Discussion in 'Pensions' started by Foodie1, Dec 20, 2016.
I have read your posts...great swindle indeed
Ok but that still equates to an annual return of nearly 6% on your money. After all investment costs and taxes.
It is highly unlikely that your 2-bed rental will achieve anything like that kind of return. You really need to properly account for costs and taxes if you want to make an apples-to-apples comparison.
LS400, I applaud your relentless defense. And a merry Christmas to you too.
I'm taking issue with this. You are referring to reluctant landlords who bought high, intending to flip, and the investment never made sense from the get go.
If the rent doesn't mostly cover the mortgage and you don't stress test you are correct.
Also those still in NE ( I am on one ) it doesn't matter, not if the rents are basically covering everything. But the government has really made it difficult in the last few years.
You should think long term and not put yourself in a forced sale at the wrong time position.
As regards the OP. Unlike the 57 year old thread, I'd be for a pension. I don't think 43 is too old. But I'd want a worked example of the figures before I'd make a decision. And other investments, such as property, are not for everybody.
My own experience is my OH. But he has a defined benefit pension that was based on employer contributions mostly, on a high salary, and was about 20 years of contributions and will give him a decent pension at 65. He also has a small pension of 30k that will pay out 3k at 65 from Ireland, from before we left. The 30k is if we cashed it in.
Two cases scare me though. In relation to pension funds. Enron and the Waterford workers. And that reminds me. The lovely Green on his mega Yacht and the BHS workers left with little.
No, I wasn't referring to reluctant landlords particularly.
I was referring to the many thousands of people that bought BTLs prior to the crash and couldn't exit the market when rents plummeted because they found themselves in NE.
Separate names with a comma.