View more on these topics

Steve Bee: Employers tied in knots by red tape on pensions

Many of my friends are ex-teachers, having retired from the profession. We were recently talking about how valuable the teachers’ pension scheme has been to them in building a decent amount to retire on and bemoaning the fact the next generations are unlikely to have such benefits provided through the generosity of their employers.

Our discussions were brought about following the release of a new report from Resolution Foundation,

which advocates a radical solution: transferring wealth between generations in part to kickstart pension saving among the young.

While discussing these issues, however, it became clear that many of those who have built up substantial defined benefit pensions are of the view that they paid for them themselves while at work – something that, while not impossible, was difficult to do – so why were the next generations struggling to do the same?

The worrying thing is that so many employees only see the relatively small amount of contribution they were required to make as being enough to provide the generous pensions to which they have become entitled.

A typical DB occupational scheme from the past would have aimed to provide a pension of 1/60 of an employee’s salary at or near retirement for every year of pensionable service. So, a working career of 40 years could have provided an individual with a pension of two-thirds their salary at or near retirement.

That pension would typically come with inbuilt increases each year to keep pace with inflation and would continue to a surviving spouse, usually at a reduced rate, if the pensioner were to die before them.

Such an annuity would be extremely expensive to buy for someone in their mid-60s. For someone on what many would consider modest earnings at the end of their career, the cash value of the pension accrued could easily be between £500,000 and £1m – a fantastic sum of money for most people.

Still, many members of such schemes only see the 5 or 6 per cent of annual earnings they were required to contribute as the whole cost of providing these generous benefits.

That is far from the case. A typical “sixtieths” scheme would cost the employer something like 23 to 25 per cent as an annual contribution of payroll to provide.

Yes, the 5 or 6 per cent paid directly by employees is a substantial part of that, but the lion’s share, year in and year out, has been made by their employers. It is this 17 to 20 per cent regular contribution by employers that seems to be invisible to so many employees.

So, before we start talking about things like raising taxes and giving £10,000 to younger people to help with pensions (a minuscule sum in terms of lifetime savings), we should instead examine ways to incentivise employers to make providing generous workplace pensions the norm again, not the cumbersome and out of place dinosaurs they are increasingly becoming.

Getting rid of the red tape that ties employers providing pensions in knots would be a good start.

Steve Bee is director at Jargonfree Benefits


neill macgillivray

Neil MacGillivray: Workplace Isa is not dead yet

James Hay’s Neil MacGillivray has warned that the idea of a Workplace Isa is not dead as a change in political circumstances could put the concept back on the agenda. The improvised nature of policymaking combined with the amount of money the Government could save from a Workplace Isa means it could be introduced in […]

UK Equity Income

Martin Cholwill considers how Brexit is weighing on the UK market. He explores how recent political developments could impact longer-term economic trends and ultimately UK equity investors, outlining the approach he is taking in this uncertain environment. Read more here Past performance is not a guide to future performance. The value of investments and the […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


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

  1. Robert Milligan 22nd May 2018 at 11:27 am

    As an employer, Why the hell should I advise/Fund or even consider my employees future post their employment with my firm. Surly, we are past the old napy panpy state of thinking its the employers responsibility to “Look after me”. Get by negotiation, paid what you feel is the correct income for your employment and with your net income decide what you want to use it for. Please, let’s stop the “O they need our help” political correctness. I have been self employed for the past thirty five years, looking forward to 66 and the State Pension, anything else, is my concern.

    • Robert, thank you for commenting, but the point I was making was that employers were never forced to provide deferred income schemes in the past, it’s just that it suited them to do so and as a result many of them did. If the incentives to defer income, for both employers and employees, can be made attractive enough then people will do it. What I’m saying is we all these days seem to have forgotten that and seem to be more concerned with making it difficult for people to save for the future. That’s all.

  2. I agree with much of what Robert Milligan has said. I too was either self employed or my own boss and looked after my own pension. One of the most retrograde steps in my opinion was the introduction of CRAP (Contributions Relief At Payment). A great incentive for many was to see their tax actually reduced (as higher rate taxpayers can still do).

    Much of the problem is the fact that many people still believe we live in a Welfare State and that NI goes towards your pension. Too few advisers either know or advise about the benefits of deferment (even if it has been halved from the previous 10% odd.

    And when we come to the headline, please don’t forget about the myriad of small firms that have to wrestle with and are tied in knots by AE – a very unwelcome administrative impost that really is not fir for purpose and doesn’t even recognise single or annual premiums.

Leave a comment