Strange logic - losing out because tax rate drops from 22% to 20%

Maybe we're just talking about different things. If the only thing that had changed was the 22% -> 20% then you wouldn't be losing out because you were paying into a pension. You wouldn't see any benefit as a result of the tax change either.

That was my comment on the BBC report. If they had been talking about all the tax changes coming, or even just the abolition of the 10% band then fair enough but they weren't. They weren't even discussing whether pensions are a good way to save or not, in which case, you might decide that tying up money for X years into the future was worth it when you got 22% extra but not worth it if you only get 20% extra.

That is true. But, for me at least, tying up too much money for nearly

But what I'd actually do is pay in the cash and then let my SIPP buy the property from me. So lets say 100K property, 140K earnings (if only ;-). I pay 78K into the SIPP, SIPP reclaims 22K tax, pays me 100K for the property and then I claim 18K back from the taxman.

That's true. But people with property that they let have no opportunity to put it into a pension. People with most other assets have already made the choice whether to hold them in or outside a pension.

I could look it up but I don't know what the situation for those is either. IIUC tax paid on dividends cannot be reclaimed but it used to be. I assume no tax is paid.

It's about a couple of decades before I'll get there. (I don't know whether there should be a sad or happy face here!)

Tim.

On Jan 31, 12:26 pm, "Tim" wrote: (no zeros on this roulette wheel)

With probability 1. Even if you start with 1M and bet 1 per spin, eventually you'll get 1M more losses than wins. (You'll also eventually get 1M more wins than losses but you can't continue in the game if your money goes to 0)

Tim.

wrote

Exactly my point!

Fair enough. It was the word "likely" in your post that prompted me to reply.

Tim.

No because it would be like giving the prize to the person who throws 10 sixes on dice. If you have enough contestants, there is a good chance that someone will do that.

The overall return is the same, but the risk is much lower. That is what a fund manager should try to achieve. Higher risk is only justified if the returns are higher to match it.

"Jonathan Bryce" wrote

Between [betting on red&black each time], or [doing nothing] ? Yes, of course, the return is *zero* for both...

"Jonathan Bryce" wrote

Eh? There's no risk with either. So perhaps you're comparing something else?

"Jonathan Bryce" wrote

I hope you're not suggesting the fm is trying to achieve zero return!

"Jonathan Bryce" wrote

Of course. But why *work* for "no return", when you can get it by doing