View more on these topics

Nic Cicutti: Osborne goes where others fear to tread


If there is one thing that can be said of Chancellor George Osborne it is that he, unlike some in his own party and almost all of the opposition, is prepared to get down and dirty in the world of personal finance.

Over the past two or three years, the range of populist measures he has unveiled in successive Budget speeches are radically reshaping the way we save money and what we do with our savings pots.

Whether you agree with the specific thrust of his policies, or believe he is opening successive cans of worms in his quest to raise more revenues, at least he is prepared to be daring in his approach.

His latest Budget last week is a case in point. Osborne announced a range of actual and potential changes on pension and Isas that other chancellors would probably not dare to make – in some cases for good reason.

For example, his move to remove tax breaks from buy-to-let landlords would have been an unthinkable move for an incoming Labour government, wary of taking on such a massive and vocal interest group.

The Guardian estimates some two million buy-to-let landlords could see half their profits wiped out by Osborne’s move to reduce mortgage tax reliefs from 40 per cent to 20 per cent. For those with large BTL mortgages, this will have a serious effect. That said, larger landlords are saying they will compensate by raising rents.

A similar picture emerges over the reduction in tax relief on pension contributions for those earning more than £150,000 – earnings which include both employer and employee pensions contributions themselves, incidentally – using the money to increase the inheritance tax limit to £1m.

Essentially, the Chancellor is removing tax breaks on pension saving from an estimated 300,000 people who earn in excess of £110,000 (taking into account their own and employers’ contributions) in order to remove a few thousand estates annually from the IHT net.

True, he has introduced a taper on such largesse, starting at £2m, which limits the level of this handout to those who inherit assets they have not earned. But it makes you wonder how Osborne is managing to square such a move with the Conservative philosophy of helping so-called “strivers” – those who actually work hard for their money.

If the argument was that those with large salaries needed to have a reduction in the tax relief on their pension savings, why not simply equalise the rate of relief at 30 per cent, as former pensions minister Steve Webb has argued?

Or even reverse the relief, with 40 per cent for those on basic rates of tax and 20 per cent for those on higher rates?

Then there is the “consultation” with respect to changing the tax treatment of pensions, making them more akin to Isas. What was interesting about this announcement was it came at the same time as it is becoming clear that anticipated tax receipts in respect of people accessing greater slices of their pensions are approaching £700m, compared to previous Treasury estimates of £320m.

My worry with respect to doing away with contributions into pensions but offering access to them free of tax is threefold. First, such a change will disproportionately benefit the better-off who expect to be on higher earnings even after retirement. This will be at the expense of those who were just above the higher rate of income tax but expect their incomes to be below this level when they stop work.

Second, the Government is simply kicking the can down the road in terms of reducing the amount of tax relief it is forced to give on contributions every year. True, it will save money now but at the expense of potential revenues from a growing number of pensioners who would have been expected to pay tax on at least some of their retirement incomes two decades down the line.

My third concern is with the behavioural changes the Government’s move could engender. Until now, saving specifically for retirement was helped by the notion that there was, in effect, a ring-fenced pot that could only be accessed after a certain age.

The pension freedoms reforms supposedly mean many people can buy themselves Lamborghinis, according to Webb, although it is doubtful how many will actually want to do that compared with using the money to pay off debts, finance small practical projects or help their kids get on the housing ladder.

But if you are telling people there is no incentive to save for retirement in the here and now and that when you do the money will be treated in exactly the same way as an Isa, why would people want to bother?

One or two commentators have suggested the Chancellor might offer some sort of matching scheme, whereby savers receive £X for every pound they save themselves.

This could work, as long as it is restricted to a certain amount of money per year, giving it the potential to have a redistributive effect – and helping the lower-paid save for their own retirements.

Either way, at least Osborne is prepared to look at an ossified system to see whether there are more effective ways to make it work. I somehow doubt Labour would have dared do the same.

Nic Cicutti can be contacted at



Another pensions revolution? Osborne eyes radical tax overhaul

Chancellor George Osborne has fired the starting gun on radical proposals that could rip up the pensions tax system. In a consultation published as part of this week’s Budget, the Conservatives’ first in 18 years, Osborne says he wants to create a “lasting system” that “stands the test of time”. Pensions experts have long called […]


Budget: Govt to align pension input periods with tax year

The Government plans to align the period over which the amount of money saved into a pension is measured with the tax year. Under current rules, the pension input period against which the annual allowance is tested does not have to be aligned with the tax year, and in many cases is not. However, from […]


Budget: Govt extends pension tax relief cut

The Government has expanded its expected reduction to pensions tax relief for people earning less than £150,000. Originally the Government had indicated people earning over £150,000 would see their annual allowance tapered to a minimum of £10,000. This is to fund an increased inheritance tax threshold to £1m for couples. It was not clear how […]

Global energy: positioning for a recovery in the oil price Š

Richard Hulf explains how he and John Dodd have positioned the Artemis Global Energy Fund and where they are finding opportunities. Richard explains how he and John are changing the complexion of the fund to focus on the most efficient oil producers. As he tells journalist Alexis Xydias, in this environment of lower prices, he […]

Tech IPOs: The outlook in 2017

Ali Unwin, CTO & Fund Manager, Neptune 2016 was a weak year for technology IPOs – only 13 US venture-backed tech IPOs hit the market, in spite of fairly high public market valuations and investor appetite. Will 2017 be different, asks Neptune CTO & Fund manager Ali Unwin. Click here for article Important Information Investment risks Neptune […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


There are 4 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. I am certainly no fan of these proposals or pension ’freedoms’. However I think you have overlooked a point.

    There is no shortage of those who have been saving PEPs and ISAs for years and when the allowance (for both husband and wife) was used up, bought Insurance Bonds – as well as paying into their pensions. (If sensible only utilising the higher tax relief).

    What your piece implies is that the majority are deemed to be too feckless to save long term. True, I wouldn’t argue. But yet again we have half -truths and obfuscation. The Government (all Governments) know that too many of the public are either feckless or a bit dim. Westminster churns out platitudes about saving, but then discourages where it can. Except currently for ISAS. I wonder when will they start attacking these? Even so it isn’t much encouragement – the allowance has actually decreased in real terms over the last 20 years. We used to have £7k Isa and £3k single company ISAs and the at least £1.5k TESSAs . Allowing for inflation that’s equivalent to £20,400 today. Westminster knows (as do many of us) that our economy is based on people going shopping – so saving is (for the government) counter-productive.

  2. Absolutely spot on Harry. Governments always have been and always will be duplicitous. They know they can fool most of the people most of the time.

  3. John Hutton-Attenborough 16th July 2015 at 2:07 pm

    And of course will Mr Osbourne’s pension benefits be compromised by any of these proposed changes or will they as usual be “gold plated” and preserved?

  4. Julian Stevens 16th July 2015 at 2:51 pm

    I wish he’d get stuck into the down and dirty world of regulation.

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