View more on these topics

Andrew Tully: Tax relief reform is as big as it gets for pensions

Andrew-Tully-MM-Peach-700.jpg

The Government’s pension tax relief consultation closes at the end of September. While, at first glance, the outcome appears relatively open, there is a danger the Government has favoured a move to an Isa-style system, which will bring in significant tax revenues over the next few years.

Using these savings to help reduce the UK deficit has its attractions but the Government should not play fast and loose with future retirement provision. It may be stating the obvious but any changes to pension tax relief need to be driven by the aim of helping more people save more for their later life.

Some believe an Isa-style system will be simpler for people to understand and remove the anomaly of tax-free cash, which gets tax relief on the way in and the way out. However, we need to recognise that this anomaly is hugely attractive to people. Having no upfront tax relief means it is highly debatable this move would encourage more saving.

Another major complication with an Isa-style system is the impact on defined benefit schemes. Pulling DB schemes – and, in particular, the significant deficit recovery payments that many employers are making – into a taxed-exempt-exempt system is not straightforward and could mean we end up with a two-tier system, with different tax relief for DB and defined contribution arrangements.

That would seem hugely unfair. What is more, as significant tax relief goes towards DB schemes, it would also limit the tax savings the Government would make.

However, it can easily be argued that the current system of tax relief is not understood by enough people and does not sufficiently incentivise younger and less well-off savers. Add in the complexity of continuous changes to limits, such as the lifetime allowance, and the system is ripe for change.

The third main option is an improvement to the current system: for example, a flat-rate of tax relief for all, particularly if it can be presented simply, along the lines of “you save £2, we add £1”.

We need tax relief that gives a clear incentive to save (especially for those who do not currently save enough) and is easily understood. Combine this with the abolition of the current, unnecessary, lifetime allowance and we have the beginnings of some simplification.

The shift towards DC pensions in recent years has highlighted the importance of people paying enough to their pensions. Of even more importance is ensuring employers pay as much as possible: it is by building on payments from their employer that people really accrue decent retirement savings.

So it is vital that, as well as simplifying tax relief for individuals, we encourage and incentivise employer payments. Removing as much red tape as possible will also help. Setting up and paying into a pension scheme for employees should be a simple straightforward task, not a herculean effort.

With this in mind, it is crucial any change to pension tax relief is made in a measured and considered way and not rushed onto the statute book. It needs cross-party consensus and – forgive me for living in dreamland for a moment – a commitment to make no further changes for a generation.

The Government’s consultation paper says “it has been over a decade since the government last reviewed the support on offer through the tax system for those saving into a pension”. That may be true but it ignores the continuous change we have seen over the last decade. Change that has no consistency, no well thought through end game; just change, year upon year.

That needs to stop. Pensions are a long-term savings plan and need a long-term commitment from politicians.

So there you have it: my views on how we should change pension tax relief. Accept the current system has not worked perfectly, ignore the short-term lucrativeness of an Isa-style approach and focus on how best we can help more people save more. We need simple, easily understood tax relief, as well as help for employers to encourage them to pay as much as possible and a commitment to limit future political interference.

Whether you agree or not, I would urge you to respond to the consultation. This is as big as it gets for pensions.

Andrew Tully is pensions technical director at Retirement Advantage

Recommended

2014-Budget-Box-George-Osborne-Distanced-700.jpg
2

Will tax relief reforms prove ‘apocalyptic’ for buy-to-let?

Chancellor George Osborne has incurred the wrath of landlords with his move to curb mortgage interest relief. Landlords argue the cuts to tax relief will push up rents and could force buy-to-let investors out of the sector altogether. But not everyone is convinced this “apocalyptic” scenario will come to pass. Osborne unveiled plans to restrict […]

Labour-Supporters-Conference-2012-700x450.jpg

Jeremy Corbyn unveils key members of shadow Cabinet

Jeremy Corbyn has begun the process of rebuilding the party’s front bench days after a crushing victory over his rivals in the Labour leadership contest. The Islington North MP won a dramatic victory this weekend, taking more than three times the number of votes as runner up Andy Burnham. He has responded by immediately naming […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 3 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. I’m not in favour of a flat rate of tax relief for all, regardless of their actual rate of income tax. Most people are basic rate tax payers. Raising the rate of relief (for them) from 20% to 33% would, in effect, be a 50% increase to the rate of uplift granted by HMRC. Monthly contributions of £80 nett would become £120 gross as opposed to £100, which would be massively costly for the Exchequer and hardly help with paying down the deficit.

    If (not that I agree with this either, because it seems to be unfair) the government wishes to attack the rate of relief granted to HR tax payers, a much simpler mechanism would be to cut it to 30%.

    I also disagree with the assumption that the present rate of relief “is not understood by enough people”. How difficult is it, for an ordinary basic rate tax payer, to understand that if they contribute £80 p.m. to a pension plan, HMRC boosts it to £100 p.m.? It’s just giving them back the tax they’d otherwise have to pay on each £100 of gross earnings.

    What I DO agree with wholeheartedly are that the government should stop its endless meddling and tinkering with pensions and abolish the LTA, the latter, in conjunction with the AIA, effectively squeezing people at both ends of the equation. Though the LTA doesn’t yet effect that many people as a proportion of the whole population, it’s another negative for pensions. I also think that allowing everyone unlimited access to their pension funds has opened up a Pandora’s box of problems for the future.

    But, hey ho, these are just my opinions as someone who actually deals with pension savers on a regular basis.

    Unless and until these things are done, I really don’t see

  2. Whilst ‘research’, which is always dubious at the best of time where Government led consultations are concerned, may suggest that the current taxation regime of pensions puts people off saving, I actually doubt this is the case and that people are put off by the constant tinkering over the years.

  3. Also as Julian pointed out the tax position isn’t that complicated. After all the Government trusts everyone to be intelligent enough to take advantage of the new pension flexibilities.

Leave a comment