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+181214
Categories:Pensions

Let them have it

  • Print
  • Comments (2)

In the late 1980s, pensions were the thing to have. The Government of the day advertised them with slogans that read “Break the chains” and the likes of the Pru bigged up the idea of retirement at 50. Some people missold pensions but there was really no need as the public flocked to join the pension club.

There were some hard luck stories. The 25-year-old woman who had just had a baby and needed access to the £500 she had diligently saved in her pension but had never been told she would have to wait until she was 50 to get it. But business folk knew their companies could pour money into executive pension plans and get loanbacks to bolster their cashflow, so they were not caught out by that rule.

Things have changed since then. The Securities and Investment Board came along with its pension review and then there was Gordon’s tax grab. SIB assumed everyone was guilty until proven innocent and the eloquent RU Owed? campaign certainly highlighted the profits to be made from claiming you had been missold a pension.

Labour introduced pension simplification and concepts such as prohibited investments, which are not prohibited, and alternatively secured pensions, which are not secured at all. Then there were restrictions on higher-rate tax relief and complex anti-forestalling legislation.

Is it any wonder the public lost its appetite for pensions?

The new Government needs to address this, and fast. Pensions need to be made attractive again and one way to do this would be to allow early access. Of course, pensions are for retirement but this does not mean they must be locked away until retirement. The success of pension liberation companies and rogue financial advisers in selling early access shows this is what the public wants.

Different legislation around the world allows early access to pension funds in a number of ways and in different circumstances. Plans can be used in the US to pay medical bills, to buy houses and on grounds of hardship. In most cases, funds are taxed at 10 per cent and subject to income tax. It is also possible to take a loan against a 401(k) plan.

Those drafting the rules must look at when early access should be allowed and how it should be taxed. The rules must be simple and this means the tax treatment must be simple, too. The Government must not get hooked up on avoiding every possible abuse, although clearly the rules cannot permit a free-for-all.

One approach would be to have payments before age 55 as fully taxable under PAYE, with no tax-free cash element. For those not paying tax because they are unemployed, this could mean the fund can be returned free of tax, particularly if it is small. There should be no limit on the number of times someone can access their fund, although product providers might decide to impose one.

This approach might make people want to start pension plans and, if it does, it will be one small step towards closing the savings gap.

David Trenner is technical director at Intelligent Pensions

  • Print
  • Comments (2)

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.

Money Marketing Awards 2015
Put your firm forward as the leading practitioner in your field. Adviser and Advertising categories are open to entries - Enter Now.

Readers' comments (2)

  • I can see little point in tinkering with pensions. Fortunately many people instinctively understand that pensions today are pointless. Without an employer contribution the basic rate tax payer just can not live long enough to make personal pension payments worthwhile.

    If basic rate tax payers want early access then they should opt for ISA and OEIC and ignore the illusion of tax relief.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • I totally disagree. Lack of access to funds before retirement is (IMHO) the least significant deterrent to people committing money to retirement funds. FAR higher on the agenda are simplification, restoration of supplementary features such as WoP & life insurance plus, of course, creation of a viable and attractive alternative to the annuity trap and third way products. Oh yes, scrap the tax on div's as well.

    The industry should unite in lobbying government to bring these things about. Cashing in your pension fund to meet a short term need at the expense of long term financial security in retirement is foolish and shortsighted and should not be encouraged. Not an intelligent proposal for pensions.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your sayEdit my profile/screen name

You must sign in to make a comment

AXA Wealth

Is there a growing need for financial advice


Fund Data

Editor's Pick



Poll

Will providers be forced to pay out compensation over annuity misselling?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments