Outlook: Pension chaos
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Pension chaos
MYSTIFIED ABOUT pensions? Anyone planning for their retirement in the past few years would be forgiven for feeling overwhelmed. Just as they start coming to terms with one new assortment of initials and proposals on the pension front, along comes another to confuse them even further.
As if to confirm everyone's belief that pensions are far too complicated for common mortals, the Treasury yesterday published plans for yet another investment "vehicle" we will be allowed to use for our retirement planning.
This so-far unnamed new model (don't call it a Lisa, the bureaucrats hate the term), aims to be more flexible than both the occupational pensions already available from most large employers, and stakeholder pensions, announced in december. Most of us will, however, struggle to see the unique selling proposition.
By giving pooled investments from unit and investment trust funds the same tax breaks as ordinary pension schemes, the Government is hoping to create a new breed of cheap, flexible pension which we will be able to start and stop at will, without heavy charges.
Treasury Ministers seem to hope that by doing so, they will kill off the existing personal pensions system, in which life companies offer expensive products with heavy surrender penalties. The idea is that insurers will be forced to compete on price with more competitive unit and investment trusts.
Nothing wrong with that, it might be said. However, clarity and simplicity are usually the most important thing when it comes to investment, and on this front the new Government doesn't seem to be making much progress. The proposed changes already replicate many features already available elsewhere with personal pensions. The Treasury seems only to be creating more confusion on the pension front. The only really exciting thing about the proposals was the name Lisa - and now they even want to take that away.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments