Other Citywire websites

Citywire printed articles sponsored by:


View the article online at http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/article/a408869

Budget proposes replacing pension relief taper with £45k allowance

by William Robins on Jun 22, 2010 at 14:11

Budget proposes replacing pension relief taper with £45k allowance

The government has said it will review the taper on pension relief for higher rate taxpayers, saying an annual allowance of up to £45,000 could be a more workable solution.

There will be no immediate repeal of the taper for those earning over £130,000 but chancellor George Osborne will review the controversial changes, which were implemented in the Finance Act 2010.

Osborne said the taper on relief for those earning over £130,000 would raise a 'valuable' £3.5 billion but added that the taper was complicated and he would consult further on introducing a reduction in the annual allowance, lobbied for by the pensions industry as an alternative money saving measure.

'The £35,000 to £45,000 annual allowance is lower than we would have liked but moving in the right direction,' said Malcolm Small, director of portfolio and retirement planning at the Tax Incentivised Savings Assocaition (Tisa) which campaigned during the last Budget for a £50,000 annual allowance.

'If it ends up within that range I should think higher rate taxpayers would grumble but would still be grateful for the removal of the taper. However it all depends on the rate of marginal relief. I expect that could be lowered from 50% to 40%, which high earners would still accept. If it dropped further, to 20%, then I don't see why higher rate taxpayers would have any reason to invest in pensions,' said Small. 

According to the Tisa director today's annoucement is only the first step before the Comprehensive Spending Review in the autumn and further consultation wiht the pensions industry on the allowance. The consultation will look at:

• How pension accrual in defined benefit schemes would be valued;

• Options to ensure basic rate taxpayers are not subject to the restriction, and to support hard cases caused by one-off ‘spikes’ in pension accrual;

• Whether and how there could be flexibility for overpayment;

• How compliance and delivery would operate in practice.

Sign in / register to view full article on one page

9 comments so far. Why not have your say?

Peter Kelsey

Jun 22, 2010 at 14:42

Good to see the new Government are prepared to listen to the pensions industry and consider more workable solutions than the spiteful and ill-thought out political showboating that caused Labour to introduce tapering contributions to punish those earning over £130,000 pa.

If £30,000 - £45,000 can raise the same level of tax it is a far better model and more in keeping with the word 'Simplification'.

report this

John Smyth

Jun 22, 2010 at 14:49

"Having listened to the concerns of the pensions industry and employers." When are politicians going to listen to the public. The majority of the people they are meant to represent.

As always the tories can not bring themselves to deprive the wealthy of their tax breaks. The already wealthy do not need any incentives to make provision for old age.

The poor and middle income people do.

report this

Julian Stevens

Jun 22, 2010 at 15:13

Only 268,000 in the UK earn in excess of £150,000, so what's likely to be achieved in terms of additional tax revenues by messing about with tax relief on pension contributions from high earners who, in any event, contribute most to the national exchequer in terms of income tax and NIC already?

What really needs to be done is to scrap the shackle of annuity rates and allow unspent funds on death to pass tax free into PP's for the next generation.

report this

JR

Jun 22, 2010 at 15:26

"The poor and middle income people do. "

And their ability to contribute to their retirement is unchanged

report this

JR

Jun 22, 2010 at 15:27

"What really needs to be done is to scrap the shackle of annuity rates "

announced this is being looked at

report this

NN

Jun 22, 2010 at 15:57

You could of course just set up a pension scheme eligible for higher rate relief with no tax free cash in retirement. It would then be what it was always meant to be a method of defering income until retirement when it is most needed

report this

Simon Frost

Jun 22, 2010 at 16:31

Another possible way of achieving the aim of getting more people to save for their retirement would be to have an annual cap, except the year prior to crystallisation, with say 25% tax relief across the board. This may be a level that higher rate tax payers don't baulk at too much but would encourage basic rate tax payers to save more. Not sure where that leaves the treasury tax take.

report this

Simon M Carlin of TheLostCoin.tel

Jun 22, 2010 at 17:34

This could be good news, as always the devil is in the detail, but it really does seem that at very long last the powers that be are slowly beginning to listen. All we need to do as an industry is to understand where the Government is coming from and then provide workable, simple, low cost ways to deliver their objectives, without the complexities of pages of legalese.

report this

Allan Maxwell

Jun 22, 2010 at 21:11

This has got to be a welcome development. It reintroduces simplification to the agenda. We have to make it easy for people to understand pensions otherwise they switch off and we end up with the mess we are currently in.

Although tthis change is bound to be some issues for defined benefit schemes will these not be predominately in the publice sector which is to be reformed in any event.. Does it in fact suggest that defined contribution will be the preferred route for this.

Next target on the list has to death benefits after age 75. Perhaps the way to solve this problem is to actively encourage clients to leave their fund to charity. The consequential potential fall in the tax take would soon make the politicians take notice.

report this

leave a comment

Please sign in here or register here to comment. It is free to register and only takes a minute or two.

Sorry, this link is not
quite ready yet