Pensions tax relief: is it so stupidly incomprehensible on purpose?

George Osborne © Getty Images
George Osborne’s “comically stupid” policy could be deliberate

I wrote here last week that if there was one thing I wanted from the Budget it was an end to the nonsense of the taper on pensions tax relief. I’m not alone.

Since the piece was published I have been inundated with emails from readers deeply frustrated by the complications of the whole thing. They mind the higher taxes, of course (one woman found herself paying 100% of her income in tax in the year her defined benefit pension scheme closed, and there is now a ridiculous number of people in the UK praying they don’t get a pay rise that takes their adjusted income over £110,000) but more than that they mind the relentless complication and confusion surrounding it.

Some people are retiring early simply so they don’t have to deal with it. And some companies are refused to cope with the nightmare of the calculations on behalf of their employees (why should they have to deal with calculations that involve the non PAYE income of their staff?). Instead, they just give all their highly paid staff a £10,000 allowance rather than a £40,000 one and leave it at that.

I have always been under the impression that this almost comically stupid policy was introduced by George Osborne as a quick way to be seen to be having a go at the rich. However, Richard Evans, writing in Telegraph, notes the possibility that it could be more sinister than that. What if Osborne realised that the complexity of the policy would mean that people would simply give up trying to figure out their actual allowance and hence end up paying a pile more tax – tax he sorely needed?

This isn’t an absurd suggestion. The general view is that complicated tax systems serve the rich and their accountants very well (loopholes galore!). However, once a system gets to a level of incomprehensible complication – but is still strictly enforced – might it be that it is the state that really benefits?

Consider the introduction of HMRC’s High Net Worth Unit – designed to help the very wealthy pay the taxes they should. Since it was set up, the tax take from these people has fallen by £1bn. That is something that only makes sense if you assume that complicated tax rules and the fear of getting it wrong (and being fined) was making our rich err on the side of caution before HMRC stepped in to help them out. Complication plus enforcement equals fear, which in turn equals a rising tax take?

  • Stan Z

    Pensions? don’t get me started.
    Am attempting to transfer a DB scheme worth approx £70k.
    One of my other schemes ended up with the PPF and I will be stuck with 90%.
    Having contacted FA’s they all want to charge about £3k but not recommend a Transfer because of their Insurance Liability.
    My SIPP provider won’t accept a Transfer from a DB scheme either, probably for the same reason.
    The Transfer fund in question grew a massive 3.5% over the last 3 years!
    Isn’t it about time we are allowed to make our own investment decisions.
    All that’s required could be for us to sign a Disclaimer, but it seems that the industry and the FA’s prefer the status quo ( poor performance and high charges)
    So I remain stuck with this scheme, and can only hope that the Employer doesn’t go bust!

    • N Breen

      in the long run you are probably better off not touching the db scheme unless you are in poor health

  • monty9

    Complexity and uncertainty will undoubtedly reduce the tax take. Most earners at this level know how unpleasant a tax investigation can be and, depending on their means of earning income, and their morality, will tend to do one or both of two things:
    1. Cheat
    2. Not bother maximising their income, pension etc.
    George Osborne was very effective in opposition but ‘too clever by half’ in office and his legacy was to continue his predecessors’, particularly Gordon Brown’s legacies of gumming up the works.

66% off newsstand price

12 issues (and much more) for just £12

That’s right. We’ll give you 12 issues of MoneyWeek magazine, complete access to our exclusive web articles, our latest wealth building reports and videos as well as our subscriber-only email… for just £12.

That’s just £1 per week for Britain’s best-selling financial magazine.

Click here to take advantage of our offer

Britain is leaving the European Union. Donald Trump is reducing America’s role in global markets. Both will have profound consequences for you as an investor.

MoneyWeek analyses the critical issues facing British investors on a weekly basis. And, unlike other publications, we provide you with the solutions to help you turn a situation to your financial advantage.

Take up our offer today, and we’ll send you three of our most important investment reports:

All three of these reports are yours when you take up our 12 issues for £12 offer today.

MoneyWeek has been advising private British investors on what to do with their money since 2000. Our calls over that period have enabled our readers to both make and save a great deal of money – hence our position as the UK’s most-trusted investment publication.

Click here to subscribe for just £12