afraid to change your fund into a "safe" fund temporarily.
In times of indecision where you think your current fund is a bad idea but have not yet decided what the new fund should be then changing into a safe fund like a "cash fund" is fine in the short term. You wont make a return but you wont be losing much either.

6. Occasionally seek professional financial advice.
Maybe you are not the best investor or cannot decide where you fund should go then maybe you should seek a fee based financial advisor.
Yes, this advice will cost you a small bit of money, but would you rather spend a little now or lose a lot over the years of bad investment choices?
Its important that they are an impartial fee based advisor and are not affiliated with any specific funds or banks.

alb · 12-10-2016 11:05am

BrokenArrows wrote: »

The generation after a huge market crash will always be scared by the stories of the previous generation about how they were "wiped out".

Well I guess you can count me as one of those people. After the bubble and crash I started to research investing, economics etc. Things I'd never paid any attention to before. But the more I read the more I started realizing how screwed up everything is. There is no 'safe' only various levels of risk. Risk can be estimated of course to classify some things as high risk and some as low risk, but when estimating risk even the professionals get it completely wrong a lot of time. Bank shares, property, mortgage bonds for example have been classified as low risk and still been decimated.

If you're interested in this subject I highly recommend reading 'The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable' by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

appfry · 12-10-2016 9:01pm

Deise Vu wrote: »

Given the amount of money involved to provide any kind of decent pension some outside the box thinking is going to be required so I came up with the following plan and I wonder if AH agrees it will fly:

I have two kids who will want to go to the University that we don’t have down here in the South East. This was recently costed at €11K per annum but I think that figure would barely cover accommodation and the registration fee, never mind food, clothes, books, travel etc so I am budgeting for €60K per child per degree. The thoughts of spending €120K on free education set me thinking that if, instead of burning all my savings, why don’t I get my employer to cut my wages by about €50K and put this in my pension instead and I will live on the basic salary I would have left (I am the only member of my own pension scheme so we can manipulate the employer / employee / avc split). This will reduce my take-home pay by about €25K per annum which is not a whole lot more than the cost of one kid at University and less than when they are overlapping.

I will then get an extra €300-400K into my pension, the kids will get a genuinely free education plus a full SUSI grant and I can spend the €120K on myself if required. Even if I burned through the entire €120K, which I doubt, I would have done that anyway and not had an extra €350K or so in my pension. I then have a few years left to reverse the process and ensure I have 3 good years pay for the purposes of lump sums and to avoid overfunding.

As an added bonus the Govt will be out the cost of my kids’ education and about €30K per annum in employee / employer taxes, money that they can’t squander elsewhere. Therefore I will also be helping to ameliorate the next financial crash.

Is that genius or what?

We did exactly that a few years ago.
Instead of salary raises we got more employers contributions to our pension funds.
Been retired a few years now and in 40s and its great. Love it.
Havent even drawn down our retirement funds yet. Living on savings and investments and when they run out we will see about the retirement funds, pensions etc.
Dont have nor want a part time job. I want the freedom to do whatever i feel like on any day and thats what my retirement gives me.

2RockMountain · 12-10-2016 11:02pm

Deise Vu wrote: »

Given the amount of money involved to provide any kind of decent pension some outside the box thinking is going to be required so I came up with the following plan and I wonder if AH agrees it will fly:

I have two kids who will want to go to the University that we don’t have down here in the South East. This was recently costed at €11K per annum but I think that figure would barely cover accommodation and the registration fee, never mind food, clothes, books, travel etc so I am budgeting for €60K per child per degree. The thoughts of spending €120K on free education set me thinking that if, instead of burning all my savings, why don’t I get my employer to cut my wages by about €50K and put this in my pension instead and I will live on the basic salary I would have left (I am the only member of my own pension scheme so we can manipulate the employer / employee / avc split). This will reduce my take-home pay by about €25K per annum which is not a whole lot more than the cost of one kid at University and less than when they are overlapping.

I will then get an extra €300-400K into my pension, the kids will get a genuinely free education plus a full SUSI grant and I can spend the €120K on myself if required. Even if I burned through the entire €120K, which I doubt, I would have done that anyway and not had an extra €350K or so in my pension. I then have a few years left to reverse the process and ensure I have 3 good years pay for the purposes of lump sums and to avoid overfunding.

As an added bonus the Govt will be out the cost of my kids’ education and about €30K per annum in employee / employer taxes, money that they can’t squander elsewhere. Therefore I will also be helping to ameliorate the next financial crash.

Is that genius or what?

Isn't the SUSI grant based on gross salary, before pension contributions? Would this fall foul of Revenue's general anti-evasion provisions? Would you hit the lifetime cap for tax relief?

Deise Vu · 13-10-2016 9:35am

2RockMountain wrote: »

Isn't the SUSI grant based on gross salary, before pension contributions? Would this fall foul of Revenue's general anti-evasion provisions? Would you hit the lifetime cap for tax relief?

The SUSI grant would be based on gross before pension contributions but this obviously only relates to the pension contributions and AVCs that I pay myself. As I said in my post, I am the only member of my pension scheme and I work for an SME so my proposal is that I get my salary reduced and get my employer to contribute more as the employer's contribution (in this example €50K). It would be easy to sell this to the employer as he saves the employers Prsi on €50K which costs him about €5.5K every year. There is no restriction on what the employer can contribute to the scheme so there is no issue with allowable percentage contributions based on age.

There is a very long shot that Revenue might deem this to be anti-avoidance (maybe for being a work-around the allowable percentage contribution) but i think:

(A) you would have a good argument to say it is up to you how you allocate your pay - for example, from day 1 in my current job I asked for a decreased wage and a higher pension contribution. So who can say there is something wrong with waking up some day and deciding you are willing to work for less but you would like the employer to pay more into your pension? It should be borne in mind that, in the event of redundancy or unfair dismissal, your entitlements would be way reduced so you better be very confident about your position within the company.

(B) Your chances of this ever even being picked up are extremely slim, especially if you make the change in week 1 of a tax year as a tax audit usually only concentrates on one year so they will either see the before or after but not both.

Your final question is would I hit the lifetime cap and the simple answer to that is: I wish. The lifetime cap is €2M and is not likely to be an issue unless my fund manager put money on the next Leicester to win the PL.

2RockMountain · 13-10-2016 4:33pm

Deise Vu wrote: »

There is a very long shot that Revenue might deem this to be anti-avoidance (maybe for being a work-around the allowable percentage contribution) but i think:

(A) you would have a good argument to say it is up to you how you allocate your pay - for example, from day 1 in my current job I asked for a decreased wage and a higher pension contribution. So who can say there is something wrong with waking up some day and deciding you are willing to work for less but you would like the employer to pay more into your pension? It should be borne in mind that, in the event of redundancy or unfair dismissal, your entitlements would be way reduced so you better be very confident about your position within the company.

I think you're missing the point of the broad anti-avoidance rules. If they reckon that you're gaming the system (as you would be if you went down this road), they will hit you.

Deise Vu wrote: »

(B) Your chances of this ever even being picked up are extremely slim

I'm sure all these lads thought the same.

Deise Vu · 13-10-2016 5:35pm

2RockMountain wrote: »

I think you're missing the point of the broad anti-avoidance rules. If they reckon that you're gaming the system (as you would be if you went down this road), they will hit you.

I genuinely don't understand how accepting a pay cut is 'gaming the system'. It has happened to 100's of thousands of people in the last 8 years (myself included). And what your employer pays into your pension over and above anything agreed in your contract is entirely at his discretion so I don't see why there would be any revenue focus on that at all. It could even be paid by way of one-off payments if you are nervous about it.

2RockMountain wrote: »

I'm sure all these lads thought the same.

I think you are missing a link here?

2RockMountain · 13-10-2016 7:48pm

Deise Vu wrote: »

I genuinely don't understand how accepting a pay cut is 'gaming the system'. It has happened to 100's of thousands of people in the last 8 years (myself included). And what your employer pays into your pension over and above anything agreed in your contract is entirely at his discretion so I don't see why there would be any revenue focus on that at all. It could even be paid by way of one-off payments if you are nervous about it.

Having a pay cut at the same time as increasing employer pension contributions is clearly gaming the system, and you've just described it a game to get around pension rules.

But who knows, lawyers could pick over it in various levels of Courts for years at your expense if you want to push it.

Deise Vu wrote: »

I think you are missing a link here?

Yep, these lads - http://www.revenue.ie/en/press/defaulters/

appfry · 13-10-2016 8:42pm

Deise Vu wrote: »

I genuinely don't understand how accepting a pay cut is 'gaming the system'. It has happened to 100's of thousands of people in the last 8 years (myself included). And what your employer pays into your pension over and above anything agreed in your contract is entirely at his discretion so I don't see why there would be any revenue focus on that at all. It could even be paid by way of one-off payments if you are nervous about it.

I think you are missing a link here?

The way I brought it up with my employer was that I asked for a raise. When they said OK and settled on a figure with me, I said can I have all of that raise paid directly into my pension by them instead of increasing my salary.
This had benefits for both myself and my employer.

I would settle on a lower raise because I would not be paying tax on it.

Deise Vu · 13-10-2016 9:12pm

2RockMountain wrote: »

Deise Vu wrote: »

I genuinely don't understand how accepting a pay cut is 'gaming the system'. It has happened to 100's of thousands of people in the last 8 years (myself included). And what your employer pays into your pension over and above anything agreed in your contract is entirely at his discretion so I don't see why there would be any revenue focus on that at all. It could even be paid by way of one-off payments if you are nervous about it.

Having a pay cut at the same time as increasing employer pension contributions is clearly gaming the system, and you've just described it a game to get around pension rules.

But who knows, lawyers could pick over it in various levels of Courts for years at your expense if you want to push it.

Deise Vu wrote: »

I think you are missing a link here?

Yep, these lads - http://www.revenue.ie/en/press/defaulters/

Trust me I wouldn't have to be hiring any lawyers.

If even one of the people on the tax defaulters list is due to disallowed pension arrangements I will eat several hats.

2RockMountain · 13-10-2016 10:03pm

Deise Vu wrote: »

Trust me I wouldn't have to be hiring any lawyers.

If even one of the people on the tax defaulters list is due to disallowed pension arrangements I will eat several hats.

Revenue tend to do their investigations in phases, so they do off-shore accounts one year, bogus non-resident accounts another year - maybe some year they will focus on pensions.

14-10-2016 12:17pm

Deise Vu wrote: »

.......... There is no restriction on what the employer can contribute to the scheme so there is no issue with allowable percentage contributions based on age. ............

That's not true.
There is a formula for employers contributions to pension schemes.

Deise Vu wrote: »

.... And what your employer pays into your pension over and above anything agreed in your contract is entirely at his discretion ...........

No, not it's not.

Deise Vu · 14-10-2016 4:31pm

Augeo wrote: »

Deise Vu wrote: »

.......... There is no restriction on what the employer can contribute to the scheme so there is no issue with allowable percentage contributions based on age. ............

That's not true.
There is a formula for employers contributions to pension schemes.

Deise Vu wrote: »

.... And what your employer pays into your pension over and above anything agreed in your contract is entirely at his discretion ...........

No, not it's not.

Care to share this secret formula with us? I could google mind boggling pension top ups that have been made to certain deserving Captains of industry such as Fingers Fingleton and I have personally seen pensions started with 6 figure sums but I would much rather see your formula.

15-10-2016 10:56am

The rules governing the employer funding of pensions are complex..... I'd have no intention of detailing them for you for

They quite likely not a fly in the ointment of the plan you detail though.
You made sweeping statements though which are untrue
You can indeed start with 6 figure sums but 6 figure sums aren't huge at the lower side.
A jump in contribution above the normal is also subject to limits so your plan is actually flawed.
HTH

Whats your private pension fund worth?

Comments