NHS pensions tapering: diagnosis could be fatal
I have been reading the article re Pensions Tapering Relief and DB pension schemes (June 26).
I had a number of GP clients but they have all now retired due to this issue, and when I speak to other IFAs the same problem frequently comes up.
This policy is having a hugely destructive effect on the NHS as they are losing staff because of it more quickly than they can replace them, and the tax raised must surely be much less than the cost of losing these staff.
Despite this, the government is just not listening. I did email the government some time ago but gave up because their responses showed such little interest. I also raised it as a question on the TV programme Question Time last year.
Having spoken with AJ Bell I believe they have also lobbied on this issue but again no one in government is listening.
I think the issue is actually too complicated for people in government to understand and no one takes responsibility as tax and the NHS are dealt with by completely different departments.
I am sure people will eventually die as a result of this policy as it is now becoming so difficult to get a GP appointment.
Mike Jordan
Jordan Financial Management
Algorithmically ignorant
Regarding the news that the Financial Conduct Authority is concerned mortgage lenders could over-lend or under-lend due to a lack of substantial credit data (27 June): the root cause of the problem is that despite the wide use of the word ‘underwriter’ the reality is that nearly all lending decisions – be they for overdrafts, credit cards, mortgages or any other financial product – are made by computers.
That is to say, at some stage the decision parameters have been given to a programmer to design an algorithm that will make decisions based upon those parameters.
This is commonly known as artificial intelligence.
However, I much prefer to describe AI as ‘algorithmically ignorant’, because in my opinion they cannot actually learn, and even if they could it would still be within the parameters given.
They are invariably present in two stages of the borrowing process: first of all the credit rating agencies, which have a very coarse grasp of one’s actual ability to pay, let alone the existing rates of interest being paid on a potential borrower’s current ‘loans’, and second by the lender themselves, who in turn apply their own algorithms on top.
It is a classic case of tick box decisions and the computer says ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.
These algorithms are unbelievably coarse and lead to far worse decisions than were taken in the past by building society and bank managers who knew their customers.
Furthermore, it is almost impossible to challenge the decisions either with the credit rating agency or with a potential lender.
Until steps are taken to resolve these issues there will always be a danger of both over-lending and under-lending. Neither are in the best interests of the consumer.
Finian Manson
Freelance consultant
Indexation time bomb
I would like to point out that if the women born in the 1950s win their case it will then open a can of worms regarding why the government and Department of Work and Pensions did not tell people that under the new state pension they would no longer receive indexation via their state pension on guaranteed minimum pensions, and possible loss of up to about £20,000 depending on earnings and time spent contracted out of Serps.
This impacts men as well as women who have been affected by changes to state pension age.
As far as I am aware the DWP has not told anyone about loss of GMP indexation via the state pension if they reached state pension age on and after April 6 2016.
Christopher Thompson
Retired
Lack of fairness
I received no notification regarding the increase to pension age, only finding out after I had requested a pension forecast in the January of the year I thought I would retire.
I was born June 1955 and have worked since I was 15. I now have to wait till I am 66 years and three months.
I have numerous health issues and now only can manage part-time work. It is abominable how the government can find enough money to award themselves large pay increases, money for expenses, money to replace bathrooms in property, all paid for by taxes.
We as working ordinary people have to fund our own travel expenses, upgrade our own property and try to live as best we can whilst watching politicians living off us.
Christine Scott
Waspi campaign member
IHT confusion
I’ve just read the article: Policy confusion threatens 40 per cent IHT bill (June 27).
The adviser’s client was unable to access death benefits as drawdown despite the provider’s key features document for stakeholder pensions stating this was a viable option, which threatened to leave the client £100,000 short because of an IHT liability of 40 per cent.
Unless I am missing something, there should be no IHT, even if the proceeds are paid as a lump sum as they are going to the wife, and no IHT is payable on spousal transfer?
On second death, IHT could apply, but I fail to see how this could leave the client £100k short as she will be dead by then. It would of course impact secondary beneficiaries but that is not what the story seems to be suggesting.
Kevin Titmus
Halcyon Financial Planning
