All pension tax reliefs are under review all the time, that's pretty clear. And for a government in fiscal distress, it makes sense.
Pension tax relief is expensive in the short term. However, as the state also knows, having a population with horribly inadequate pension savings is rather more expensive in the longer term. So all reforms must encourage people to save from a young age, and to keep saving.
Enter Hargreaves Lansdown, which seems to have been working with the Treasury on a list of proposals to help make this happen.
Subscribe to MoneyWeek
Subscribe to MoneyWeek today and get your first six magazine issues absolutely FREE
Sign up to Money Morning
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Don't miss the latest investment and personal finances news, market analysis, plus money-saving tips with our free twice-daily newsletter
Some are good (a flat £20,000 annual allowance regardless of income, for example). I'll come back to these another time, but the most eye catching one is not good at all. It is to change the government top-up system so that it is no longer linked to income (ie you get your tax back on pension contributions regardless of the rate you pay) but to age.
This, says Hargreaves Lansdown, would be achieved by "a government top up of 100 minus an individual's age: a 25 year old would receive a top up of £75 for every £100 they invest; a 50 year old would receive a top up of £50 for every £100 they invest."
This sounds marvellous. It would motivate the young to save. It would help everyone make more use of the miracle of compounding. It would put some very long-term money into the stockmarket and it would "correct some of the intergenerational imbalances that have developed in society." But it isn't.
The key point here is that the young don't tend to save much. They never have (this isn't new). That's partly because they don't want to (65 is impossible to see when you are 25 however you are incentivised to see it). But it is mainly because they can't afford to: they have traveling to do, rent to pay, houses to think about and children to bring up.
The truth is that most people can only really start to save in their 40s and only do so in reasonable volume in their 50s. So, giving these huge top ups to those in their 20s (mainly with taxes paid by those in their 50s) is nuts. It will benefit the average 20-something in no way at all, while giving a whopper of a boost to the few 20-somethings who either inherit cash early or have parents who can take advantage of the insanely generous tax incentives it would create on their behalf. No shift to greater equality likely there.
At the same time, it would discriminate against the people who really need help and fast: those without defined-benefit pensions now hitting their late 40s and 50s and desperately trying to play pension catch-up. These are the people we should be figuring out how to help.
The time to give people a real incentive to save is surely when they can actually afford to do so. Help the people who both want to play catch up and actually can play catch up. Anything else is just pointless posturing.
-
Bitcoin price one of the most-asked questions on Alexa - here's how to buy the cryptocurrencyAccording to figures from Amazon, which cover September 2023 to November 2024, pop star Taylor Swift and Bitcoin were named among the most popular Alexa queries of 2024
-
Investing for children this Christmas – five ideasIt might not come with a shiny ribbon, but an investment fund could be the gift that keeps on giving. We share five ideas if you are investing for children this Christmas.
-
Our pension system, little-changed since Roman times, needs updatingOpinion The Romans introduced pensions, and we still have a similar system now. But there is one vital difference between Roman times and now that means the system needs updating, says Merryn Somerset Webb.
-
We’re doing well on pensions – but we still need to do betterOpinion Pensions auto-enrolment has vastly increased the number of people in the UK with retirement savings. But we’re still not engaged enough, says Merryn Somerset Webb.
-
Older people may own their own home, but the young have better pensionsOpinion UK house prices mean owning a home remains a pipe dream for many young people, but they should have a comfortable retirement, says Merryn Somerset Webb.
-
How to avoid a miserable retirementOpinion The trouble with the UK’s private pension system, says Merryn Somerset Webb, is that it leaves most of us at the mercy of the markets. And the outlook for the markets is miserable.
-
Pandemics, politicians and gold-plated pensionsAdvice As more and more people lose their jobs to the pandemic and the lockdowns imposed to deal with it, there’s one bunch of people who won’t have to worry about their future: politicians, with their generous defined-benefits pensions.
-
How to have a low-tax retirement in the sunNews Greece is to offer a ten-year tax incentive to foreign pensioners. That’s a pretty good offer, says Merryn Somerset Webb. But it might not last.
-
Why it makes sense to scrap higher-rate pensions tax reliefOpinion The point of pensions tax relief is to keep you out of the means-tested benefits system. The current system is ridiculously generous, says Merryn Somerset Webb.
-
How a pension deficit could be costing you £200 a yearAdvice Workers in companies with defined-benefits pension deficits are paid on average £200 a year less than those in firms without them, says Merryn Somerset Webb.
