View more on these topics

Will Budget reforms be remembered as a catastrophic blunder?

Tom-Selby-MM-Peach-700.jpg

The law of unintended consequences says the actions of individuals and governments always have effects not foreseen by those involved. The process of consultation, while time consuming, is therefore essential in minimising the risk a policy introduced to address problem X doesn’t in fact create a new (possibly bigger) problem Y.

Some of the greatest legislative cock-ups in modern day politics have stemmed from Government ministers’ refusal to engage with industry experts before making sweeping changes.

Remember Margaret Thatcher’s infamous poll tax? Derided as one of the worst post-war policy blunders, the idea was formed by a small review team made up of junior ministers and civil servants.

Furthermore, according to the excellent book ‘The Blunders of our Governments’: “Almost every key decision in the poll tax saga was made in the immediate run-up to a party conference, by ministers anxious for something to wave from the rostrum.”

And the Conservatives’ last attempt at radical pension reform, again under the Thatcher government, was informed by a committee containing just five members – two ministers, a right-wing economist, the chairman of the Life Offices’ Association and Hambro Life managing director Mark Weinberg.

While policymakers were warned that the combination of scaling back Serps and promoting personal pensions would see ordinary savers exposed to the “hard sell” tactics of the financial services industry, Thatcher drove through the reforms regardless.

Millions of savers eventually received almost £9bn in compensation for the misselling that followed the government’s ill-fated intervention in 1988.

So, is there a risk that Chancellor George Osborne’s Budget reforms will eventually be talked of in the same breath as these debacles?

There are certainly parallels in the closed-door manner in which the policy was devised and, as Money Marketing reported last week, the cracks are beginning to show.

The Treasury has afforded savers the luxury of being able to drain their entire pension pot as quickly as they like. However, political expediency means the “guidance guarantee” designed to ensure savers don’t make bad decisions come April next year will be flimsy at best.

Furthermore the guidance is merely an option, and if behavioural economics has taught us anything it’s that people will not actively engage in a subject as dry as pensions unless they are, at the very least, nudged to do so. Without this push, savers’ will instead get their ‘impartial’ at-retirement information from their existing pension provider – if at all.

Budget

As a result, many people will strip their entire pot as soon as they can and, inevitably, pay more tax as a result. And the Treasury knows it (see graph, above).

HMRC’s own calculations suggest the reforms will boost its coffers by about £300m in 2015/16, £600m in 2016/17, £900m in 2017/18 and £1.2bn in 2018/19. In fact, the reforms are expected to continue to generate revenue for the Exchequer every year until 2030.

This is not your traditional pensions robbery – the Government is simply giving the public enough rope to hang themselves with.

The operation of the UK annuity market is, of course, flawed, with millions of savers unable or unwilling to speak to regulated advisers locking into the wrong products at the wrong time. But by stripping out the restrictions surrounding flexible drawdown – restrictions imposed by this Government in 2010 – policymakers have thrust savers into a new world of complexity and risk.

Tom Selby is head of news at Money Marketing

Recommended

Money-Cash-20-Note-Currency-GBP-700x450.jpg

Fidelity: Just 6% plan to cash in entire pension pot post-Budget

Fears that huge numbers of people will cash out of pensions when the Budget freedoms go live in April next year appear to be unfounded, according to a Fidelity Worldwide Investment report. Only 6 per cent of a sample of 500 people retiring between April 2015 and March 2016 plan to take all of their […]

Accounts-Paperwork-Financial-Corporate-Business-700x450.jpg

Foster Denovo posts £250k profit as events arm closes

Foster Denovo has recorded a pre-tax profit of £246,000 for the year to 31 December 2013, down from £1.3m the previous year. Turnover increased by 15 per cent year-on-year, from £21.7m to £25m, while the cost of sales rose 20 per cent, from £11m to £13.2m. Administrative expenses also increased 23 per cent, from £9.4m […]

John Chatfeild-Roberts: Bouncing US turns all eyes on the Fed

Eurozone finance ministers, emerging market investors and owners of high yield corporate debt are arguably more concerned than most at present about the likely timing of what would be the US Federal Reserve’s first increase in interest rates since 2008. The strength of the US recovery will prove a determining factor. And so far it […]

AFH Alan Hudson 700

AFH advice deal sees assets hit £840m

Consolidator AFH Financial Group has made its latest advice firm acquisition, taking total assets under management to £840m. Under the terms of the deal, Aim-listed AFH will pay up to £281,250 for Northampton-based firm Hindsight Financial Services. AFH will pay an initial cash sum of £140,625 for the business, followed by another payment of up […]

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. Balanced reporting is always appreciated and this close to a general election it is even more important that a publication with the influence of MM maintains an impartial bias. Consequently I would ask why the only ‘blunders’ referred to are by the Conservative party? Have the opposition never made any mistakes in drafting and imposing questionable policy, or does it not matter because they aren’t currently in power?

  2. That’s a very good observation Simon.
    The problem MM would have in reporting” blunders” by the opposition is that it would probably be bigger than “War and Peace”!

  3. Good article and I doubt it was intended to be party political. The basic point Tom Selby is making, however, is a very ggod one.

    I think the examples Tom has given just stand out as two that have directly affected peoples finances and/or received massive publicity about the financial effects. As for blunders the labour party have made, Paul Anderson has a good point in that you could go on forever. Some of these may or may not have been more important than the poll tax or personal pension transfers (if one happens to regard backing the invasion of Iraq as a blunder).

  4. MM were never backward in coming forward when it came to highlighting the last Labour Government deficiencies.

  5. Good article and I doubt it was intended to be party political. The basic point Tom Selby is making, however, is a very ggod one.

    I think the examples Tom has given just stand out as two that have directly affected peoples finances and/or received massive publicity about the financial effects. As for blunders the labour party have made, Paul Anderson has a good point in that you could go on forever. Some of these may or may not have been more important than the poll tax or personal pension transfers (if one happens to regard backing the invasion of Iraq as a blunder).

  6. MM were never backward in coming forward when it came to highlighting the last Labour Government deficiencies.

Leave a comment