View more on these topics

‘Budget reforms designed to boost tax take’

A former senior adviser to the Government says the pension freedoms set out in the Budget were motivated by wanting to bring forward tax revenues and could leave pensioners worse off.

The Financial Times reports that Chris Daykin, who was government actuary for the UK from 1989 to 2007, is concerned about the Budget reforms which will allow savers to take their entire pension pot as cash from age 55 from next April. Those who decide to strip out their fund will be taxed at their marginal rate.

Daykin told the newspaper: “I believe a primary driver for Treasury was a desire to bring forward tax revenues.

“The assumption must be that many retirees, given the chance, will take their money out as quickly as possible. . . So, presumably, the Treasury are assuming cash is taken quickly, if not immediately, and that it is mostly going to be taxed at standard rate.

“Previously, very few people would have taken benefits out so quickly that they incurred the penalty rate of 55 per cent.”

Daykin admitted while the reforms could increase saving through pension plans, he warned there were dangers associated with encouraging savers away from annuities.

He said:  “There is no doubt a risk that many people may spend their retirement monies too quickly and end up on a very low income.

“A better balance between welfare considerations and freedom considerations would lead to a requirement to annuitise enough to provide an underpin of lifetime income, with freedom to do what you like with the rest.”

Daykin also criticised the Treasury for failing to make public the modelling behind its forecasts which predict an increase in tax receipts following the reforms, saying this “can only increase suspicions that the estimates are not very robust.”

The Treasury told the FT it “wholly rejected this unfounded criticism.”

It added: “Our radical pension reforms are about giving people more choice when they retire, and have been almost universally welcomed by consumer groups and pensions experts.

“With the creation of the new independent Office for Budget Responsibility the costing of Budget measures is now subject to unprecedented transparency and independent scrutiny, and the details behind the costings were certified by the OBR and published alongside the Budget.”

His comments follow similar criticism from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which argues the reforms do not protect savers from longevity risk.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 5 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. A qualified man no doubt. I can’t help feeling that Mr. Daykin is commenting from the lofty position of no doubt several DB entitlements and no acknowledgment of the actual median DC pension fund size at retirement.

  2. Good grief! This is news. Many of us said this within 30 seconds of the words leaving Osborne’s mouth.

  3. Stephen Harney 7th July 2014 at 9:52 am

    and when the spend now worry later generation have taken their pensions at 55 and spent them on lavish holidays and cars the next generation can pick up the tab for the additional benefits bill with reduced tax revenues. Great work George! Pass the deficit on to our kids and claim you have solved the problem.

  4. Totally agree re the need to underpin lifetime income first, then flexibility with the rest. PM often says fix the roof while the sun is shining. Yet pension proposals as they currently stand may make it possible to dispense with roof altogether. Remain firmly of the view that we already have flexibility with a sensible MIR of £12,000pa. If it aint broke…………

  5. I’m an old fashioned life and pensions guy who’s worked in the industry since 1986. I’m a great believer in equities and responsible financial freeedom, but I’m also a great believer in the need for having certainty of income in retirement for those who don’t have capacity for loss. So I believe everyone should have a minimum level of secure lifetime income before they’re allowed freedom of access. The OECD seem to agree with this.

    I’ve raised the issue in an epetition shown here

    http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/67091

Leave a comment

Close

Why register with Money Marketing ?

Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

Money Marketing Events
Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

Research and insight
Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

Have your say
Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

Register now

Having problems?

Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm

Email: customerservices@moneymarketing.com