This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here.
X
MM+cover+small+241014
Categories:Pensions,Politics

Govt to halve £300m state pension delay incentive

  • Print
  • Comments (14)

Pensions minister Steve Webb has set out plans to halve the extra state pension people receive when they defer retirement in a move which will save the Government £300m a year.

Currently, the Government incentivises people to delay taking their state pension by increasing the payment by around 10 per cent a year for each year after state pension age.

Webb says there is little evidence the incentive encourages people to work longer and has tabled an amendment to the Pensions Bill which would reduce the annual deferral increase to around 5 per cent a year from April 2016 onwards.

The Department for Work and Pensions estimates the change will save the Government £200m a year in 2020 and £300m a year in 2030.

Webb says: “We propose that for every 10 weeks a person defers taking their pension, they get an extra 1 per cent on their pension.

“Earlier, I rounded that up crudely to state it as 5 per cent a year, as opposed to the current figure, which is about 10 per cent a year.

“We are therefore halving the advantage given for deferral.”

Webb says the reasons for putting forward the amendment are both financial and “conceptual”.

He says: “The measure does save us money. If we did not do what I have described, in 2020 the scheme would cost another £200m a year and in 2030 another £300m a year – significant sums.

“However, the justification is also conceptual. We do not have much evidence that spending money on incentivising people to defer their state pension really does anything.

“If we want to spend public money to enable people to work longer, my strong view is that keeping people in the labour market in their early 50s who might drop out because of ill health and a bad back is money vastly better spent than spending it on giving people slightly bigger increments because they draw a pension at 67 and not 66.”

  • Print
  • Comments (14)

Daily Email Updates
If you enjoyed this article, sign up to receive the latest news and analysis from Money Marketing.

The Money Marketing CPD Centre
Build your annual CPD - you can log and plan your CPD hours for free with The Money Marketing CPD Centre.

Taxbriefs Advantage
Advantage is a digital reference source giving unbiased, independent, answers to your technical queries. Subscribe to Taxbriefs Advantage.

Readers' comments (14)

  • Good idea. My wife will have deferred for 5 years ( to avoid paying higher rate tax). So having had the benefit it is now time to stop it for others. Guess that makes me a Tory ?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What a load of deceiptful nonsense, S Webb should be ashamed of himself " crudely rounding up" show us the stats, your already saving millions by SRA 67 or 68, who can afford the time to defer after that age. I remeber my grandfather working well into his late 70's until he died on the job. I thought we were meant to be moving away from Victorian style working class poverty. Short memories. They should be aware of their own family history.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • It's a shame as the numbers really stacked up for clients thinking about deferral.....

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Interesting. Deferring five years currently means pensioner worse off until 11 years pension paid at higher rate (ie 16 years from SPA). The change to 5% pushes the breakeven point to 35 years from SPA. The TCF analysis will be interesting reading.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • The so-called 'incentive' to delay taking the pension is not actually an incentive at all, it's to compensate people for delaying retirement and missing out on pension payments that will not be paid! I'm sure he won't have consulted the Govt Actuaries Dept over this to see whether 5% represents fair compensation. Farce!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Considering pensions in payment usually increase by inflation each year (i.e. about 2.7%), it really won't be worth anyone deferring payment any longer. This will probably end up costing the government more in the short-term? Just when they need the money!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I suppose that £300m a year should be enough to for the MP's salary increases, that the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority wants to give them, with a bit left over for expenses.

    Obviously the rest of us, who are not crooks and would just like a half decent retirement, can take a running jump.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • My advice to clients now will be never defer.
    I am sure all advisers will say the same as the pensioner will lose out in a big way if they do in well over 95% of cases.
    Our pensions minister is showing us his caring side at last, lol.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Show us the back of the fag packet workings please Steve 'I make it up as I go along' Webb. As Simon says (no pun intended) it will end up costing more overall as no one will bother to defer.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What does he think he is doing? It's destroyed my planning! I was planning to retire at 70, with 5 years deferment. My calculation was a flat rate pension at 65 should be about £160 p.w. Add 5 years deferment @ 10% is about £250 p.w. Add private pensions @ £160 p.w. and it totals £410 p.w. Enough to maintain my chosen standard of living. This reduces my state pension to £204.
    Steve Webb, I thought you were great but now?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

Have your sayEdit my profile/screen name

You must sign in to make a comment

Fund Data

Editor's Pick



Poll

Do you think Citizens Advice is capable of delivering a good at-retirement guidance service?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments