The government does not care
It is good that the government acknowledges there is a problem to solve [with the state pension age increase for women]. But they can never compensate for what they have done.
On a personal level, our family home of 20 years had to be sold and in order to have any kind of a life we chose to move to Spain where property was cheaper and the cost of living much cheaper. It sounds great, but I had to leave three daughters and five grandchildren. Now we have the Brexit worry too.
The government does not really care about its people, just itself, banks and businesses. I taught for 35 years and had to leave through ill health at 55. I was five years from retirement or so I thought.
It was only at this point did I find out the goalposts had moved. I then had two years fighting the DWP to get any help. I only got through this because of the tenacity of my husband. Everything has been a battle for the 1950s women and we are tired. We truly believe they are waiting for us to either reach 66 (many don’t) and so give up the fight or die!
Susan Tolman
Mojacar
Time to face the music
This was an interesting article (‘Pension transfer complaints up 44 per cent’, October 9) but I fear the real issue around this area of advice may not surface for a further 10 or 15 years.
It will only be when pots start to dwindle in drawdown that clients will understand the true impact of transferring safeguarded benefits. Many clients are blissfully ignorant of the long-term risks and are instead just focused on the here and now. How did that advert go? – “There may be trouble ahead, but while there’s moonlight and music and love and romance, let’s face the music and dance.”
Simon Torry
SRC Wealth Management
Three platforms is a crowd
A person or group develops the software to create a robo-advice platform. They seek and obtain funding from sources that have bought into the concept and take a slice of the business in return. The game plan is to grow the business and then sell it off and make (hopefully) a killing.
The robo model has to be volume – pile it high, sell it cheap. Meanwhile, losses mount as they try and reach critical mass. This necessitates more funding from the same or new sources, who take another slice of the business in return.
We then get to a situation with a choice of two outcomes. The platform eventually makes some money and is sold off, but the founders of the business now only own a small slice. It is the entities who have put up the money that make whatever profit there is, the founders get nothing like the amount they were hoping for.
Alternatively, the platform flounders and is wound up. The founders get nothing and the funders will probably write off their input against their tax liability.
Yes, there is scope for robo-advice, but it isn’t unlimited.
Yes, there are people who may be competent at DIY investing, but I would guess that for the majority who actually have the wherewithal and the desire to invest (and that is not a huge number) then face-to-face is, I would have thought, the preferred method. After all, one hears often enough that “this is a people business”.
I would guess that there is only room for about two robo-advice platforms, and I would further guess that they would be dealing with smaller amounts (below £200,000). The more worthwhile sums of £300,000 and above will be the province of traditional advice organisations.
Name and address supplied
Don’t cut tax-free allowance
I have just read the article suggesting the abolition of the 25 per cent tax-free cash. I am approaching retirement and this allowance forms a large part of my planning.
Scrapping this allowance would create a greater scandal than the changes to the female retirement age. People will have planned for many tens of years on the assumption of a 25 per cent allowance. I would suggest raising taxes on inheritance tax instead.
Name and address supplied
Cost of government inaction
I have read your article about the government’s plans to discuss solutions for 1950s women (October 8) and I would like to state a few facts.
I am 61 years and nine months old. At no time at all in the past (distant or recent) has our government bothered to notify me that I would not be receiving my pension at reaching 60. In fact, when they were supposed to have notified me back in 1995 when they brought in the act, no dates for implementation were set.
I have lost out on six whole years of receiving my hard-earned pension. It is a disgrace that ministers are allowed to claim that no woman has lost more than 18 months. Absolutely ridiculous claims.
If I owed the government tax, national insurance or whatever they would be as quick as you like in badgering me for payment, but when it came to notifying me of not getting my pension they claim they were unable to notify us individually due to inaccurate records. They also claim to have placed small adverts in newspapers that the likes of me would have never bought, let alone read. What a load of tosh and poppycock. Just more of the haves robbing blind the have-nots.
One more thing on the equality front. How many men have been made to wait six years? Not a single one!
Patricia Martin
Time running out for women
I am a member of the Facebook group, 63 is the new 60. As you may imagine, I (and more than 3m others) are angry and disappointed over the recent judicial review judgment.
I am not ashamed to say that I was devastated at the outcome. The fact that the first judge found merit in the case and then the review found no merit at all is puzzling in the least. What key phrase came out of the review was that they believe this is a parliamentary matter, rather than a legal one. This may change on appeal, but I, for one, know that time is running out for thousands of these women.
Francesca Trownson
