View more on these topics

Steve Bee: Government must offer tax relief guarantee

Recently, I had a sort of 20/20 vision. When I started work back in the 1970s, the basic rate of income tax was 35 per cent. That meant you got just under £2 in your pocket for every £3 you earned. A bit more was sliced off for National Insurance – but that is another issue. The basic rate was reduced to 34 per cent in 1977 then to 33 per cent in 1978. At that point, again ignoring NI, we basic-rate taxpayers got two in every three pounds earned to keep for ourselves. Lucky us.

In 1979, the basic rate went down to 30 per cent and I remember people thinking at the time it was staggering. It stayed at 30 per cent until 1986, when it fell to 29 per cent and then in 1987 it dropped to 27 per cent. In 1988, it went down to just 25 per cent.

The basic rate of tax today is just 20 per cent, which, if you look at the historical record of tax rates, is very low. The trouble is we all seem to think 20 per cent tax is normal. But what if it is not?

In the 1970s, it was not too hard to appreciate the benefits of saving in the tax-free environment of a pension scheme. £2 invested in a pension then got grossed up to £3. A £2 investment by a basic-rate taxpayer in a pension today gets grossed up to just £2.50.

That is a bit whingey to bring that up, I can hear you saying. Surely, we are better off with lower taxes, even if it makes pensions more unattractive.

Well, yes, but what if 20 per cent tax is not normal and we one day revert to a basic-rate tax of 35 per cent? People these days paying a basic rate of tax and saving in a pension would get 20 per cent tax relief on their savings but could end up paying a much higher rate of tax on their pensions when they come into payment decades hence.

That is where my 20/20 vision comes in. In these technological days we have access to ever more incredible computing power in all aspects of our lives. Our kitchen appliances have more computing power than the Apollo spaceships that regularly took trips to the moon in my first decade of employment.

If we could apply some of the sophisticated computing technology we have available today to the pension tax system, we ought to be able to guarantee to pension savers that the tax they will eventually pay on their pensions when they draw them would be at the same rate as the tax relief they were granted when they stashed the money away in the first place.

Someone saving in a pension now and getting 20 per cent tax relief could be assured they will only pay tax at 20 per cent on the ensuing pension, whatever the basic rate of tax is in the dim and distant future. That is my 20/20 vision. Now all we have to do is get the Government to buy into it.

Steve Bee is managing partner at Paradigm Pensions


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


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

  1. What of the corollary? HMT is no one’s fool and your proposal could result in those who paid higher rate while employment (40%) pay that rate in retirement when they are basic rate. If the basic rate is (say) 25% then aren’t they the losers?

    It seems to be yet another potential reason to avoid pensions or even better take your money and emigrate when you get to retirement.

  2. the rate of tax relief on pensions should be the AVERAGE of the lower rate and higher rate i.e. 30% this will assist the lower rate payer and 30% will not defer the higher rate investor

  3. Why not scrap pensions? Look at the miserable pots some people have left now to buy an annuity at pathetically low rates.

    The RDR was spawned after the ABI told HMT that 40% of all life office costs went in commission so you can imagine what they thought of the prospect of all that tax relief going directly into the pockets of the commission hungry salesmen, I lost the plot as I so often do and using a Skandia illustration I demonstrated to Angle Eagle that the cost of commission was miniscule compared to the charges levied by the provider.

    Nobody listens……..

  4. A novel idea – but unworkable.

    People do move between different tax bands throughout their working life (and that is ignoring tax rate changes which add greater complexity) so trying to work out which bit of your pension income should be taxed at which rate would be a logistical nightmare.

  5. People keep telling me that my kitchen appliances have more computing power than the Apollo spaceships but I have been trying to achieve lift-off in my dishwasher for years with very painful results.

  6. A silly idea. Besides being impractical, the only real benefit left to a pension is the ability to smooth peaks in lifetime earnings by moving an earnings “spike” to a later year when the tax due on it may (note — may, not will) be lower. Take that away and you’ve removed any incentive to save in pensions.

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