View more on these topics

Is age the next battleground on pension tax relief?

WEB_201016_2ndCoverStory_MainImage

Advisers and providers are wary about whether the latest proposed overhaul to pension tax relief will do anything to encourage more people to save.

It emerged last week the Treasury is considering a policy which would see the Government offer different top-ups to pension contributions based on an individual’s age.

Under the proposals, which are the brainchild of Hargreaves Lansdown, the Government would offer £1, minus a person’s age, for every £1 they pay into a pension plan.

A 25-year-old would get a £75 top-up for every £100 they invest while a person aged 60 would get a £40 bonus for saving the same amount.

The Treasury is also said to be looking at cutting the annual allowance from £40,000 to £20,000, as part of efforts to keep down the costs of the new system.

Hargreaves Lansdown head of retirement policy Tom McPhail says: “In terms of pension tax relief, we want to break the link between income altogether.”

But will such a move meet the Government’s original stated aim of pension tax relief reform – strengthening the incentive to save?

Will the Government move this time?

The Government has been floating various methods of reforming tax relief over the last year, but has so far stopped short of following through on overhauling the way pensions are taxed.

Cicero Group executive chairman Iain Anderson believes the Government is considering major pensions changes ahead of the Autumn Statement on 23 November.

He says: “I am expecting it to be a blockbuster. Any changes that bolster and incentivise lower- to middle-income savers are very likely, as well as incentives to get millennials saving. This idea fits into that space and is being seriously looked at.

“There is of course the risk this move alienates older voters. There is a very strong lobby. But there is also a growing appreciation in Whitehall of the need to finally address the ‘pinch’ issues.”

In theory giving younger people a bigger bonus for saving will incentivise them to pay more in. But AJ Bell senior analyst Tom Selby argues behavioural economics tells us people do not always respond in a logical way to such sweeteners.

WEB_201016_2ndCoverStory_AdviserView1

He says: “Lack of understanding is a big barrier to pension saving, and an age-related solution is arguably even more complicated than what we have today. If it were to be introduced, the reform would need to be accompanied by a serious, sustained consumer awareness campaign.

“Even then, for a young person deciding whether or not to save in a pension – or boost their auto-enrolment contributions above the def-ault rate – tax relief is just one of a number of factors. Many will want to prioritise saving for a house or paying off debts, for example, while others simply won’t have the spare cash to pay any more into their pension.”

Selby adds the new system, when combined with a lower annual allowance, would hit the self-employed – “an already underpensioned dem-ographic who are more likely to make big contributions later in life”.

He adds: “For them, a significantly reduced annual allowance could have a huge impact on their ability to make up for those years when they didn’t pay into a pension.”

Aviva head of financial research John Lawson agrees past experience suggests tweaking incentives to save will not necessarily boost pensions take-up. He says: “We have seen through automatic enrolment that the best way to encourage people of all ages and incomes to pay into pensions is through behavioural techniques rather than by varying incentives.

“From a practical point of view, varying rates of relief are likely to be difficult to administer and reconcile, particularly given that the rate of relief received will change every year. I would anticipate a large number of errors arising where the date of payment is unclear or disputed by HM Revenue & Customs.”

Lawson suggests moving to an age-based tax relief system may create unintended consequences, particularly where the rate of relief is much higher than a saver’s marginal rate of tax.

He says: “Employers will be encouraged to stop employer contributions (which are effectively taxed at marginal rate of income tax) and increase pay to employees so that pension tax relief can be achieved on total contributions at the higher employee age-based rate.”

He believes the other danger with the age-based model is for higher rate taxpayers, pensions become less tax-efficient when compared with Isas. He says: “We prefer the simplicity of a flat rate of relief at a rate of 33 per cent. This would allow pension schemes, employers, providers and the Government to more clearly articulate the value of tax relief as ‘you pay £2, get £1 free’. This is a much simpler message than that proposed under an age-based system of tax relief.

“A flat rate at 33 per cent would also offer a valuable extra incentive to lower earners while still being sufficient to encourage higher-rate taxpayers to pay into a pension.”

Informed Choice managing director Martin Bamford says he has “mixed feelings” about whether an age-based system should be introduced.

He says: “Younger people clearly need bigger incentives to save for the long term, due to their competing financial priorities and the reluctance to address long-term issues at the expense of more urgent financial priorities. However, when you start saving for retirement early, you benefit from compound investment returns, so the tax relief offered on contributions is less important compared with its importance for someone already close to retirement, who does not have that time on their side.”

Instead, Bamford would prefer to see a simplified system, with existing tax relief levels maintained, alongside the annual allowance, but the abolition of the lifetime allowance.

He says: “A guarantee from the Government that no changes would be made to pension tax relief for the foreseeable future would also give younger people far more incentive to save for retirement than a slightly higher tax relief.”

Expert view: Tom McPhail

Tom-McPhail-2009-700x450.jpg

All the reasons why former chancellor George Osborne looked at pension taxation in the first place are still relevant. The current system is complicated, inefficient and unfair.

We want to make it easier and simpler for investors to do the right thing and to save and invest for the long term. This means simplifying the Isa landscape back down to one simple “super Isa”, which could offer a Help to Buy top-up for the under-40s but which would be simple and engaging.

We also want to incentivise individuals to take responsibility for their retirement saving, to reward them for doing so, and to target Government money both fairly and effectively. By weighting the top-up incentive in favour of the young, while also still giving middle-aged savers generous allowances and incentives, we can achieve higher levels of engagement and commitment and use Government money more effectively.

We want to eliminate the anomalies which penalise the very low and very high earners in the pension system. We want to ensure those with money, in their 40s and 50s, can still save adequately and enjoy an attractive Government top-up.

We also want to put the individual in control by overturning the current auto-enrolment restrictions which force individuals to join a scheme of their employer’s choice. Our proposals would achieve all these things.

Every investor would have a £20,000 a year pension and Isa allowance, irrespective of income, giving individuals and couples scope to make substantial short, medium and long-term savings every year.

The pension top-up we propose, applicable to individual defined contribution pension savings  of £100 minus your age would be more generous than basic rate relief for almost everyone and, even for a 50-year-old, would be the equivalent of 33 per cent tax relief in
today’s system.

We estimate our overall package of measures would be fiscally neutral.

For advisers this system would mean less complexity and more scope for efficient financial planning for their clients. In the long-term, this system will be more sustainable than the current set of Isa and pension tax rules.

Tom McPhail is head of retirement policy at Hargreaves Lansdown

Recommended

Money-Cash-Coins-GBP-Pounds-UK-700x450.jpg

AJ Bell calls for Turner-style body for pension tax relief

AJ Bell chief executive Andy Bell has written to the Chancellor calling for a new independent Pension Tax Commission to carry out a root and branch review of pension tax relief. Bell is calling for a non-partisan group like the Turner Commission, which studied the impact of auto-enrolment, to review the existing pension tax system. […]

Parliament-Building-UK-London-700x450.jpg
16

Govt eyes pension tax relief reform to boost younger savers

The Government is considering reform to pension tax relief which would provide bigger incentives to save for younger workers rather than older savers. The Times reports the Treasury is considering a policy proposal where the Government would offer different top-ups to pensions contributions based on the individual’s age. Under the proposal, the Government would offer […]

HMRC-Building-700x450.jpg

Gerry Brown: Reflecting on 40 years of tax planning

Prudential technical manager Gerry Brown retired last month after 40 years in tax planning. Here he reflects on the changes he has seen over his working life, and the tax planning changes to come. When I joined the Inland Revenue in September 1976 the UK had a Labour government with tax policies based on the […]

Greece: the sideshow continues

Artemis managers James Foster, Mark Page and Laurent Millet comment on the Greek deal, describing it as “just another fudge” getting in the way of bigger developments in China, the UK and the US. To read the full article click here.

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 6 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. It will save the Govt a fortune, no wonder they are considering it. The younger people won’t save much, because in the main they don’t have much and as has already been pointed out they need to pay off their Uni debts, save for a house, get married and support their family first. So the older people who need to seriously save will have their legs chopped off at the knees.

    What is Tom McPhail up to? Angling for a knighthood? One might expect better from an industry insider.

  2. Given its simplicity, it is an idea worthy of consideration, and fantastic for wealthy parents and grandparents pondering how to trickle wealth down the generations in a tax efficient manner. They could each gift £3,000 per year to each child, who then puts it into his pension pot, to see HM Treasury add a substantial top up. Problem.

  3. This is hugely ageist and probably flies in the face of all recent anti-discriminatory regulation and other issues. Can you imagine the response from those who are still trying to save for their retirement, especially those ladies of a certain age who are already disenfranchised? Waspi won’t even come close to a description of their fury!

    The idea amounts to a bribe and one which is likely to backfire; the more sensible solution is (as already has been said) to have a standard rate of relief, irrespective of age.

    Of course the other thing that Government could do is to stop tinkering with the system, though that is probably an idea too far!

  4. I agree. A standard rate of tax relief of 33% is fair and workable. Can you imagine the complexity of administering a system that changes annually?

    Lets be clear the young don’t find pensions “sexy” and simply increasing the tax reliefs available to them will not in itself make them engaged.

    Remember Stakeholder pensions and the thousands of empty employer pension pots?

    The only reason that AE works is because most people cant be bothered to opt out!

  5. One of the (many) reasons the young don’t invest in pensions is that they’re too complicated and the rules change so much. This proposal will simply enforce that belief – it’s quite the daftest thing I’ve heard in ages and that is saying something!

  6. Anyone remember the pre-simplification days when the % of salary you could contribute was based on age – but the opposite to this proposal as it reflected the fact that as you got older you finally had sufficient spare cash to save for retirement.

    Yet another smoke screen to hide the fact that this would be a tax saving exercise.

Leave a comment