View more on these topics

John Fox: Why all providers should call for a pension tax relief cut

For providers to call for a cut to higher rate pension tax relief sounds like turkeys voting for Christmas. But the jury’s still out on how effective it is.

For pension providers to call for a cut to higher rate pension tax relief sounds like turkeys voting for Christmas. In fact, it sounds like turkeys voting for Christmas, then popping to Tesco to stock up on crackers and cranberry sauce.

The billions the Treasury spends each year to encourage people to save into a personal pension are, understandably, cherished by the industry.

They are as generous as they are unique. After all, how often does HM Revenue & Customs hand out free cash to people who want to make themselves better off?

But there is a problem with this uncharacteristic largesse. The jury is still out on how effective tax relief is at persuading people to save for their retirement.

The Pensions Policy Institute’s view is that, despite all the advantages tax relief offers, it is poorly understood and there is little evidence it encourages pension saving – especially among low and medium earners.

In other words, pension tax relief is an expensive but inefficient incentive.

Auto-enrolment is now getting more people into the pensions habit. But its success, and the very need for a scheme that railroads people into pension saving, is a tacit acknowledgement of the failure of tax relief to change the behaviour of non-higher rate taxpayers.

The jury is still out on how effective tax relief is at persuading people to save for their retirement.

Improbable to inevitable

According to the National Audit Office, pension tax relief in its current form – which gives savers relief at their marginal income rate – costs the Exchequer £35bn a year.

Chancellor Philip Hammond is widely thought to have been eyeing a cut to this improbable generosity for some time. Ever since his humiliating post-Budget U-turn on National Insurance left the Treasury with a £2bn funding gap, a reduction in pension tax relief has begun to look ever more inevitable.

The only questions remaining are when and how the cuts will come. Sadly there is precious little clarity, let alone a timetable, on offer at present.

Earlier this month, work and pensions secretary David Gauke said changing pension tax relief is “somewhat daunting” and that no “fundamental” reforms are imminent.

Fast forward a couple of weeks and the Government surprised many by announcing plans to force six million people currently in their 40s to wait an extra year before they can claim the state pension.

The plan, which will raise the state pension age to 68 seven years earlier than originally proposed, will save the Exchequer £74bn by 2045.

But such long-term savings are unlikely to assuage politicians’ perennial love of tinkering with the pensions system. If tax relief reform is off the table for now, let’s not kid ourselves that this is anything other than a brief hiatus.

Ripping off the plaster

Whatever form the changes take, higher rate taxpayers have most to lose, as they benefit most from the current system.

One suggestion doing the rounds is that the marginal rate system could be replaced by a single rate of pension tax relief. The PPI estimates that, if this universal rate were set at 20 per cent, the cost to the Treasury could be slashed by £13bn a year. By contrast, a single 30 per cent rate would leave the annual cost broadly unchanged.

Both options would see higher rate taxpayers take a hit, but clearly a 30 per cent rate would be less onerous. Such a rate would reduce the relief offered to higher earners by a quarter but deliver a 50 per cent boost to the relief available to basic rate taxpayers.

Which rate the Government goes for would reveal its priorities: is it merely to cut costs or is it to provide a more equitable distribution of the benefits of tax relief?

Painful though the introduction of such a system would be for pension providers, advisers and their clients, it would be better for any reforms to be introduced in one go rather than in a series of creeping cuts.

But before we rush to rip off the plaster, we should consider the wider pensions tax landscape, which has been made unnecessarily complex by years of short-termist tinkering.

Such a decision is too important to be made by politicians alone. An independent pension tax commission should be formed to weigh the Government’s desire to save money against the long-term problems being stored up by the large numbers of people under-saving for their old age.

Ultimately, the interests of Westminster and the pensions industry might just coincide.

Politicians argue the cost of pension tax relief in its current form is unsustainable and many professionals now question its efficacy. Yet both want more to save more into their personal pensions.

Far better for the two to work together on devising a reform that is workable and definitive, to bring clarity and, above all, an end to the Government’s constant meddling.

Unlike Christmas, though, such a grand bargain should come once in a generation, not once a year.

John Fox is director of Liberty Sipp

Recommended

Lib Dem Conference 2011

Lib Dems mull flat rate pension tax relief in manifesto

The Liberal Democrats would consider a flat rate of pension tax relief if elected. In the party’s manifesto today, alongside a commitment to protect the state pension triple lock for the next parliament, the Liberal Democrats said they would launch a pension tax review to look at how a flat rate might work. The manifesto […]

2

Tony Wickenden: Preparing for flat rate pension tax relief

Since the freedom and choice regime was introduced last year, pensions have been a constant source of headlines. Only recently we have heard that the Government is not to proceed with the implementation of a secondary annuity market. And in the run up to Chancellor Philip Hammond’s first Autumn Statement on 23 November, there appears to […]

UK-Currency-Money-Coin-Pounds-GBP-700x450.jpg

Standard Life drawdown assets jump 11% on DB transfers

Standard Life has reported a double digit increase in assets in its drawdown propositions as more customers look to cash in on inflated defined benefit pension transfer values. In its results for the first half of 2017 released this morning, Standard Life reported that gross inflows into its UK retail arm were 63 per cent […]

Malcolm_Kerr_EY
5

Malcolm Kerr: What makes the perfect adviser?

I have met many advisers in my career, starting as a broker consultant back in the 1970s (when they were product salesmen) and continuing as a “big four” consultant since, working for those involved in the long-term savings, investment and protection sectors. In that time, I have also moderated dozens of adviser workshops at various […]

1

School fees planning

Jeremy Pearson is Technical Support Manager with Canada Life’s ican Technical Services Team. Canada Life offers a range of wealth management solutions, including retirement income planning, estate planning and investment solutions from a choice of jurisdictions, including the UK, Isle of Man and Republic of Ireland. Many parents value the standard of education offered by […]

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. Paul Standerwick 11th August 2017 at 2:53 pm

    “The jury is still out on how effective tax relief is at persuading people to save for their retirement.”

    I’m not sure this means very much and only serves to insinuate we know something, we do not know; how would one prove such a thing? It’s a completely unfalsifiable statement.

    What i do know is it incentivises many of my clients and me to save into a pension, which would leave me to believe it does the same for others.

    I also know that the “short-termist tinkering” mentioned creates mistrust, that disincentivises people from saving and that further tinkering would compound the problem, rather than encourage basic rate payers to save.

    If HRTP’s benefit disproportionately, is this not only because they pay a disproportionate amount of tax?

    We already have annual and lifetime allowances that prevent abuse of the system (why we need both i dont understand).

    I think all providers should be lobbying for pension legislation to be left alone for 5 minutes, with the excpetion of doing away with the LTA.

  2. Gareth Woodward 12th August 2017 at 9:02 am

    I think the first step should be to change the members of parliament’s own pensions to a defined contribution scheme, like those of the majority of their constituents, this way they would finally realise, and be directly affected by, any and all changes in pensions legislation that they introduce, at present they are merely outsiders, with no flesh in the market or realisation of the complexity and effects of their constant short term changes to a long term savings wrapper.

  3. Higher rate relief is a great deal. Most people paying higher rate income tax are in fact middle earners, and far from well-off

    Don’t tax the JAMs!

Leave a comment