View more on these topics

Richard Parkin: The conflict at the heart of UK pensions policy


There was an audible sigh of relief from the industry after the Autumn Statement, as we made it through without any fundamental reform of pension rules.

Aside from the state pension, the only other mention of note was that the Chancellor will align the increases to the automatic enrolment minimum contribution levels due in October 2017 and October 2018 with the start of the following tax years. We are told this will make it easier for businesses to deal with the changes.

Having reviewed the detail, however, another benefit emerges – for the Government, not employers. By delaying the increase in pension contributions, the Government nets an additional £820m in tax over the remainder of this parliament. This points to the conflict that dogs effective policy on pension incentives. If more people save in pensions, it costs the Government more in the near term, even if in the long term we all end up better off and pay more tax.

Much is made of how defined benefit schemes are far superior to defined contribution, and how the benefits they offer are far greater than anything that will come from inferior DC schemes. But what is often not said is that the biggest reason for this is DC plans are woefully underfunded compared to DB.

If we are to give the coming generations of retirees any chance of having a decent retirement, we need to see a sharp increase in contribution rates, perhaps even a doubling from the auto-enrolment minimums.

But delivering such an increase has significant costs, both economically and politically. Enforcing a higher level of contributions under auto-enrolment rules could be seen as a stealth tax and, even if successful, would significantly reduce tax receipts through reduced income taxes and lower purchase taxes as a result of deferred consumption.

Trying to raise contribution levels without some sort of compulsion or strong “nudge” is unlikely to deliver satisfactory outcomes. Simply telling people they should save more will not work.

A successful answer to the question of how to incentivise pension saving has to go at least some way to resolving this conflict. How can we encourage increased levels of saving without increasing costs for today’s Government?

Moving to a taxed-exempt-exempt system solves this in a stroke but it has been convincingly rejected by most commentators and the pensions industry as unworkable and unreliable. It assumes future governments will keep the promises made by today’s politicians and, with no disrespect to politicians, it feels that this is a tall order. That does not mean TEE cannot be part of the solution, it just cannot be all of it.

To understand where the answer might come from we have to consider what the purpose of pension incentives is. To my mind there are three answers here: one is valid and the other two are a distraction.

The valid role of tax incentives for pension saving is to make it “safe” or at least marginally attractive to save in pensions compared to other vehicles. Even with pension freedom, saving in a pension means giving up liquidity and there has to be compensation for this. We also need to make sure incentives limit the likelihood of double taxation. This latter objective is hard to achieve within a progressive tax system as it can mean overcompensating those at lower tax rates to ensure those at higher rates do not lose out.

The first red herring is trying to use pension tax incentives to increase overall retirement savings levels. Of course, offering to match individual contributions with a Government bonus will be attractive and gets more so as the rate of matching increases. But it is costly and will naturally lead to a low limit on the level of saving that can be incentivised, which will not solve the problem of not saving enough.

The second red herring is redistribution. Many argue that by having a flat-rate relief set at a level well above the basic rate of tax we can redistribute wealth to the lower paid through the pensions system. This is a laudable aim and we certainly need to address the imbalance of incentives between income level. However, the danger is that we spend a lot of money simply subsidising saving, rather than encouraging greater levels of it.

So to reduce the economic conflict in pension policy we need to focus incentives on just making pension saving a safe thing to do. This will allow us to get the greatest level of saving from a fixed amount of incentives. How we deal with the political conflict of telling people they will not have enough to live on under auto-enrolment is one I will leave to the politicians.

Richard Parkin is head of retirement at Fidelity International



Swallowed up: Consolidators under fire over client churn

The FCA has called into question the way consolidator firms approach suitability amid accusations clients are being hit with unnecessary charges and moved into inappropriate investments in the drive to gather assets. Money Marketing revealed last week that the regulator has asked consolidators to provide information on how they treat clients gained through acquisitions, and whether […]


Stranded: Govt urged to bring self-employed into auto-enrolment

Pensions experts are calling on the Government to avert a savings disaster by bringing self-employed workers into automatic enrolment. The reforms require every employer to enrol staff in workplace pensions by 2018 but exclude people earning less than £10,000, the under-22s, those over state pension age, and people without an employer. At the same time, […]

Paradigm partner to launch robo-advice service

Paradigm founding partner Anthony Morrow has teamed up with co-founder Duncan Cameron to launch a robo-advice service. The Telegraph reports the pair plan to launch the eVestor service next year and will charge customers 0.44 per cent. Of this, 0.35 per cent will go to portfolio management and 0.09 per cent as a fund […]

Childcare - thumbnail

Three questions for employers…

The Family and Childcare Trust’s annual survey has been widely reported in the media and the two headline figures were these: the average cost of a nursery place for a child under two has risen by 33 per cent since 2010; and the costs have risen by five per cent in a single year.


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


    Leave a comment


    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