PensionsOct 30 2019

Your Shout: Letters to the editor

twitter-iconfacebook-iconlinkedin-iconmail-iconprint-icon
Search supported by
comment-speech

Link wrong to pull Woodford fund

I have never been a huge [Neil] Woodford fan; however, in this case I think Link are wrong and I do agree with [Mr] Woodford. 

I too am an investor in the [Woodford Equity Income] fund. My holding represents under 1 per cent of portfolio value (even at cost price). 

When I bought the fund I bought it in full expectation of it being a high-risk fund that would be volatile and should be held for the long term. That others have advised on this as a fund for widows and orphans is something they will no doubt have to answer for. 

But viewing the fund in this way has jeopardised the interests of investors such as myself who are perfectly prepared to wait things out for the next three or four years – or longer if necessary.

Harry Katz

HA7 Consulting

 

Robbing the poor to...

This ludicrous idea about scrapping tax-free cash pension to fund inheritance tax abolition smacks of “robbing the poor to feed the rich”.

I am a single parent, looking forward to my hard-earned and much-needed tax-free lump sum. But now I need to pay tax on it, so that someone else can inherit a fortune without any tax liability? 

Where is Robin Hood when you need him?

Carol Mata

Elgin, Moray

 

How far is too far?

Successive legislation in recent times such as the lifetime allowance/money purchase annual allowance and tapering of the annual allowance has already substantially eroded the value people see in personal pensions. 

That’s not considering the fact that these same people have seen the end of private sector defined benefit schemes, while having to subsidise the unsustainable continuation of guaranteed public sector schemes, via their taxes. 

Irreparable damage has already been caused and articles like this [calling for the tax-free cash in pensions to be abolished] leave you wondering what would have to happen for politicians to realise they have gone too far.

Younger generations are not saving as it is, even when they can clearly afford to. We should be incentivising these people, not putting them off, otherwise we will have a generation of people living off equity release in 20-30 years’ time.

Paul Standerwick 

MLP Wealth Management

 

Huge leap in pension age was hard to bear

While the all-party parliamentary group proposals are helpful to those still under the pension age, it does nothing for the ones born in 1953-54 who are now at the state pension age. I feel that we had the biggest leap of qualifying ages withoutus knowing.

I didn’t find out until I was 59 years old and expecting to get my pension very soon. I was born in January 1954 and mine leapt from 60 up to 65 and five months. 

I had to keep working, but as my job was very physical I had to change to an easier one with much less pay.

My husband had to stop working early due to ill health. It was not easy at all. I cashed in part of my very small private pension just to pay off the mortgage and keep us afloat. 

Name and address supplied

 

APPG’s attempt to right discrimination is divisive

I am one of those women most affected by the Pensions Act of 2011, and though I am now approaching my state pension age of 65 and a half on November 6, I am a widow and have had three rough years of living on my savings and on the goodwill of my sister who reached her pension age at 60, being older than me.  

I was unable to continue working due to osteoarthritis and the pressure of work, but I knew I would not be found unfit to work because I was still breathing so didn’t even bother to try for any out-of-work benefits and have lived frugally ever since.

We have continued to protest and campaign and were fully aware of theAPPG and their proposals, but thought they had sunk into oblivion. 

Is this how they propose to help us? 

By giving a weekly pension to women when they reach 63 until state pension age, but not backdated. 

By the time they get this through, and I hope they never do, those of us who have scrimped and scraped to get through to our SPA will be in receipt of our pensions while younger women who have had the benefit of plenty of advance notice, unlike us, get a handout. 

The APPG proposal is trying to right discrimination by further discrimination. I agree with giving help to women living in desperate straits, but this is so divisive and unfair to women born late 1953-54. 

My opinion is that the campaign was spoiled by women calling for the SPA to go back to 60. 

The 1995 Pensions Act is ancient now and will never be repealed. They should all have concentrated on overturning the cruel, discriminatory 2011 act, which is so illogical. 

For example, using my own date of birth, a woman born in April 1953 got her state pension in July 2016, whereas a women born one year later in April 1954 has to wait until November 2019 – three years and four months later.

It seems like a monkey was given a pen and allowed to scrawl numbers at random and this was used as the new timetable. 

The 2011 act should have been the focus of all campaigns, but the greed of some women means that now we shall probably get no relief at all.

Name and address supplied