Lorna Bourke's article about an IHT loophole (Money Marketing, August 15) made a point which was somewhat hidden.
Apparently, only the rich can afford to pay for complex legal advice that would save a fortune in IHT for the vast majority of the homeowning populace. This is rather strange because the complex legal work is actually rather simple to achieve – and at very little cost in most cases.
Perhaps it is the mere fact of having to pay for advice which puts off the vast majority of people from seeking advice in the first place How many times have we heard this type of statement from established IFAs who deal with top and bottom income-scale clients, only to hear the same number of counter arguments for fees commission made by egoist, letter-orientated IFAs – who deal mainly with top-end income-earners.
If an IFA wishes to market themselves and charge fees to better-off clients then that is fine with me because they will not be dealing with the lower-end earner – providing me with a larger audience to”sell the idea” of life insurance, criticalillness cover,pensions and the like.
Fundamental to all the newsprint wasted on the fees commission debate is the simple fact that someone has to “sell the idea” to the public – and face to face, because they are a disbelieving lot and take the attitude that “it won't happen to me”.
Contrary to Government thinking, business does not fall off trees, even if a product is cheap. The vast amount of time we spend in sowing the seed, reminding and then selling needs to be rewarded in a way that is least hurtful to the general consumer – that is via a lifetime charge to a policy by way of the commission structure that we already have in place.
There is no other efficient means of achieving this level of distribution.
Glenn van der Kamp
Winter Financial Services, Marlow, Bucks