Auto enrolment extended to self-employed?

The Conservative Party has included this policy in its manifesto...

Didn't find your answer?

Last week the Conservative Party pledged in its election manifesto to include the self-employed within auto enrolment.

It said: “In addition to safeguarding the rising state pension, we will continue to support the successful expansion of auto-enrolled pensions, enabling more people to increase their retirement income with help from their employers and government; we will continue to extend auto-enrolment to small employers and make it available to the self-employed.”

What’s your take on this?

Replies (10)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

By mrme89
23rd May 2017 11:03

Make it available or make it compulsory? I suspect, they want the latter because the self employed could already make contributions to a pension scheme if that is what they wanted to do.

I do wish politicians would realise that the self employed are not employees and have no desire to be either.

Thanks (4)
RLI
By lionofludesch
23rd May 2017 11:16

"Available"?

No change there, then.

Thanks (6)
avatar
By NeilRH
23rd May 2017 12:01

As said, already an option. Perhaps there will be a requirement for the self employed to formally inform themselves about pension rights, and then make them formally inform themselves that they wish to opt out if they wish!

Joking aside, I wouldn't be surprised if something were introduced whereby the self employed are required to make a declaration of their understanding of pensions, their need for a pensions, the risk of not having/contributing to one etc., etc.

Thanks (3)
paddle steamer
By DJKL
23rd May 2017 12:12

Well, who is to pay the employer contribution is the crux, and what future hoops to get the state pension are envisaged by our politicians in 10-20-30-40 years?

Frankly the case for pensions with only 20% tax relief can be marginal, one has to balance the loss of flexibility and the taxable status of 75% of the value at some point in the future versus the in effect 25% uplift on what one pays, at 40% the equation is better but at 20% I would hum and haw re pension or ISA.

Pensions are funny beasts, they are a leap of faith that some elected idiot will not rewrite the rules 20 years hence- I always took the view I would remain contracted out, despite the professional advice I ought to contract back in, because at least I had some control over the money, as it is the changes to the state pension possibly indicate my assessment was correct.

Politicians need to stop mucking about changing things on a whim re these sorts of matters, anyone committing their future needs certainty, that lack of certainty is what is leading to so many clients not bothering.

Thanks (9)
avatar
By chatman
24th May 2017 10:11

They could manage this centrally and save businesses a fortune. They could call it "National Insurance".

Thanks (8)
Replying to chatman:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
24th May 2017 10:21

chatman wrote:

They could manage this centrally and save businesses a fortune. They could call it "National Insurance".

They could but I am not sure that many people would trust them with their money having seen them set up and run over the years one of the largest ever Ponzi schemes.

A very interesting question to ask oneself is, if today we had no state pension scheme and politicians were campaigning at this election to set one up, we would pay extra money to them to pay for it, how many of us would vote for such an arrangement if the funds were not to be kept distinct from general taxation?

Will I need to remove my socks to count those willing to take such a leap of faith?

Thanks (4)
avatar
By chatman
24th May 2017 10:54

DJKL wrote:

chatman wrote:

They could manage this centrally and save businesses a fortune. They could call it "National Insurance".

They could but I am not sure that many people would trust them with their money having seen them set up and run over the years one of the largest ever Ponzi schemes.

A very interesting question to ask oneself is, if today we had no state pension scheme and politicians were campaigning at this election to set one up, we would pay extra money to them to pay for it, how many of us would vote for such an arrangement if the funds were not to be kept distinct from general taxation?

Will I need to remove my socks to count those willing to take such a leap of faith?

You make a very good point, but the same point could be made about taxation in general in this country. I think we need to address the way our taxes our used, rather than argue to eliminate them.

EDIT: AWeb - you need to address the formatting of quotes containing quotes.

Thanks (1)
Replying to chatman:
paddle steamer
By DJKL
24th May 2017 11:17

I think the difference is re future promises.

Re taxation in general that is current receipt and current spend, where there is an issue of trust is more akin to the covenant which my late grandfather used to describe re the Liberals, they promised to look after people "from the cradle to the grave" which I suspect was likely a slogan of an election of yesteryear.

(He was born in 1890 and died in 1988 so remembered the Liberals when they were a force and lived through the establishment of pensions in 1908)

Thanks (0)
Replying to DJKL:
avatar
By chatman
24th May 2017 16:03

I think the argument is the same.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By pauljohnston
24th May 2017 11:18

Autoenrolment for Self-eMployed and those who dont take a salary from "their" company are on the books so it will happen. Based on what I have heard from NZ the total contribution is to be around 18% to make it work properly.

I hope by then most of the "rules" will have disapperaed making it much cheaper to administer.

Thanks (1)