Most of what you say is true Golfie except that when you bought the pot plant, the garden centre didn't get trail commission year after year for doing bugger all did it?
And there have been/are other scandals: like the horrible rate swap rip-off which so badly affected many small businesses. In my view the nastiest one at the moment is those wretched "over 50 plans" advertised by the likes of the odious Michael Parkinson. But, hey, you get a free pen or M&S voucher! There is nothing at all that I can think of that makes these WITHOUT PROFIT products a suitable purchase for anyone at all unless they know they are going to die precisely two years and a day after they take out the policy. Presumably this is why they are sold "without advice" because any advice would have to be don't buy this insurance!
The industry dress these products up with stupid jargon like "whole of life policy" when what they really mean is "really poor value that will probably cost you more than you get out and you can't have it until you're dead" insurance.
In my view, it has been and is an on-going failing of the FCA nee FSA that they focus solely on regulation of firms when regulation (and banning) of products would do so much more to assist members of the public.
I too have had poor experiences when trying to do the right thing and consult an IFA. Fortunately, because I am what the FCA would define as a "sophisticated investor", I have felt competent enough to tell them to swivel on it!
Generally agree, but the problem with a lot of the funds was the outlandish charges Golf, so a meeting with the guy who was skimming them probably wouldn't have highlighted that.
Bank x1, financial advisor's x 2. I make that 3 times. We accepted their advice, we were just ignorant idiots that trusted the people who were meant to be looking after our interests.
Labour are voting down the Budget, which means they are voting against pension reforms they have now stated they agree with, a tax cut for the poorest in the country, as well as tax cuts and freezes on various regressive taxes that hit the poorer harder than the richest.
Labour still hasn't articulated what it is in this Budget they disagree with, which means from the public's point of view they are voting against it for the sake of opposition. Neither Ed M or Ed Balls has yet publicly addressed any of the content of the Budget - now nearly a week old - and to hide their blushes they sent Harman (otherwise known as 'the acceptable face of evil') on national TV to defend Miliband.
Labour have got some nerve to question the financial competence of private individuals, given Labour's record of financial incompetence. Not only has pretty much every Labour government since WW2 left a financial black hole of its own making, the Labour Party itself is heavily in debt and it is only thanks to the fact that its bank of choice (the notorious Co-op Bank that hires unqualified crack addicts as its managing directors) keeps extending its outstanding loans that it hasn't been declared insolvent. It's also worth pointing out that Labour MPs and peers made up the vast majority of those either convicted or forced to apologise to Parliament following the expenses scandal. Therefore when it comes to questioning the financial sense of others, maybe Labour ought to keep its collective mouth shut?
Whatever your political persuasions, and I am sure Labour might do things better than the other parties, but history has shown that the economy isnt one of them.
It's not the Govt.'s job to explain this to people really is it? It's not complicated - you've got capital assets you don't qualify for benefits!
But it is complicated, as it depends on the value and type of capital asset, and the type of benefit you're applying for.
The main problem I have with this measure, is rather than deal with the existing problems with the annuities system, they've been spinning this as an alternative, when clearly it isn't as it has tax and other liabilities associated with it that annuities don't. The various Government spokesmen seem to be unclear whether there will be "advice" on the process of liberating your pension pot (which is regulated), or just "guidance", which is informational. It just seems like a policy aimed at gaining a short term political boost, rather than looking at the long term consequences for individuals, the pensions industry and the country as a whole.
Labour are voting down the Budget, which means they are voting against pension reforms they have now stated they agree with, a tax cut for the poorest in the country, as well as tax cuts and freezes on various regressive taxes that hit the poorer harder than the richest.
Labour still hasn't articulated what it is in this Budget they disagree with, which means from the public's point of view they are voting against it for the sake of opposition. Neither Ed M or Ed Balls has yet publicly addressed any of the content of the Budget - now nearly a week old - and to hide their blushes they sent Harman (otherwise known as 'the acceptable face of evil') on national TV to defend Miliband.
Have you read this week's Economist article on this subject? I'm not going to do it justice, but here goes. Basically, to win the next election Labour don't need to convince Tory voters to switch (no point anyway as they're too concentrated), they just need to get enough angry left-leaning people to vote in places where Tories have a slim majority, and these people are motivated by the rhetoric that Tories are for toffs. The evidence doesn't even need to be recent (eg 50p tax rate). As Tory/Lib Dem voters (and voters in general) are a declining proportion of the electorate, Labour doesn't need to fight on the Con-Lib terms.
Not saying I'm happy about this, but, if winning the election is the only concern for Labour, it does seem a reasonable strategy.
The modern world is all about ripping people off. Much of it legally. Some Virgin and Sky customers are paying significantly less than others for instance because they threatened to leave! How can a reputable company be happy that their more loyal customers are paying more – simply – because their job is to get as much cash out of their customer’s pockets as they can get away with. Reputable and big companies, but basically rip off merchants when push comes to shove. 21st century I’m afraid – get as much as you can for as little as you can get away with.
I've just that with TalkTalk as I threatened to go with BT Infinity. Paying 60% of what I did.
Not that I was unhappy. Just playing the game. We English don't like haggling and assume too much fair play
Comments
And there have been/are other scandals: like the horrible rate swap rip-off which so badly affected many small businesses.
In my view the nastiest one at the moment is those wretched "over 50 plans" advertised by the likes of the odious Michael Parkinson. But, hey, you get a free pen or M&S voucher!
There is nothing at all that I can think of that makes these WITHOUT PROFIT products a suitable purchase for anyone at all unless they know they are going to die precisely two years and a day after they take out the policy. Presumably this is why they are sold "without advice" because any advice would have to be don't buy this insurance!
The industry dress these products up with stupid jargon like "whole of life policy" when what they really mean is "really poor value that will probably cost you more than you get out and you can't have it until you're dead" insurance.
In my view, it has been and is an on-going failing of the FCA nee FSA that they focus solely on regulation of firms when regulation (and banning) of products would do so much more to assist members of the public.
I too have had poor experiences when trying to do the right thing and consult an IFA. Fortunately, because I am what the FCA would define as a "sophisticated investor", I have felt competent enough to tell them to swivel on it!
Labour still hasn't articulated what it is in this Budget they disagree with, which means from the public's point of view they are voting against it for the sake of opposition. Neither Ed M or Ed Balls has yet publicly addressed any of the content of the Budget - now nearly a week old - and to hide their blushes they sent Harman (otherwise known as 'the acceptable face of evil') on national TV to defend Miliband.
Labour have got some nerve to question the financial competence of private individuals, given Labour's record of financial incompetence. Not only has pretty much every Labour government since WW2 left a financial black hole of its own making, the Labour Party itself is heavily in debt and it is only thanks to the fact that its bank of choice (the notorious Co-op Bank that hires unqualified crack addicts as its managing directors) keeps extending its outstanding loans that it hasn't been declared insolvent. It's also worth pointing out that Labour MPs and peers made up the vast majority of those either convicted or forced to apologise to Parliament following the expenses scandal. Therefore when it comes to questioning the financial sense of others, maybe Labour ought to keep its collective mouth shut?
Whatever your political persuasions, and I am sure Labour might do things better than the other parties, but history has shown that the economy isnt one of them.
The main problem I have with this measure, is rather than deal with the existing problems with the annuities system, they've been spinning this as an alternative, when clearly it isn't as it has tax and other liabilities associated with it that annuities don't. The various Government spokesmen seem to be unclear whether there will be "advice" on the process of liberating your pension pot (which is regulated), or just "guidance", which is informational. It just seems like a policy aimed at gaining a short term political boost, rather than looking at the long term consequences for individuals, the pensions industry and the country as a whole.
Not saying I'm happy about this, but, if winning the election is the only concern for Labour, it does seem a reasonable strategy.
Not that I was unhappy. Just playing the game. We English don't like haggling and assume too much fair play