Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Pensions



Napper

Well-known member
Jul 9, 2003
23,874
Sussex
Worth paying into one post age 40 ? (assuming company matches amount) , searches online seem to suggest no point unless paying over £200 a month

Therfore, Better with an ISA ?

Probably to vague a question I expect.
 




nail-Z

Well-known member
Jul 10, 2003
2,969
North Somerset
If a company is matching your contribution it must be worth doing, IMO, as contributions are also pre-tax.

With an ISA it's a bit too easy to dip in to.
 


D

Deleted member 18477

Guest
If you are only starting a private pension and you're already 40 then yes £200+ a month seems about right.

Takes a lot to catch up if you don't start early 20's.
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,310
...searches online seem to suggest no point unless paying over £200 a month

where on earth would give that advice? you have a lot to catch up and anything is better than nothing.

vs ISA, the short version is you get income tax relief on pension contributions, so 20% on top of what you put in. pay in £100 you get £120 in the pension.
 


MJsGhost

Remembers
NSC Patron
Jun 26, 2009
4,484
East
If a company is matching your contribution it must be worth doing, IMO, as contributions are also pre-tax.

With an ISA it's a bit too easy to dip in to.

This.

If contributions are matched, you are doubling your money right off the bat (not to mention not paying the tax on it). You'd have to have some inside info on a guaranteed way to more than double your money to make going for an ISA worthwhile...
 




Rugrat

Well-known member
Mar 13, 2011
10,215
Seaford
This.

If contributions are matched, you are doubling your money right off the bat (not to mention not paying the tax on it). You'd have to have some inside info on a guaranteed way to more than double your money to make going for an ISA worthwhile...

... and when you get to the end you can get 25% of your fund in a tax free lump sum (assumes Gov't don't close that down!)
 




Napper

Well-known member
Jul 9, 2003
23,874
Sussex
but unless paying in big lumps its going to be a pretty shit pension (and confirmation of £200 confirms it) . Yes better than nothing but worth skinting self for now to be a little bit less skint in 25 years.
 




KZNSeagull

Well-known member
Nov 26, 2007
19,813
Wolsingham, County Durham
Always worthwhile doing, but it depends if you are likely to have a dramatic lifestyle change (lose your job, for example) as you cannot touch your pension fund until you retire. If you are due a large redundancy payout, if the worst came to the worst, then paying into a pension should be fine.
 


A decent pension pot will, at least, give you an option when you reach the age of sixty-something and have to decide whether you have an alternative to carrying on working full-time.
 


sam86

Moderator
Feb 18, 2009
9,947
but unless paying in big lumps its going to be a pretty shit pension (and confirmation of £200 confirms it) . Yes better than nothing but worth skinting self for now to be a little bit less skint in 25 years.

This is a question only you can answer.
 




Napper

Well-known member
Jul 9, 2003
23,874
Sussex
A decent pension pot will, at least, give you an option when you reach the age of sixty-something and have to decide whether you have an alternative to carrying on working full-time.

yes understand this.

Not sure what option a not very good pension will give me.
 




yes understand this.

Not sure what option a not very good pension will give me.
Probably none. Although you might strike lucky and qualify for lots of state-funded benefits, assuming British politics has done a U-turn by then. Or the economy has been boosted by the discovery of massive gold reserves, buried under the South Downs.
 




but unless paying in big lumps its going to be a pretty shit pension (and confirmation of £200 confirms it) . Yes better than nothing but worth skinting self for now to be a little bit less skint in 25 years.

If OP is 40 and intends to retire at 65 and assuming is is a basic rate tax payer, then his £200 will only cost him £160 plus £200 from the company. That equates to £72,000 in contributions by the time OP is 65. If the fund performs well, then the value may well reach £200k.

That would entitle the OP to a cash free lump sum of £50k and an annuity of about £9000pa. This could be increased with the new drawdown facility.

Also, current legislation entitles you to take the pension from 55, so not being tied up for too long
 


Napper

Well-known member
Jul 9, 2003
23,874
Sussex
If OP is 40 and intends to retire at 65 and assuming is is a basic rate tax payer, then his £200 will only cost him £160 plus £200 from the company. That equates to £72,000 in contributions by the time OP is 65. If the fund performs well, then the value may well reach £200k.

That would entitle the OP to a cash free lump sum of £50k and an annuity of about £9000pa. This could be increased with the new drawdown facility.

Also, current legislation entitles you to take the pension from 55, so not being tied up for too long

Nice one.

So half of this ie £80 would give me 25k and 4.5k a year . Factor in state pension whatever thats worth ? and maybe no mortgage to pay etc then that would be worth it
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here